Agenda item

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 had an issue with Brent’s review of the concentration of HMOs, secondly the noise assessment done by the Council particularly internal noise.  The noise nuisance should be stopped with immediate intervention.  TP felt there should be a binding management agreement to address management of the HMO including the storage of bicycles and rubbish along with recycling arrangements with the density of the development was also a matter of concern.  Lastly, it would be positive to raise the environmental standards and have solar panels and the ability to collect rainwater.

The Chair thanked TP for addressing the Committee and then moved on to invite Councillor Long (who had registered to speak as local ward councillor) to address the Committee, who highlighted the following points:

• Concerns were highlighted in relation what was felt to be the high concentration and proliferation of HMOs in the area, recognising the impact of the high PTAL rating in the surrounding area and impact on the balance of the surrounding community given the nature of tenancies provided and associated complaints relating to noise nuisance, and rubbish.

• The need to ensure the assessment relating to the number of HMOs in the immediate surrounding area was accurate, recognising that not all had been registered under the Selective Licensing Scheme.

• The existing front garden of the property was currently providing a small functional garden space with concerns raised about its potential use should the application be approved to incorporate a cycle as well as bin store.  The concerns raised by the objectors in relation to the increase in rubbish and how waste would be separated, were also supported with additional concern in relation to parking.

• In summary, Councillor Long did not feel the proposed development would protect or enhance the supply of family sized housing and would lead to an over-concentration of HMOs in the area and cause an unbalance in the community and for these reasons advised she was supporting the objections raised.

The Chair thanked Councillor Long for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

• In response to clarification regarding the concerns relating to application of the Selective Licensing Scheme Councillor Long advised that the registration of small HMOs had not yet commenced, which had meant they were not all on the system for assessment purposes.

As there were no further questions, the Chair then allowed TP to read Kathy Leonard’s speech (who had also registered to speak as an objector), with the following noted:

• Kathy Leonard had felt that HMOs could work well if they were well designed and not cramped but this did not feel the case with this development.  Her main objection was around the party wall and boundary, which it was felt would create significant noise nuisance.

• As further concerns, issues were highlighted in relation to the management and storage of waste with a condition sought to ensure plans were provided for the internal sorting of waste; privacy for neighbouring properties and overlooking and the need to ensure provision was included as part of any management plan for the arrangements relating to recycling.

• Concerns were also highlighted in relation to the density of the development given the detrimental impact with the additional tenants would create in terms of additional noise and disruption with the potential impact on community cohesion and quality of life for the existing residents immediately adjacent to the site felt to outweigh any associated benefits the additional housing units would provide.

The Chair thanked TP for speaking on behalf of Kathy Leonard and without the ability for members to follow up with any additional questions then moved on to invite Peter Lee, (as the Applicant) to address the Committee, with the following being noted:

• Mr Lee began by advising that he was aware of the concerns and objections raised, which he felt had been addressed in seeking to develop the application.  This included the provision of good quality amenity space, bedroom size and home working space as well as landscaping in the garden.

• In regard to HMO concentration, the opportunity was taken to highlight the high density nature of accommodation within the surrounding area including houses being divided into maisonettes and the assessment in relation to concentration of HMOs measured, as required, by the nearest 10 houses within walking distance to the front door.

• The property itself was currently under-utilised with assurance also provided, in relation to the objections and concerns expressed that the development would include a management plan with a professional and experienced HMO management company being engaged to manage the HMO.

The Chair thanked Peter Lee for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

• Further clarification was sought on the HMO Management Plan and how this would be monitored and enforced.  In response Peter Lee advised that the Management Plan would include guidance for occupants on issues relating to their conduct and use of the premises, including measures designed to address concerns relating to noise nuisance and potential anti-social behaviour with detailed records maintained of any reported incidents.  Should issues persist then tenants would be subject to ongoing monitoring and warning with the ultimate sanction leading to eviction.  The management company would also provide contact details for tenants to report issues.

• In terms of experience in managing similar properties, Peter Lee advised that he was a long standing Brent resident with the development designed to secure investment and provide additional accommodation locally.

• In response to the concerns raised relating to noise nuisance detail was sought on whether noise dampening or noise suppression to party walls could be considered.  In response Peter Lee advised that internal sound insulation was currently being considered.

The Chair thanked Peter Lee for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following being noted:

• Details were sought on whether any evidence of existing unlicenced HMOs or the identification of further HMOs within the area would impact on officers recommended approval of the application.  Cutis Thompson (Career Grade Planning Officer) replied that the current concentration of HMOs had been subject to detailed assessment based on the information available with members noting that in addition to the Selective Licensing database details were also held in relation to housing and planning history.  On the basis of the detailed assessment undertaken there was no evidence of over-concentration of HMOs in this area.  Guidance from Article 4 stipulated that no property could be converted into an HMO without planning permission.  David Glover (Head of Planning and Development) explained that the properties referred to were the 10 nearest properties in any direction when starting from the front door of the site allocation with clarification also provided in relation to the definition of an HMO from a planning use and policy perspective.

• In seeking further assurance regarding the assessment undertaken on the concentration of HMOs in the surrounding area Aidan Brookes (as the Committee’s legal adviser) advised that substantive evidence was needed to establish the number of HMOs in the area and there seemed to be no evidence of an over-concentration.  David Glover stated that checks were carried out, records checked and site visits conducted.  When looking at the nearest 10 properties located from the site, there was no evidence of any over-concentration.

• In response to a query relating to waste management, clarification was provided on the arrangements set out within the application and submitted within the HMO management plan including the bin storage arrangements, which members advised were considered to provide sufficient refuse storage arrangements without the need for larger bin capacity and had also been secured via conditions.

As there were no further questions from members the Chair thanked all participants for their contributions and then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

The Committee RESOLVED to grant 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.

(Voting on the above decision was as unanimous: For 8, Against 0 Abstentions 0).