Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a two storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension and roof extension incorporating rear dormer, and change of use of dwelling to large scale HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) for 8 no. persons, with associated bin and bike storage

 

The Senior Planner referred to a typographical error in condition 6 of the report “drawing no.P02 Rev E” should be “Rev H”.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Greville Road.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The applicant had used a 2 step approach to obtain planning permission by making the original application then applying for change of use.

     ii.          Few residents had objected to the original application but various residents had objected to the (second) HMO application.

   iii.          2 more people would occupy the building in addition to the current 6.

   iv.          The application sought change of use from a family home to HMO. Further occupants were expected in future as per 17/0382/FUL (next item) which was another application by the same developer.

    v.          Queried:

a.    If it was fair and proper to allow a 2 stage application.

b.    What was the evidence that site occupants were not car dependent.

   vi.          Asked for the application to be refused.

 

Mr Proctor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor R. Moore (Coleridge Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Expressed concern that the application could be approved in part due to the proposed management plan. Similar plans were not working in other HMOs managed by the developer, which impacted on neighbours’ amenities.

     ii.          It was not possible to guarantee that occupants would have no cars. There was only 1 car parking space allocated to the development.

   iii.          Queried how it was possible to guarantee the garden would not be built on as part of the development as per 17/0382/FUL (next item). This needed to be guarded against in conditions.

 

Councillor Baigent (Romsey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Romsey was a congested area.

     ii.          Many houses were becoming HMOs through 2 step applications.

   iii.          Expressed concern that the developer had built a family home then sought to become a HMO through change of use.

   iv.          Queried if the Committee were aware of HMO licensing regulations such as room size.

    v.          Parking was an issue in Romsey, particularly in Greville Road. Referred to Highways Agency comments in the Officer’s report regarding the impact of the application on traffic flow and parking in the area.

   vi.          This application could set a precedent for HMOs in Greville Road, although it was not the first property in multi-occupancy.

 vii.          There was no agreement set out in the application to control refuse arrangements for occupiers, to put out or take back bins on collection days.

viii.          Expressed concern over the impact of 8 HMO occupants on neighbours’ amenities.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers and verbal update to amend condition 6 to:

 

The area labelled "hardstanding to provide 1 parking space" as shown on drawing no.P02 Rev H shall be constructed in permeable surfacing only.

 

Reason: To minimise flood risk (Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)).