Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        The principle of an HMO at the location;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the Alexandra Park area of townscape character (ATC);

·        Impact on residential amenity;

·        Traffic, parking and access; and

·        Waste and refuse collection.

She reported that 87 objections had been received and one letter of support and explained that the application was before the Committee following a request by a Member for the following reasons:

·        The application might negatively affect parking and traffic in the street (and surrounding area) and;

·        The application mighthave a negative impact on the character of the street (and surrounding area).

She stated that the scheme was compliant with Policy HOU10 in that the 10% threshold for HMO properties on Ponsonby Avenue had not yet been reached and that officers considered that the proposal would not be harmful in terms of traffic, parking, impact on amenity of the surrounding area or the Alexandra Park Area of Townscape Character.

She reported that DfI Roads had offered no objection to the application and, following the Committee site visit to the location, Members had sought clarity regarding bin storage and she confirmed that there was sufficient space to store the bins required by the supplementary planning guidance on waste infrastructure.  She stated that a condition would be added in the case of approval to ensure bin storage space was retained.

            The Senior Planning Officer 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. J. Duncan to the meeting who spoke in objection to the application.

            Mr. Duncan explained that he was objecting to the application on the following five grounds:

·        Over occupation and space standard;

·        Parking;

·        Waste and refuse collection;

·        Sewage and waste; and

·        Number of HMO properties.

He outlined each of the grounds to the Committee and highlighted that one proposed bedroom in the application was marginally under 6.5m2 and was located within the attic space, meaning that 4m2 of the area was under 6 foot in height, therefore any occupant would not be able to stand upright in 60% of the bedroom.

            He stated that, as an occupant of the street, parking was an ongoing issue and formed the basis of many of the objections to the application.  He added, although the property was located close to a bus stop, that did not mean that the occupants would use public transport rather than a private vehicle.

            He explained that the alleyway to the rear of the property was in too poor a state for householders to use to store bins and that the potential occupancy of the property would only increase bin usage.  He stated that, currently, the property was being rented and that the recycling boxes were scattered and unused at the front of the property and that the landlord seemed unaware or unwilling to pay regard to his statutory requirement for the disposal of rubbish.

            Mr. Duncan pointed out that the proposal included the addition of six ensuite bathrooms and asked the Committee to seek clarity on the impact that would have on sewage which he believed was operating at capacity.

            He concluded by highlighting to the Committee that there were two HMO properties on Ponsonby Avenue and a third property, which had been rented as apartments, was seeking planning permission for a change of use to an Airbnb, he asked the Committee to be mindful of these grounds when considering the application.

            During discussion, several Members stated that they had shared some of Mr. Duncan’s concerns to the officers, in particular, concerns with regard to parking, waste and refuse collection.

            A Member requested that the Director of Planning and Building Control seek an enforcement visit to the address as constituents had reported that the property was currently operating as an HMO property without planning permission or a licence.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor Maskey,

Seconded by Councillor Bradley,

      Resolved - “That the Committee agrees to refuse planning permission on grounds of insufficient parking to support the proposed development and unsuitable provision for bin storage, and that the Committee delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the refusal reasons.”