Seven-person HMO at 284 Felixstowe Road, Ipswich

What was proposed

The application sought to change a two-bedroom dwelling into a seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO without operational development.

“Planning permission is sought for a change of use from a single dwelling (Class C3) to a 7-bedroom, 7-person HMO (Sui Generis). The property as shown on the submitted existing floor plans is currently a single dwellinghouse with 2 bedrooms and a study on the first floor. No operational development is proposed with this planning application, i.e. no extensions or alterations. 1.2.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

A rear extension and several external works were approved or certified as permitted development, and construction and HMO conversion works had begun.

“A Prior Notification application, 26/00031/PDE, was approved by Ipswich Borough Council on 19 February 2026, for the erection of a single-storey rear extension projecting 6m from the original rear wall of the dwelling with a maximum overall height of 3m and eaves height of 3m.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the constrained frontage could not provide safe parking and cycle storage while preserving parking availability, streetscene quality and practical refuse storage.

“Planning Officers acknowledge that the property benefits from permitted development rights to establish and operate a small HMO of up to 6 bedrooms in size. Proposals for a change of use to a Sui Generis large HMO can be supported by the Local Planning Authority, where it can be demonstrated that such a proposal will (amongst other considerations) avoid adverse impacts on amenity, and provide suitable vehicle parking and cycle & waste storage as required by policy DM20.”

“Officers consider that the limited frontage of the property renders it unable to accommodate vehicle & cycle storage in a manner that provides safe and suitable access whilst also avoiding further depletion of parking availability in a location that does not benefit from relaxation of parking requirements.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The highway authority sought more information and raised concerns about access, parking, cycle storage and refuse facilities; residents objected on amenity, parking, waste and HMO grounds.

“Furthermore, the submission fails to demonstrate adequate refuse and recycling storage provision in accordance with the principles of Better Recycling and the operational requirements set out within the Suffolk Waste Partnership Waste and Recycling Guidance. (The Highway Authority) would not support a parking arrangement or condition that results in the obstruction of the principal access route to the dwelling.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support, saying the lawful six-person HMO was the fallback and that one additional occupant had not been shown to cause planning harm.

Members’ debate

Members debated parking pressure, the lawful fallback, shared living space, privacy, HMO concentration, sound insulation and whether permitted development issues could be considered.

“The Development Management Team Leader explained that a Certificate of Lawful Development had been issued for a 6-bedroom HMO as the property fell outside the Article 4 Direction area; however, as the number of bedrooms had been increased to 7, this became a change of use to Sui Generis which required planning permission.”

“Councillor Hurlbut commented that in addition to the issues identified regarding car parking, cycle storage, refuse provision and sound insultation, there were greater concerns about the loss of privacy for neighbouring residents whose gardens would be overlooked by the second-floor dormer extension as HMO rooms could be used throughout the day as a living space, not just at night as a bedroom.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused permission because parking and storage would harm access, parking availability and the streetscene, while the shared living space would provide poor amenity.

“Policy DM20 states the proposals for the development of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO), including through the change of use of existing non-residential buildings, will be supported where they (amongst other things) provide an acceptable living environment for future occupants, including adequate outdoor amenity space, car parking (in accordance with the standards), secure and covered cycle parking and refuse storage; and are well-served by local services and accessible…”

“Due to the limited frontage of the property, this renders it unable to accommodate car parking and cycle storage in a manner that provides safe and suitable access whilst also avoiding further depletion of parking availability in a location that does not benefit from relaxation of parking requirements. The poor quality and provision of vehicle parking is likely to affect residential amenity through pressure on frontages and surrounding roads.”

Minutes