Agenda item

Change of use from dwelling (use Class C3) to house of  multiple occupation (use Class C4) and single storey extension to rear.

[Huntington/New Earswick]  [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr D Russell for a change of use from a dwelling (use Class C3) to a house of multiple occupation (HMO) (use Class C4) and a single storey extension to the rear.

Officers advised the committee that six further objections had been received. These raised concerns that the proposals would cause harm to the area through loss of vegetation and would pose a risk to the safety of children walking along the road. Concern had also been raised in relation to the boundary fencing being inadequate, and officers advised that condition 8 would be amended to require fencing around the front garden as well as around the parking area in the rear garden.

Ms Holly Firth Davies, a local resident, addressed the committee on behalf of a number of local residents. She raised the following issues:

·        this was the wrong location for a HMO due to concerns over traffic, parking and general safety.

·        accidents had occurred on that stretch of road which had not been reported to the police.

·        this area had a strong identity as an area of family homes and the local community were fearful that  introduction of an HMO would spoil the area.

Mrs Conyers, another local resident, spoke in objection to the application and raised the following concerns:

·        Huntington Road was very busy and the property was located on the brow of a hill. It did not have adequate parking and on street parking would endanger road users, cause an obstruction to the cycle lane and increased the risk to children walking to school.

·        Noise from cars leaving the property would impact on neighbours.

·        An HMO would be detrimental to the area and the property was not maintained to a good standard.

Diane Geogheghan-Breen addressed the committee as Chair of Huntington Parish Council and raised the following points:

·        the proposed extension would constitute overdevelopment of the site and five double bedrooms could potentially mean 10 residents living in the property.

·        Three resident parking spaces and one visitor space was not sufficient. This would lead to on street parking raising safety concerns.

·        There was a need for family homes in the area.

·        There were concerns over issues with drains becoming blocked to the rear of Huntington Road, these proposals could add to the problem.

Melissa Madge, the agent, addressed the committee and responded to concerns which had been raised by previous speakers. She stated that:

·        the application complied with thresholds set out in the supplementary planning documents on concentration of HMOs (with less than less than half a percentage of properties in the neighbourhood being HMOs). It would not therefore destroy the area as stated.

·        the intention was to carry out full refurbishment of the property and garden.

·        the property would be occupied by a maximum of five working professionals, no different to a large family.

·        it would not create an additional strain on drainage network.

·        There would be sufficient parking for residents. The additional parking space at front of property was at request of officers (this was originally proposed to be garden). No on-street parking would be required.

·        Fencing was proposed to prevent car headlights shining into the adjacent property.

Councillor Hyman addressed the meeting as Ward Member for Huntington and New Earswick on behalf of local residents. He made the following comments:

·        There was not sufficient space for a five bedroom property on the site. The property would be fundamentally changed through use as an HMO.

·        Additional traffic movements would create danger to pedestrians and cyclists using Huntington Road.

·        The plan to have professional people occupying the property was not enforceable.

·        Visitors to property will have to park on road outside property which was on brow of hill.

·        Concern that advice from highways was incorrect.

Members acknowledged the concerns raised by speakers with regard to the potential number of residents at the property but noted that the applicant had agreed to limit the number of occupants to a maximum of five and it was agreed that this be added as a condition. They noted that although the agent had advised that the tenants would be “professional people” it was impossible to restrict occupancy of HMO to certain group of people but that a management plan was due to be put in place. 

With regard to concerns over road safety, while Members acknowledged that this part of Huntington Road was busy at peak times, they did not believe that cars exiting from this property would cause any greater problem than any other property on the street and felt that the parking facilities for this HMO were adequate.

Members agreed there were no serious planning grounds on which to refuse the application.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amended and additional conditions below.

                   Amended condition 8

Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the occupation of the property as a house in multiple occupation, details of the proposed boundary fence to be erected around the front garden, parking and turning area in the rear garden and between the side access and 552 Huntington Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The house in multiple occupation shall not be occupied until the fencing has been erected within the site in accordance with the approved details, and it shall be retained and maintained as agreed.

Reason: To screen the car parking and minimise the impact of glare from vehicle headlights.

Additional Condition

                   Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the property when used as a House in Multiple Occupation shall be occupied by a maximum of 5 residents.

Reason: So that the planning impact of any proposal to further increase the number of residents can be considered, with particular reference to parking and occupier amenity.

Reason:     The number of existing HMO's in the surrounding area is well below the threshold at which it is considered there is an excessive concentration of such uses.  The property would generally be considered to be one that would cause minimal impact in terms of neighbouring living conditions as it is not attached to any other residential accommodation.  In addition, it is located on a wide and well used road and to the front is a bus stop. Visibility from the access of the proposed HMO is good and the parking standards within the site exceed the maximum figures set out in the Local Plan.  Based on the Local Plan parking standards it is not expected that the level of vehicular comings and goings would significantly exceed that of a family dwelling or that the pressure for parking would normally force residents to park on the street.