Eight-bed HMO at 54 Richmond Avenue, Bognor Regis

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into an eight-bedroom HMO, with a rear extension and loft conversion with a dormer.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONChange of use of a dwelling to an 8 bed HMO to include a single storey rear extension and loft conversion with dormer. SITE CHARACTERISTICSSemi-detached property set back from the road with parking and a small garden to the front, and garden to the rear. CHARACTER OF LOCALITYResidential area, with a mix of flats, semi-detached and detached houses REPRESENTATIONS Bognor Regis Town Council (BRTC) - Objection.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the parking shortfall would not cause significant harm and the proposal otherwise complied with relevant planning policies.

“The shortfall in car parking spaces would conflict with the WSCC Guidance on Parking for New Development document, and ALP policy T SP1 by extension. Taking into account the easy access to sustainable transport options in the vicinity, and the additional provision of cycle parking, the proposal would not have any unacceptable impact on highways parking capacity.”

“SUMMARY The proposal is in conflict with ALP policy T SP1 due to a shortfall in on-site parking. However, this conflict does not amount to significant or demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits of the proposal for the reasons outlined above. As such, permission should be granted.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Nearby occupiers objected to HMO concentration, parking, character, privacy, disturbance, antisocial behaviour, waste, drainage, lighting and emergency access.

“No. representations were received from nearby occupiers raising the following concerns: - Too many HMOs in the area. Numbers have increased in the past few years, and their distribution has moved westwards from the centre of Bognor Regis. - Out of character with the surrounding area, which is mainly family homes. - The proposed dormer would lead to a loss of privacy. - Increased risk of antisocial behaviour. - Increased occupation would increase disturbance and waste.”

“COMMENTS ON REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Issues relating to the impact of the development on the character of the area, the Article 4, parking and neighbouring residential amenity are addressed in the conclusions.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke, while the senior planning officer introduced the proposal and explained its design, HMO concentration, parking and policy assessment.

Members’ discussion

Members debated HMO proliferation, parking, bin storage, possible occupancy above eight people and whether the concentration assessment reflected larger HMOs.

“Members discussed the proposal and raised a number of concerns. One Member commented on the perceived proliferation of HMOs in the area and expressed frustration at the limited effectiveness of the Article 4 Direction, noting that decisions appeared to be heavily influenced by appeal decisions and Inspector interpretation. Concern was also raised regarding the shortfall of two parking spaces and whether future occupiers would rely on walking or public transport.”

“The same Member questioned whether the size and potential intensity of occupation of larger HMOs was adequately reflected in the methodology used to assess HMO concentration in the area. In response, the Officer acknowledged that the percentage-based approach used by Inspectors could be a relatively blunt tool, as it measured the number of properties in HMO use rather than the number of occupants.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee approved the application with a Section 106 agreement following a proposal and seconder for the officer recommendation.

“No further matters were raised, and the Chairman moved to the vote on the Officer’s recommendation.”

“That the application be APPROVED WITH A S106 AGREEMENT.”

Minutes