Agenda item

Continuation of meeting

1.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 3, point 10.8, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore proceeded with Agenda Item 4(3).

2.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/02714/HOUSE in respect of a proposed two storey side extension and single storey rear extension with associated alterations.

3.      Mr Lewis Richards, Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

4.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard reported that as the access would be unchanged and the existing parking area retained, there were no objections on highways grounds.

Ward Member Representation

5.      Councillor Antony Amirtharaj addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=11985

Member Questions to the Ward Member

6.      Members asked questions of clarification and received the following responses:

·       Other dwellings in Speen Lane did have garages, but there was concern that the proposed positioning of the garage for this application would cause overlooking of neighbours.

·       The site had been in its present condition for eight months and Councillor Amirtharaj was concerned that the property would not be used for its proposed purpose and that the wall/hedging on the property would not be restored.

Member Questions to Officers

7.      Members asked questions of clarification and received the following responses:

·       Officers would not ordinarily condition space for cycle stores for a householder extension.

·       There was no longer a garage being proposed as part of the application.

·       It was the opinion of officers that imposing a condition preventing the property being converted into a HMO would be unreasonable and would contravene the six tests outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       Legislation had been changed to differentiate between permissions required for different classes of HMO.

·       The flat roof on the property was 4m deep and 3m high so would be categorised as a permitted development and therefore did not require planning permission.

·       The previous application, which was withdrawn, sought permitted development rights for more than six people. Officers advised that the property could become a six person HMO without these rights.

·       There were no parking standards for HMOs, however past appeal decisions had permitted 0.5 spaces per bedroom. The proposed parking allocation was unchanged.

Debate

8.      Councillor Hooker opened the debate by advising that he could not see any reason for the proposal to be rejected and proposed that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report.

9.      Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj seconded the motion but suggested that a restriction on the property being used as an HMO be explored further as there were no other properties in the area that were being occupied in such a way.

10.   Councillor Howard Woollaston stated that an HMO would be inappropriate for the area and advised that he would like to see a condition put in place to prevent this.

11.   Councillor Paul Dick was minded to follow Officer’s advice and not include a condition restricting HMOs.

12.   Councillor Tony Vickers added that there could be other HMOs in the area. He did not feel that a condition in this regard would be defendable.

13.   Councillor Denise Gaines stated that any house on Speen Lane could be turned into an HMO down the line and it was not fair for this applicant to be singled out.

14.   Councillor Amirtharaj advised that the applicant had a history of building HMOs and he was confident there were no HMOs on Speen Lane currently. He suggested that it may be unfair on the community if an HMO was to be placed there and suggested that guidance could be placed to advise against the building of an HMO.

15.   Councillor Nigel Foot did not believe the Committee could implement this restriction as, if the property was at or below the limit of six, they did not need to apply for planning permission anyway.

16.   Councillor Clive Hooker proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj, having withdrawn his request for a condition that restricted the dwelling becoming an HMO.

17.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hooker, seconded by Councillor Amirtharaj, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report.