Agenda item

Demolition of existing unauthorised roof extension and replacement with a new mansard roof extension; change of use of the first and second floor levels from residential use (Class C3) to create a large HMO unit (Sui Generis) consisting of 9 bedrooms with associated proposed alterations to create an accessible entrance to the HMO, provision of new cycle storage and mobility scooter parking space.

(Planning application number: P2019/2229/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The planning officer advised that the application was in response to enforcement notices. If the application was granted, two of the three enforcement notices would be addressed.

·       In response to a member’s question about the floor areas not meeting minimum standards, the planning officer advised that HMO officers were satisfied with a figure 10% lower than the standards and the figures in this case were marginal. HMO colleagues had not objected to the application.

·       In response to a member’s question about floor to ceiling heights, the planning officer advised these were acceptable.

·       The planning officer advised that there was a restriction of a maximum of 10 people living in the HMO and the lounge had been enlarged which had resulted in the loss of a bedroom.

·       In response to a member’s question, the applicant stated that if granted, the new extension would have to be implemented within one year and the change of use would have to be implemented within three years. The applicant would be encouraged to make the changes as soon as possible. The applicant confirmed that the property was now empty in accordance with an enforcement requirement.

·       In response to a member’s concern about amenity space, the planning officer stated that there was no requirement for a HMO to have outside space and officers considered the inside space acceptable. The applicant added that Clissold Park was very close.

·       In response to a member’s question, the applicant stated that objectors’ concerns about waste and noise related to commercial units rather than residential units and so would be a matter for licensing.

·       A member raised concern about the lack of recycling facilities.

·       In response to a member’s question, the applicant confirmed that rainwater harvesting was taking place and insulation had been installed.

·       A member requested that more details be included in the submission of a verification report for noise mitigations.

Councillor Clarke proposed a motion to amend Condition 10 – Refuse/Recycling Provided (Compliance) to include details of refuse and recycling facilities, the wording of which was delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor Jackson and carried.

Councillor Clarke proposed a motion to amend Condition 6 – Verification Report (Details) to request the submission of more details, the wording of which was delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

Councillor Hamdache proposed a motion to amend Condition 14 - Removal of Roof Extension to reduce the compliance period to 6 months. This was not seconded and did not carry.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee and submitted representations, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report with the amendments to the conditions outlined above.