Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) for 10 persons (Sui Generis).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.  

57.29        This was an application for change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) for 10 persons (Sui Generis). 

57.30        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to No. 68 Tewkesbury Road which was a large detached two storey red brick property located in Longford. The property occupied a corner plot on the junction of Victoria Road and Tewkesbury Road, with parking to the frontage and access to the rear which was also laid to hardstanding to provide additional parking. The property was currently occupied as a dwellinghouse after a grant of planning permission in 2015 for a change of use from bed and breakfast accommodation (C1) to a dwellinghouse (C3). The application was submitted in full and sought permission for the change of use of dwellinghouse to a house of multiple occupancy which was classified as a Sui Generis use in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). A house of multiple occupancy was defined in law as a house or flat in which three or more unrelated persons, forming two or more households, shared an amenity such as a bathroom, toilet or cooking facilities. The property would accommodate up to ten people, who were not from a single household, with private bathroom facilities and shared kitchen facilities. No physical changes to the building were proposed. An assessment of the material considerations could be found on Pages No. 119-122 of the Agenda. As set out in the report, Officers considered the proposed change of use would not compromise highway safety and no other harm, in respect to design, visual impact, residential amenity and flooding, had been identified therefore it was recommended for permit.

57.31        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. He explained that for at least 30 plus years the building had been a house of multiple occupancy as a 10 bedroom guest house and for the most recent five years it had been occupied by eight people - an unusually large family - who had used it as a residential dwelling. The planning application sought to reinstate an established capacity of the building to provide housing for up to 10 people. The objections raised represented unfounded concerns that car parking would be a problem or that local utilities capacity would be overloaded. The building, its utilities, and its immediate surroundings remained unchanged over the last five years, and hence the application simply sought to a return to multiple occupancy usage for which it had been eminently capable for the 25 years prior to that.

57.32        A motion to permit as per the Officer recommendation was proposed and seconded. A Member indicated that he had reservations with regard to car parking and flooding as this site flooded on a regular basis. He sought assurances from Officers in relation to road safety in respect of parking on what was a busy main road, the A38. He maintained that there was not sufficient parking in the side roads so parking would have to be established within the property boundary itself, with 10 people living there then presumably it would be necessary to accommodate 10 vehicles. In addition, there was nothing in respect of the green agenda and upgrades to accommodate electric vehicles although he was unsure as to how this would work as electric and water did not mix well. He also questioned what remedial work, if any, would need to be done to safeguard the property in respect of flooding issues which occurred regularly in that area. The Planning Officer referred to Paragraph 7.14 of her report which indicated that the Local Highways Authority had no objection to the proposals, with regards to flooding there were no changes to the building and the use was still classed as the same classification but from a residential dwelling to a house in multiple occupancy and as there was no increase in the footprint of the building no mitigation measures were required, however the flood risk assessment did suggest the inclusion of a flood evacuation plan to be prepared and provided to all residents and this had been secured by condition. The representative of the Local Highways Authority indicated that whilst the application was for the accommodation of 10 people with circa 7 parking spaces; he referred to the County Council’s recommended parking standards on Houses in Multiple Occupation which stated that 10 people did not necessarily equate to 10 parking spaces of demand in fact the evidence underpinning this showed that it was significantly less with a ratio of only 3–4 spaces being necessary for a development of this scale which was easily catered for with the existing hard paving without any displacement so consequently there would in the opinion of the Highways Authority be no adverse impact on highway safety.  With regard to electric charging points, as there was no change in parking areas, a condition for such points would be inappropriate in this instance but the Authority had sought to ensure that every single occupant had a secure sheltered cycle parking space which it was believed would be beneficial. Another Member indicated that she was more concerned about the internal layout as opposed to the external and expressed concern about the small size of some of the rooms and queried whether they were in accordance with Government Regulations as this did not appear very satisfactory to her. The Planning Officer indicated that, in terms of the amenity of the occupant, size standards were governed by the Housing Act 2004 and associated Regulations and these set out the legal requirements for a room. The proposals had been checked by one of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer’s who had confirmed that the room sizes and layout were sufficient to meet the requirements of the legislation and also for the license as the number of people proposed to live in this accommodation would require the issue of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence from the Council. In the light of this information there were no objections in terms of amenity. Other concerns were raised in relation to access and outside space but upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.