Agenda item

Ward

Staines

 

Proposal

Proposed change of use from a single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to an 8 person House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis).

 

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions

Description:

Proposed change of use from a single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to an 8 person House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis).

 

Additional Information:

There was none.

 

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Paul Reeves spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

-       Speaking on behalf of 54 residents

 

-       Concerns that there would be a substantial increase in noise

 

-       Concerns relating to over-density with 11 HMO’s within a mile of the application site

 

-       The proposal contradicts policies EN1 and HO1, requiring developments to respect the character of an area

 

-       The application would undermine the Article 4 direction which would be enacted in 2025

 

-       Concerns over parking specifically that it would not meet the minimum requirement outlined in policy CC3

 

-       Concerns over inability to enforce the limit of eight individuals living in the HMO

 

-       Concerns over conflict of interest and transparency

 

The Principle Planning Officer advised that policy EN1 referred to the built form and that the outside of the property would not be changing. The application would not contradict policy HO1 as the property would still be for residential use.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Harvinder Chahal spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

-       The application would offer affordable housing for key workers

 

-       Multigenerational households rare

 

-       Prior to the property being a family home it was a B&B

 

-       The application provides ample communal space

 

-       The property is in an area of sustainable transport

 

-       The property is close to local amenities

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Williams spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

-       Concern that the property was too small for the proposed number of residents

 

-       Concern over who would take care of outside spaces

 

-       Concern over limited number of parking space

 

The Principle Planning Officer advised that the application would exceed the  minimal requirements for space.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Gale spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

-       Was reading a statement on behalf of residents

 

-       Concerns over the limited number of parking spaces in a street with significant parking pressure

 

-       Concern that it would negatively impact the character of the road

 

-       Concern over the high density nature of the application

 

The Principle Planning Officer advised that the County Highway Authority had raised no objection and that the Committee needed to consider any harm caused by the proposal not the harm that was already there. The Committee were advised that each application had to be judged on it’s own merits and not in relation to HMO’s approved elsewhere.

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

-       Concerns over the number of parking spaces.

 

-       Concern over how the limit of eight people would be enforced.

 

-       Concern that even thought the application is in an area of sustainable travel, residents would still need cars.

 

-       That a previous HMO in the same road was refused.

 

-       Concern over lack of kitchen amenities for eight people.

 

-       Concern that a future application may be made to turn the two garages into additional rooms.

 

-       Concern that shift workers would mean people entering/exiting the property either very early or very late.

 

-       Concern over living conditions and effect on mental health.

 

-       The number of objections from neighbours.

 

Councillor Clarke requested a named vote.

 

The Committee voted on the motion as follows:

 

For (1)	M Gibson
Against (10)	C Bateson, S Beatty, J Button, R Chandler, D Clarke, A Gale, D Geraci, K Howkins, K Rutherford, P Woodward
Abstain (3)	T Burrell, K Grant, M Lee

 

The motion to approve the application FELL.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Geraci and seconded by Councillor Rutherford that the Local Planning Authority is minded to refuse the application as the proposed development would, by virtue of the number of proposed occupants, be an unneighbourly proposal resulting in an unacceptable level of activity, noise and disturbance to surrounding residential properties and would provide inadequate onsite parking, contrary to policies EN11 and CC3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD, 2009.

 

The Committee voted on the revised motion as follows:

 

For: 13

Against: 1

Abstain: 0

 

Decision: The motion to refuse the application was carried for the following reason:

 

The proposed development would, by virtue of the number of proposed occupants, be an unneighbourly proposal resulting in an unacceptable level of activity, noise and disturbance to surrounding residential properties and would provide inadequate onsite parking, contrary to policies EN11 and CC3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD, 2009.