Issue - meetings

Prior to consideration of the item, officers advised that there was an update to page 128 of the report, which was as follows:

The suggested legal obligation to restrict the ability of occupants from applying for parking permits was no longer considered to be necessary. After taking into account the revisions which had been made to the scheme, the potential occupancy numbers and the anticipated vehicle movements for the site in question, the addition of a legal restriction was no longer considered to be justified and/or reasonable in this instance. The detached HMO was not overly too dissimilar from a typical family home, which if occupied with two teenage children could reasonably expect to feature 3 or 4 cars. Were the site to be kept as a family unit, residents would be allowed to obtain parking permits with no restrictions.

The report before Members detailed an application for the internal refurbishment and modernisation of the property, including the addition of two ensuite bathrooms, to convert the property from a single dwelling (C3) to a 4 room HMO dwelling (C4).

With its agreement Councillor Joshua Chapman addressed the Committee.

Councillor Chapman commented that the proposal was inappropriate and was similar in nature to a previous application that had been refused recently in a neighbouring road. Councillor Chapman also commented that the proposed development would only offer two parking spaces for a four bedroom property which was insufficient. Councillor Chapman concluded by commenting that a lack of amenity reason was missing from the report and that future residents and neighbouring residents would suffer from a lack of amenity.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however, following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the ground of   intensification of occupation.