Agenda item

Change of use of the existing office to a large (Sui Generis) House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with the addition of a rear dormer.

The committee considered application P21/S5378/FUL for the change of use of the existing office to a large (Sui Generis) House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with the addition of a rear dormer.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer began their statement by clarifying that the application had come before the committee as the local town council had objected to the application and opposed the views of planning officers. The committee were then informed that the site had been granted permitted development for conversion of an office to a single dwelling. As the change of use had not yet been implemented, this remained a possible fall-back position and was material consideration for the committee should the latest application be refused. The planning officer added that whilst the site provided limited amenity space, its location relative to the town centre mitigated this, and any potential resident would be fully aware of the site and its location prior to moving into the property. While it was noted that concerns had been raised locally on the number of cars that could potentially need to use the site and its possible impact on parking space, the highways officer had raised no objections. Planning officers were content with the application before the committee, and subject to the recommendations in the report, the application was recommended for approval.

Eleanor Hards, representative of Didcot Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Adam Place, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

The committee asked the speaker to clarify whether each bedroom would have its own shower room. The applicant responded by explaining that each bedroom would have a bathroom but regardless, would meet the licensing requirements for an HMO with seven occupants. The speaker also added that there was ample space and did not consider there to be any concerns from a planning perspective. The committee subsequently asked the planning officer to comment on whether there were any bathrooms for each room. The planning officer replied to this question and explained that the floor-plan of the application showed no on-suites, but they did have their own sink and there were shared bathroom facilities. The officer also confirmed that two bathrooms would meet the legal requirements for an HMO of the size before the committee.

The committee asked a final series of questions on the location of the site in relation to the nearby conservation area and also on whether the damaged telephone pole outside the property could be conditioned for the application to fix. The planning officer responded that the site was to the west of the conservation area, and secondly, it would not be appropriate for the applicant to be made responsible for the telephone line due to this being beyond the scope of expectations on the applicant.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P21/S5376/FUL due to a lack of amenity space.