Seven-bedroom HMO at 28 Argyle Road, Bognor Regis

What was proposed

The application sought a seven-bedroom, eight-person HMO with a rear extension and loft conversion.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONChange of use from dwelling (use class C3) to 7-bed, 8- person house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis) to include a rear extension and loft conversion. SITE CHARACTERISTICSTwo storey terraced house with single storey rear projection. CHARACTER OF LOCALITYPredominantly residential area close to the town centre. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY”

Officer report

Earlier extension application

An earlier notification covered the same larger rear householder extension and required no prior approval.

“BR/3/26/PDHNotification under extended permitted development rights for a single storey rear flat roofed extension, extending 6m beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling house, with a maximum height of 3m and an eaves height of 2.9m. Prior Approv not req 25-02-26”

“BR/3/26/PDH sought permission for the same larger householder extension as the current application. REPRESENTATIONS Bognor Regis Town Council - Objection. - Overconcentration of HMOs and harm to community balance. - Development does not contribute to the overall quality and character of the area. - Overdevelopment and intensification of use. - Increased noise and disturbance. - Increased parking demand. - Concerns regarding fire safety, means of escape and emergency access.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the proposal complied with relevant policies overall, despite a parking shortfall, subject to a legal agreement.

“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. The proposal complies with the remaining relevant Development Plan policies and, as such, permission should be granted.”

“Grant permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report and subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure the Pagham Harbour Access Management Contribution. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT The Council in making a decision should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Town Council objected, highways raised no objection, Natural England requested mitigation information, and housing officers advised on HMO standards.

“NATURAL ENGLAND - Further information required. - The site is within the Zone of Influence of the Pagham Harbour SPA - Further information regarding mitigation measures (UU for management contribution) required.”

“PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING - Advice - Comments on the compliance of the scheme with other legislation, including Housing Act 2004, The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006, The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018, Arun District Council's HMO Standards, Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant was the public speaker, while the Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and explained the assessment.

What members debated

Members debated parking pressure, the Article 4 Direction, appeal decisions, cycle parking, Pagham Harbour and whether refusal could be defended.

“A Member raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Article 4 Direction, commenting that appeal decisions had significantly limited its weight, particularly through the application of a 250-metre radius test, which the proposal satisfied. The Member acknowledged that the site was in a highly sustainable location, with access to the railway station and a nearby public car park.”

“A further Member commented more broadly on HMOs, expressing a general concern about their impact on housing stock and local communities, and noting their support for the introduction of the Article 4 Direction. They acknowledged the localised parking issues raised by other Members and questioned the weight that could reasonably be given to cycle provision as mitigation.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation fell, and a later recorded vote supported deferral by seven votes to two, with two abstentions.

“Upon take the vote on the updated recommendation, the recommendation FELL.”

“Following the vote against the officer recommendation, the Chair invited Members who had voted against to put forward reasons for refusal or proposals for deferral.”

Minutes

What was decided

The application was deferred to a future meeting for an independent highways consultant to assess parking conditions and demonstrable highway safety harm.

“That the application be DEFERED to a future meeting to allow for the appointment of an independent highways consultant to review parking conditions and assess whether the identified shortfall would result in demonstrable harm, including impacts on highway safety.”

Minutes

Why it was deferred

The deferral was intended to obtain further evidence about parking conditions and possible highway safety impacts from the shortfall.

“A proposal was then put forward by Councillor Bower, seconded by Councillor Lury, to defer the application. The reasons for deferral were to enable the Council to engage an independent highways expert to review the parking situation in the area and to provide further evidence in relation to potential harm, including highway safety impacts, associated with the parking shortfall.”

“Officers acknowledged the proposal but reminded Members that any independent assessment would need to have regard to national policy, which set a high threshold for refusing development on highway grounds, requiring an unacceptable impact on safety that would be severe. It was noted that such a conclusion was unlikely to be reached, though Members were entitled to proceed with the deferral.”

Minutes