Agenda item

Single storey side and rear extension. [Hull Road Ward]

[Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr I Firby for a single storey side and rear extension.

Mr Telfer addressed the committee on behalf of local residents in objection to the application. He raised concerns about the high concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in the immediate vicinity pointing out that the threshold had already been breached. He pointed out that while the control measures provided by the supplementary planning document (SPD) would ensure that any new applications for HMOs in this area would be rejected, the proposed extension to this HMO would have the same effect as allowing another HMO and should therefore not be permitted, but the SPD did not take this into account. He expressed the view that granting permission would have a negative impact on the quality of life of neighbours and would also significantly reduce the residential amenity of the property for future occupiers. He advised that allowing this application could also create a precedent for similar future applications and urged Members to reject it.

In response to a query from Members, officers confirmed that those HMOs which were considered as dwelling houses could benefit from permitted development rights and they clarified what alterations the owner could make under permitted development rights. They advised that, while Members could take into consideration what could be achieved using permitted development rights, it was important to consider the scheme in front of them. If Members felt this was unacceptable, they had the right to refuse it but would need to ensure the reasons for refusal were defendable.

Members raised concerns that there may be more HMOs in the area in question which were not recorded on the database and therefore percentages could be even higher than indicated, with each HMO meaning the loss of a family home.

Members felt that the site was small and cramped with insufficient space to extend as proposed. They noted that there would only be a narrow passageway down the side of the house for access resulting in a loss of cycle storage, and an increase in the number of occupants would create the potential for additional cars parked at the front, with more comings and goings which would impact on residential amenity. They agreed that the proposals were inappropriate and would constitute over development of the site.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:    The proposals are considered to be an over-development of the site which has a very small existing rear garden. The proposals would remove the garage and access to the rear garden for cycle parking and refuse storage and would introduce an additional car parking space onto the front garden of the dwelling. The increase in the size of the house in multiple occupation and associated car parking will harm the character of the area by reason of noise and disturbance from increased comings-and-goings from the property often late at night; the uncharacteristic appearance of refuse and cycle storage forward of the dwelling; an unacceptable reduction of private amenity space and the uncharacteristic use of the open plan front garden for an additional car parking.

This is considered to be contrary to policy GP1 and H7 of the Development Control Local Plan and paragraphs 17 and 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to enhance and improve the places where people live and to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.