Agenda item

Two storey rear extension for a house in multiple occupation.

The Planning Officer, Susan Hyde gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was a two storey extension for a house in multiple occupation and was recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

The Planning Officer noted that the existing dwelling was a 4 bedroom property and that the proposal amounted to a modest extension that would not seek to increase the number of bedrooms.  

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from the statutory or internal consultees on the application, subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer noted there had been 1 letter of objection received from the Whinney Hill Residents Group, with a summary set out within the report.  It was added that the main points were in terms of the potential for the property to have the number of bedrooms increased to 6, that the increase in the number of student beds would be detrimental to the local environment and social cohesion, that there were restrictive covenants on the properties restricting them to family dwellings, and the proposal was contrary to Local Plan Policy, the interim policy on Student Accommodation and the NPPF.

The Planning Officer concluded by noting the application was acceptable in principle and that there was a condition to limit the number of bedrooms to 4 and the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman noted there were no registered Speakers and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Hopgood noted that when such applications for extensions in student areas were received could it not be possible to condition that the property was not used as house in multiple occupation or that bedrooms were restricted to a single occupant, as some landlords advertised large bedrooms as double rooms.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that there would be difficulties in terms of being able to enforce the number of occupants in each bedroom, however, it would be possible to enforce the condition as set out in the report limiting the number of bedrooms to 4.  It was added that if information was received that the number of occupants of the property was greater than 6, enforcement could be taken in terms of a “large house” in multiple occupation, as this would require a change of use application.

Councillor J Clark noted she was surprised that an application for an extension to an existing student house would not incorporate an increase in the number of bedrooms and asked if there was a way to reiterate to the applicant that should there be more than six occupants then this would require a change of use.  The Planning Officer noted that an informative could be included on the notice to remind the applicant of the requirement of a change of use application should there be more than 6 occupants.

Councillor A Hopgood proposed that the application be refused as the application represented overdevelopment and that even up to 6 occupants would have a detrimental effect on the permanent residents living the area.  The Chairman asked for the relevant policies and reasons why the application should be refused.  Councillor A Hopgood noted she was not a planning expert and would ask for some assistance from Officers.  The Chairman noted that it was for Committee Members to come forward with reasons to support any proposal contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, quoting the relevant policies and reasons why the application was contrary to those policies.  The Chairman added that Officers could then advise whether those reasons were robust in terms of potential challenge at a later date.  The Chairman asked if any other Member wished to support the proposal that the application be refused.

Councillor J Alvey moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor M Davinson.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.