Agenda item

To consider report PES/460aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/460a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Retrospective application for single storey rear extension and proposed change of use to 7 person HMO.

Councillors Adeniyi, Burgess, Jaggard, Mwagale, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Acting Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought retrospective permission for a single storey extension which used materials that differed from those acceptable under permitted development.  The application also sought permission for a change of use to a seven-person house in multiple occupation (HMO).  The officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

Andrew Metcalfe, the agent (Squires Planning), spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The application was retrospective, which was not a planning consideration, but the applicant wished to pass their apologies to the Committee for the builder using different materials to those originally set out.

·       The proposal met all the relevant standards for a seven person HMO.

·       The key considerations were the addition of one potential inhabitant to the dwelling and the materials used on the rear extension, which were not considered sufficient reasons to refuse the application.

The Committee then considered the application.  A number of concerns were raised about the impact of the size of the rear extension on the adjoining property.  It was highlighted that the extension did not comply with the minimum required standard of a 45 degree angle between the edge of the next-door neighbour’s window and the extension, and caused overshadowing due to its height and depth.  The officer clarified that this was classed as acceptable on balance as the depth of the house was relatively shallow and the adjoining room had an alternative source of light (the front window).  Committee members’ concerns remained, particularly as a significant shadow from the extension fell over the rear patio doors of the neighbouring property and this was considered to have a harmful impact on light levels in the room and therefore the neighbouring amenity.

Further concerns were raised about the intensification of use of the property and that the size was unsuitable for seven occupants.  It was highlighted that the officer report stated that the applicant had been requested to decrease the proposed occupancy to six as this would create additional communal space and therefore a better environment for occupants.  Committee members sought further explanation of this from officers, who confirmed that the size of the communal space as proposed and all bedrooms met the Council’s separate HMO standards, but there were general concerns that the proposed occupancy of seven was high for one property.  The Committee continued to have concerns about the proposed bedroom sizes, the potential for overcrowding, and the lifestyle impact this would have on future occupants.

The Committee also discussed the application’s proposed parking provision, which was for four cars. The officer explained that the Council’s policy standard for parking provision for an HMO was 0.5 spaces per bedroom – there were seven proposed bedrooms at the property so a minimum requirement of 3.5 spaces.  The application was therefore compliant in parking terms, and the local highways authority had not raised an objection.  Concerns were however raised that the provision may be insufficient as the nature of HMOs was that of independent living, so it was highly possible that some or all of the occupants would own separate cars.  The Committee also discussed the high parking demand in the area and issues of parking on grass verges.

The officer also provided the following clarifications in response to questions and comments from Committee members:

·       There did not seem to be any other HMOs that had required planning permission (i.e. those for seven or more people) in the immediate area.  Committee members raised concerns that this was therefore not a suitable use for a property in an area made up of a majority of family homes and would have a harmful impact on the area.

·       A water neutrality assessment had been agreed by Natural England.  More efficient fixtures had replaced previous ones at the property and it was concluded that there was to be a saving of 317 litres of water per day.

·       If there was found to be more than the approved number of occupants at an HMO, the Council had powers to serve a breach of condition notice which would require the occupancy to revert to the agreed number.

·       If the application were to be refused, the property would retain its use as a C3 class dwellinghouse – this could be converted to a ‘small HMO’ (for six or fewer people) without requiring a planning application.

·       Although the non-matching materials had triggered the extension coming in front of the Committee, the impact of the entire extension needed to be considered in determining the application.

·       Party wall agreements fell under separate legislation to planning applications and were not a matter for the Committee to discuss.

The Committee then moved to a vote on the recommendation to permit the application set out in the report.  The recommendation was moved by Councillor Pritchard as the Chair and seconded by Councillor Mwagale as the Vice-Chair.  The recommendation was overturned.

The Chair summarised the Committee’s main considerations in voting against the recommendation to permit the application.  Committee members discussed their concerns, which were in relation to the size of the extension and proximity to the neighbouring property and the overshadowing this caused, and also the intensification of use of the property and the resulting impact on neighbouring amenity.  It was highlighted that there had been a significant number of objections by neighbours of the site and that the neighbour impact would be notable in a high-density area.   Concerns were also raised about the living standards of future occupants of the property as its size was considered to be too small for seven occupants.  Committee members felt that these were valid grounds for refusal of the application. The planning officer was consulted as to the wording to be used for the draft reasons for refusal. 

It was moved by Councillor Y Khan that the application be refused, which was seconded by Councillor Jaggard. 

The Committee then moved to a vote on the alternative motion.

RESOLVED

Refuse for the following reasons:

1)   The proposed rear extension, by reason of its size, height, depth and proximity to No. 21 Maiden Lane, would cause harmful overshadowing and adversely affect residential amenity for the occupants of No. 21, contrary to Policy CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan (2015-2030), Policy DD1 of the Draft Crawley Borough Local Plan (2023-2040) and the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document.

2)   The proposed use as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) by seven people would significantly intensify the use of the property creating an unsatisfactory living environment for future residents of the HMO and unacceptable harm to the amenity and character of the surrounding residential area, contrary to Policies CH3 and H6 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan (2015-2030) and Policies DD1 and H9 of the Draft Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023-2040.