Agenda item

The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained that the application site was within an Intensive Housing Node where Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) were acceptable, in principle, under Policy HOU11.

            He highlighted the key issues to be considered that included the impact on the surrounding residential amenity/character, traffic, parking, access, waste and refuse collection and over-occupation and antisocial behaviour.

            He stated that the proposal complied with the relevant space standards and the location site was highly accessible and sustainable and that DfI Roads had offered no objections.

            He added that there was adequate provision made for bin storage and that bicycle storage could be provided within the garage and secured by a planning condition.

            The Planning Manager stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. Adam Larkin, Planning Agent, Ms. L. Rogers and Mrs. F. Rogers, the applicants, to the meeting.

            Ms. Rogers explained that she ran seven other HMOs and targeted young professionals as occupants as there was a huge demand for HMO accommodation from those who could not afford to rent an entire property.  She stated that young professionals were easy to manage and that the perception that the property would be used for student accommodation was untrue and that it was not an ideal location for students.

            She stated that she deliberately chose HMO properties on the Glider routes and only within the HMO Planning Nodes to allow tenants ease of access to the city centre.  She added that the property was located less than 100 metres from a greenway and would facilitate tenants who may chose to cycle or work to their place of work.

            She outlined the changes that were made to the application in response to local objections that included converting one of the bedrooms back to a garage for in curtilage parking and bike storage and highlighted that there was no requirement to provide additional parking.

            She pointed out that the property was residential and therefore would have no more bins than any other property within the location.

            Ms. Rogers stated that, as a licensed HMO, the operation of the property would be heavily monitored by the Council and that an antisocial behaviour plan would have to be submitted and adhered to, as a condition of the license, and that, in the eight years of operating HMO properties, she has never received a complaint from any neighbour or authority about antisocial behaviour.

            She concluded by stating that there would be no impact from tenants requiring parking, the bins that were currently provided, would be the same quantity as the neighbouring properties and that there was a misconception that the property would be used by students engaging in antisocial behaviour.

The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement and to deal with any other issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.