Decision details

The Committee received an application for change of use.

The application sought approval for change of use from an eight person HMO to a nine person HMO. This change would be accommodated through the provision of an additional bedroom and en-suite in an outbuilding in the rear garden.

The Senior Planner referred to a typographical error on the front page of the report where the recommendation was listed as “approval” when the Officer recommended “refusal” (as set out P117).

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

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Suggested the application would not meet Local Plan conditions as it would not be a good living environment.

     ii.          The proposed new living space would disturb the amenity of existing site occupants.

   iii.          Concerns about drainage.

   iv.          Existing parking/traffic flow issues would be exacerbated.

    v.          There was no application for a drop kerb in front of 11 Lichfield Road. Expressed a desire to protect the grass verge.

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.          There had been on-going issues since people moved into 11 Lichfield Road:

a.    Occupants.

b.    Noise from the house and garden.

c.    Impact on neighbours’ amenity space eg overlooking from house.

d.    Verges.

     ii.          Queried how the outbuilding was allowed when HMOs had no permitted development rights. Queried if the outbuilding was erected before the property became a HMO.

   iii.          Suggested the application was an overdevelopment of the site which was out of character with the area.

   iv.          Residents were concerned that the property had become a HMO (when it was a family home originally) and the number of occupants was increasing.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application for change of use in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.