Agenda item

Proposal:  The change of use of existing dwelling into a HMO, the erection of a new dwelling and conversion of existing garage into a new dwelling.

The Specialist, Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of slides showed the site and proposed plans. 

She referred to the key considerations being visual impact, highway and parking and residential amenity.  She believed the proposal replicated the design of existing houses in the streetscene and considering the current density of the development believe there was no issue in residential amenity.  The proposed parking provision is within current parking standards and that the highway authority had raised no objection. 

The Specialist, Development Management therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, her proposal was to approve the application as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions, she confirmed that:

·         Clarified to members the bin storage areas on site.

·         A condition is to be imposed to ensure all boundary treatments be agreed before occupation.

·         Understood the historical commercial use was mainly regarding the access and rear workshop and outbuildings for mechanical use.

·         Clarified the parking strategy guidelines.

·         Consider it to be a six bedroom house for the reason that it shared community facilities.

The Architect for the applicant then spoke in support of the application. He referred to other appeal decisions and the encouragement of lower car ownership with HMO’s.  He said over 60% of tenants in HMO’s do not have cars and that this site is within walking distance of the town centre.  He believed the proposal would enhance the back yard, would remove cars from the road and was located within a zone encouraged for HMO’s.

Ward member, Councillor Tony Lock raised concern regarding the lack of proposed parking in an area, which is already a problem, and believe this proposal will only exacerbate the issue. He did not object to the development of the HMO but the development of the additional dwellings, which he felt was gross overdevelopment of the site.

Ward member, Councillor David Recardo also raised concern regarding the current on street parking issues in the area.  He also raised concern regarding the proposed new dwelling at the rear of the site and that the proposal did not generate enough parking.

During member’s discussion, several comments were raised including the following:

·         Believe the proposal does not meets the SCC Parking Strategy.

·         Consider the proposal to be a good development of the site but concern regarding the lack of parking provision.

·         Acknowledge parking concerns, however believe the parking provision is adequate for this development.

It was then proposed and seconded that the application be approved, as per the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda report. On being put to the vote this was taken as 7 votes in favour, 7 against and 0 abstentions.  The Chairman then provided his casting vote for refusal of the application.

During further discussion, members suggested reasons for refusal to include overdevelopment of the site and lack of parking supply.  The Specialist, Development Management then proposed the following reason for refusal:

‘The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site which results in an undersupply of parking failing to meet the required parking standards contrary to Policy EQ2 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028’.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded to refuse the application for the reason read out by the Specialist, Development Management.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 10 votes in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions.

RESOLVED: 

That application 19/02080/FUL be refused, for the following reasons:

‘The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site which results in an undersupply of parking failing to meet the required parking standards contrary to Policy EQ2 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028’.

(voting: 10 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions)