Seven-person HMO at 3 James Street, Rochester

What was proposed

The application sought to change a six-bedroom HMO into a seven-person, six-bedroom HMO.

“The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from a 6-bedroomed person HMO to a 7-person 6-bedroom house of multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis).”

“The supplementary agenda advice sheet, published on the day of the Planning Committee, advised Members that the second paragraph under Proposal, within the report, should be replaced with: “The works have been undertaken to extend and convert the property to a 6-bed house of multiple occupation (HMO), but the use as a HMO has not yet commenced”.”

Minutes

The property and its use

The property had been lawfully converted and extended for six occupants, with the application seeking one additional occupant through shared use of a double bedroom.

“Members were advised that the property had already been lawfully converted and extended to accommodate six occupants and that the current application sought permission to increase occupancy to seven persons through the shared use of one double bedroom.”

“The Senior Planner explained that the applicant was entitled to undertake internal alterations under the existing Lawful Development Certificate. The Chief Planning Officer further advised that the internal layout had been amended to improve residential amenity, with the ensuite repositioned between the living room and bedroom to provide additional separation.”

Minutes

Local concerns

The Ward Councillor raised concerns about HMO concentration, parking, traffic, the extension, room sizes, amenity and the neighbourhood’s character.

“This record is available on our website – www.medway.gov.uk With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Murray addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following concerns:”

“Objection to the creation of a third HMO within a row of only 22 terraced properties, resulting in an overconcentration of HMOs and a loss of residential character. • The road already experienced severe parking pressures due to nearby flats with limited parking provision and a local school generating additional drop-off and pick-up traffic.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The Senior Planner outlined the application, and the Ward Councillor addressed the committee and presented local concerns.

Officers’ advice

Officers advised that bedrooms met space standards, soundproofing would be addressed through Building Regulations, and the location had good access to services.

“In response to Members’ questions, the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that all bedrooms met or exceeded the Nationally Described Space Standards. Members were also advised that the floor area of the room within the roof space had been assessed and that the area beneath the sloping ceiling, where it was below 1.5 metres in height, had not been included in the overall room size calculations.”

“Concerns were raised regarding parking pressures in the area. The Senior Planner acknowledged those concerns and advised that the site was in a sustainable location with good access to public transport, shops and local services.”

Minutes

Members’ discussion

Members discussed facilities, garden space, cycle storage, parking, soundproofing and whether the decision should be deferred.

“The Committee discussed the communal facilities, garden space and cycle storage provision. The Chief Planning Officer advised that a balanced…”

“This record is available on our website – www.medway.gov.uk assessment had been undertaken and that, on balance, the provision of cycle storage was considered to override the limited external space.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The recommendation to approve was lost, while one councillor asked for his vote supporting approval to be recorded.

“The Committee subsequently voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the application. Upon being put to the vote, the recommendation was lost.”

“Councillor Gulvin requested that his vote in favour of the officers’ recommendation to approve the application be recorded in accordance with Council Rule 12.6.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The committee refused the application because the additional occupant would increase parking demand, indiscriminate parking and difficulties for existing residents.

“Refused on the grounds that the proposed use as a 7 person House in Multiple Occupation would generate a greater level of parking demand than the previous use as a small single family dwelling or the lawful use as a 6 person house in multiple occupation, and in the absence of any parking provision would result in increased parking pressure and indiscriminate parking in an area already suffering from parking stress which would also be detrimental to the amenities of existing…”

Minutes