Ten-bedroom shared house at 34 Asfordby Road, Melton Mowbray

The site and its setting

The large detached red-brick building stands near a school, college and veterinary practice in an area mainly comprising homes and small offices.

“Executive Summary 2.1 Planning permission is being sought for the change of use from a detached two storey dwelling to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) with 10 bedrooms. The property is a large detached red brick building with slate roof. It is set back from the road with a small walled front garden and rear garden which is tarmacked. A neighbour’s windows overlook the courtyard.”

“However, the area is primarily of residential and small private office use. External alterations to convert the property are limited to the removal of a first floor and ground floor window from the rear elevation. The ground floor will include a shared kitchen / diner, a small kitchen and 4 bedrooms, each with en-suite facilities. The first floor will have 6 bedrooms, each with en-suite facilities.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways raised no unacceptable safety concerns and Environmental Health did not object, while residents and the ward councillor raised parking, amenity and over-intensification concerns.

“Consultation Responses 8.1 Summary of Technical Consultation Responses (full comments available online) 8.1.1 LCC Highways The Local Highway Authority advice is that, in its view, the impacts of the development on highway safety would not be unacceptable, and when considered cumulatively with other developments, the impacts on the road network would not be severe.”

“Summary of Representations 8.2.1 Ward Member(s) Supports the objections made through the representations and from many local residents. Concern also raised regarding maintenance (internally and externally) of the property. Neighbours a) Will not provide adequate parking, and may exacerbate existing parking issues b) Highway safety c) Impact on residential amenity, i.e.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Pip Allnatt spoke as ward councillor, and members were able to ask questions of the speaker and presenting officer.

What members debated

Members discussed parking pressure, visitor parking, school traffic, communal facilities, over-intensification, other services’ responsibilities and whether occupation could be capped.

“Concerns on the parking allocation not being sufficient for the number of residents and also there was a permit holder scheme for those living in the surrounding streets and this was already over-subscribed • No visitor parking available • At pick up and drop off times, parents of The Grove Schoolchildren park in the surrounding streets and this put additional pressure on parking in the area • The kitchen and dining facilities were insufficient for the number of tenants •…”

“There was a motion by Councillor Siggy Atherton and seconded by Councillor Ian Atherton for a deferral to enable more understanding and definition to be available between Planning and other services such as Licensing and Environmental Health and how these related to this proposal. This motion was withdrawn before a vote was taken.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found the proposal over-intensive, with inadequate communal facilities and outdoor space, and considered parking provision insufficient for ten bedrooms.

“The proposed development, by reason of the intensity of occupation proposed, the limited communal living facilities available to future occupiers, the restricted level of external amenity space, and the relationship between the scale of occupation and facilities provided, would result in an over-intensive form of development that would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.”

“In reaching this conclusion, Members confirmed that the provision of a small kitchen together with a larger kitchen/dining room was insufficient communal accommodation for more than ten unrelated occupiers to prepare food, cook, dine, store food and provide the only internal communal living space. Members also noted the absence of any usable communal outdoor amenity space.”

Minutes