Agenda item

Change of use of 1 No. two storey terraced three bed house and workshop to 5 bed HMO (house in multiple occupation). This application is in CIL Zone 4 and is CIL Liable as new dwelling.

The Principal Planning officer presented the report with an update.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

The Chair invited members to debate the application where the following points were raised, it was commented that whilst the calculation stated to show that the number of HMOs in the area remained under 10%, there were 193 in Marine Ward and it was the cumulative effect this would have that is of concern, comments regarding the ‘workshop’ at the back of the site were expressed with concern being highlighted for its purpose and size.

The officer recommendation was put to the vote, where it FELL. Members then took part in further debate to discuss options for deferral or refusal. Comments made were concerns relating to the communal space in the ‘workshop’, concern for the size of the garden space and other communal space, parking concerns, a suggestion of a site visit was made to see of the ‘workshop’ was fit and proper with the correct accessibility requirements in place. The Group Head of Planning confirmed that these specifications would fall under licensing responsibilities.  The Chair stated that the road was under parking permit regulations by WSCC and there had been no objections from them, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed West Sussex Highways had no objections and had confirmed that the application would not result in any loss of parking.

Upon further advice being provided by the Group Head of Planning and other officers, the Chair suggested that members take an adjournment to allow them to obtain further advice. This was then formally proposed by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper and seconded by Councillor Lury. 

Adjournment taken at 15:16, the meeting then readjourned at 15:27.

The Chair welcomed everyone back to the meeting and advised that there were three areas for refusal that had been agreed upon by members during the adjournment and these were over concentration, inadequate amenity space and the absence of a section 106 agreement, he then invited the Planning Team Leader to read out the refusal wording.

The Planning Team Leader confirmed that the refusal wording reads as follows, (1) the HMO would result in a proliferation and over concentration of such uses in an area with an article 4 direction which removed Permitted development rights, from C3 to C4 changes the additional HMO would result in harm to the character of the area due to the number of such uses, contrary to policy HSP4 (a) of the Arun Local Plan.

(2) the proposed HMO by reason of its gardens size would not provide a sufficient standard of amenity for the residents in conflict with policy HSP4 of the Arun Local Plan and the Arun Design Guide (A, B or C to be confirmed after the meeting).

(3) In the absence of a signed s106 agreement the development does not make the required contribution towards the mitigation of Pagham Harbour (relevant policy to be inserted after the meeting). 

The above reasons for refusal were then proposed by Councillor Wallsgrove and seconded by Councillor Partridge, the Chair then handed over to the Committee Manager for a recorded vote to be undertaken. Those voting FOR the recommendations were Councillors Hamilton, Kelly, Partridge, Patel, Stainton, Wallsgrove and Worne (7), there were 0 votes AGAINST, those voting to ABSTAIN were Councillors Blanchard-Cooper, Lury, McDougall and Northeast (4).

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as

(1) the HMO would result in a proliferation and over concentration of such uses in an area with an article 4 direction which removed Permitted development rights, from C3 to C4 changes the additional HMO would result in harm to the character of the area due to the number of such uses, contrary to policy HSP4 (a) of the Arun Local Plan.

(2) the proposed HMO by reason of its gardens size would not provide a sufficient standard of amenity for the residents in conflict with policy HSP4 (c) of the Arun Local Plan and section H.04 of the Arun Design Guide.

(3) In the absence of a signed s106 agreement the development does not make the required contribution towards the mitigation of Pagham Harbour contrary to policy with ENV DM2 of the Arun Local Plan.