Seven-bedroom HMO at 1A Sherrington Road, Ipswich

The site and its history

The premises contained two two-bedroom flats, had no parking, and had previously been used for commercial purposes before residential permissions.

“The application premises have a planning history as:shop; to shop with living accommodation above; to hairdressing salon with living accommodation; to hairdressing salon with self-contained flat; and finally in 2013 change of use of ground floor to self-contained flat. The approvals span the period 1971 to 2013.”

“The current premises comprise 2no. 2 bed flats. The former beauty salon and first floor flat are the reason for the bulkier mass of the building than adjacent premises. The rear garden is presently split into two for 1no. amenity space per flat. The flats are car free development, providing no parking spaces. Car free development was justified in permission 13/00284/FUL on grounds of sustainable location. Refuse bins are housed in the amenity space of the flats.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the use acceptable, the accommodation compliant, and the changes beneficial for the site and neighbouring amenity.

“Officers consider that the proposed change of use from 2no. 2 bed flats to 7 bedroom 7 occupant HMO is acceptable on the basis that the change of use is in accordance with the HMO-specific policies and provides an opportunity for betterment to the functioning of the site and amenity of immediate neighbours, (including such improvements as contemporary cycle parking, refuse presentation areas, contemporary sound insulation, ecological enhancements, removal of conspicuous…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways initially sought cycle details, Environmental Health required sound insulation conditions and raised refuse concerns, while the police did not object.

“The following consultee responses were received:- Suffolk County Council Local Highway Authority Holding objection pending further details on cycle parking. Re-consultation: Re-consultation response is pending at time of writing however, the sizes of cycle parking spaces and layout has been designed to meeting the Suffolk Guidance for Parking Standards and Planning Officers are content with that which is proposed, with specific details to be managed via pre-occupation…”

“Ipswich Borough Council Environmental Protection Officers (Private Sector Housing) No comments received at time of writing. Suffolk Constabulary Suffolk Constabulary does not object to this application but does request that conditions relating to installation of CCTV, a management/maintenance plan, robust communal doors and an access control…”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Objections concerned parking, highway safety, noise, antisocial behaviour, over-concentration, inadequate space, refuse, security, fire safety and loss of family housing.

“For the purposes of Crime Prevention, given that HMO's can be associated with such behaviour, due to the high concentration and transient nature of such shared accommodation. 7. [The petition states any further comments shall be] provided at the Planning and Development Committee. 8. To prevent the over-concentration of HMOs in and around the Sherrington/Norwich/Broomhill Road areas, leading to a loss of a valuable family residential properties.”

“Absence of fire proofing throughout the building • Concerns of reduced room sizes in the event fire resistance needs to increase wall thicknesses. • Inadequacy of the kitchen and living space (leading to suggestion of removing Bedroom 3) • Floor plan room layouts imply multi-occupancy rooms • Concerns of greater than 7 occupants • Absence of first floor fire escape • Fabricated off-road parking space • Inadequate outdoor amenity space • Inadequate waste management plans, including…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and applicant supported the scheme, while a residents’ representative and two ward councillors opposed it.

The committee vote

The officer recommendation for approval was proposed but did not receive a seconder; refusal was then proposed and agreed.

“Councillor Holmes proposed the recommendations as set out in the report, but there was no seconder.”

“Councillor Kreidewolf proposed that the application be refused on the grounds as outlined above, and this was agreed.”

Minutes