Issue - meetings

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)       The prior completion of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act to secure the planning obligations as set out within the main committee report.

(2)       The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed rear dormer extension with Juliet balcony, new patio doors and ground floor kitchen door to rear, installation of 2x front roof lights, new front boundary treatment, conversion from dwellinghouse to a 7 bedroom 8 person house in multiple occupation (HMO), soft landscaping and installation of refuse storage and cycle storage to front garden.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives as specified within the main committee report.

Curtis Thompson (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing that the proposal involved a rear door extension and the site was not within a conservation area.  In total 26 objections had been received.  Following the publication of the main Committee Report, another objection had been received by a neighbour and one from Councillor Choudry regarding a party wall agreement, although this would not form a relevant planning consideration.

The Chair thanked Curtis Thompson for introducing the report.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to the consider the request which had been received to speak on the application.  Members were advised that whilst two objectors had registered to speak on of the representatives (Kathy Leonard) had advised they were unable to attend due to illness so had nominated the other person registered to speak in objection (TP) to make the representations on her behalf, which the Chair advised he had agreed.

On this basis, the Chair then invited a resident TP (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee, who highlighted the following points:

• TP explained that she was speaking on behalf of four adjacent households who shared 6 party walls and a household with a boundary to the garden of the application site highlighting the main objections as relating to noise, and nuisance (given the detrimental impact on the surrounding residents including children and vulnerable people) alongside the density of the proposal.

• Concern and objections were also raised in relation to what was felt to be an overconcentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the immediate surrounding area (for which it was felt the data provided in the report had been inaccurate) and need for family sized accommodation alongside the need to ensure (that if approved) a robust HMO Management Plan was provided to address concerns relating to the prevention and management of noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour and the management of waste disposal and storage facilities.

The Chair thanked TP for addressing the Committee and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask any questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following being noted:

• As an initial query, further clarification was sought on how many HMOs were in the area.  TP said that she had counted 14 and some were not showing as they were not licensed yet.

• Members asked TP to inform them of any issues she had with the conditions.  TP said that she  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6