Minutes:
The report before members detailed an application for a change of use of a care home (C2 use) to a House in Multiple Occupation (sui generis use).
The application had been called in by Councillor Frederick Thompson on the grounds that the development was likely to cause increased traffic nuisance to it neighbours and had insufficient parking for visitors and tenants. There could also be more than one occupier per bedsit if the permission was not conditioned.
Members were advised that an additional condition was being sought to restrict the occupation of the management flat to the Resident Manager.
In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant.
The objector commented that the proposed development would house twelve tenants but would only provide four communal bathrooms and a shared kitchen. The development would also lead to overlooking of neighbouring properties and would only provide on-site parking for six vehicles.
In reply the applicant commented that the application had now been revised to provide en-suite bathroom facilities to all twelve units. The applicant also confirmed that a Unilateral Undertaking had been provided to the Council on the evening of the Committee to ensure that the property was properly managed. It was clarified that there was nothing in the Unilateral Undertaking save for reference to proper management and a schedule annexing a standard for tenancy agreement.
With its agreement Councillors Andrew Curtin and Wendy Brice-Thompson addressed the Committee.
Councillor Curtin commented that he wished to object to the proposed development for the following reasons mainly due to its intensive use. Councillor Curtin commented that there would be an adverse impact by reason of noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers due to the use of the communal kitchen. Councillor Curtin also commented that there was no satisfactory visibility for access and egress given, to and from the site, given the increase in parking which could also lead to displaced parking in neighbouring side roads.
Councillor Brice-Thompson commented that there had been a large number of local residents who had raised objections to the scheme. Councillor Brice-Thompson also commented that the proposal would lead to a loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers caused by intensification of the use of the garden and kitchen of the proposed development.
During the debate Members discussed the need for Key Worker accommodation in the area taking into account the new development on the former Oldchurch Hospital site.
Members also raised concerns regarding the management of the proposed development and agreed that enforcing conditions relating to occupiers of the development would prove difficult.
The report recommended that planning permission be granted, however following a motion to refuse planning permission which was carried by 11 votes to 0 it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that:
· The proposal would result in excessively intensified occupation of the building, including in comparison with existing lawful use, that would cause material harm to living conditions of adjoining residents by reason of noise and disturbance. This would be exacerbated by the likelihood of extensive collective amplified and similar noise (eg TVs/radios/music) experienced through open windows, assembly of residents in collective areas such as undersized communal kitchen etc.
· The intensity of the use would result in vehicular movements to, from the premises and in the vicinity of the site would materially harm neighbours' amenity.
· The above harm to amenity, particularly in reason 1, would not be satisfactorily controlled/mitigated through the proposed managerial arrangements provided in the Unilateral Undertaking.