Four-person HMO at 126A Linacre Road, Litherland

“Proposal: Change of use from a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (4 bedrooms – 4 persons), including erection of a dormer extension to the rear and alterations to the side.”

“The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of an existing dwelling to a 4 bedroom/4 person House in Multiple Occupation, together with a rear dormer extension and internal alterations.”

“The site comprises 128a Linacre Road, which is a two-storey maisonette located above a local shopping parade. The building is accessed via an external staircase situated to the rear of the property, with entry taken from a rear yard accessed via a gated alleyway.”

“The site is located within a sustainable residential area, and the principle of development is considered acceptable, including in relation to HMO concentration, which remains below the threshold set out in the Conversions to Flats and HMOs SPD. The proposal provides an appropriate standard of accommodation for future occupiers, with adequate communal space and external amenity provision.”

“Technical matters, including access, highways impacts, noise and environmental considerations, have been assessed and are capable of being addressed through conditions.”

“Highways initially raised concerns due to insufficient information relating to access arrangements, parking impact, cycle provision and refuse storage, which prevented a full assessment of the proposal. See highways section for further details…”

“Environmental Health No Objections see amenity/living conditions sections for further detail.”

“A total of seven objections have been received in relation to the application. The issues raised are summarised below:”

“-Disruption during construction, including noise, deliveries and the use of skips.”

“Arising from the discussion Members expressed concern at the proposed access arrangements for the property which was via an alley gate and rear alley. Also the access via an external steel staircase raised safety concerns.”

“That the recommendation be not approved and the application be refused for the reason that it failed to comply with Policy EQ2 (design), that the property had poor outdoor amenity and there were fire safety concerns around the access.”