Eight-bedroom large HMO at 18 Kingsholm Road, Gloucester

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a vacant small HMO into an eight-bedroom large HMO for single occupants, with a new rear dormer.

“Proposal: Proposed conversion from vacant small HMO (Use Class: C4) to 8-bedroom (single occupants only) large HMO (Use Class: sui generis) including installation of dormer window at rear.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The three-storey semi-detached property faces the rugby stadium, has been vacant for two years, lies in Flood Zone 2 and has no off-street parking.

“The application site comprises a semi-detached, 3no.-storey property and associated plot within the street scene at Kingsholm Road, situated directly opposite to the Kingsholm Rugby Stadium. The property was most recently used as a small HMO but has been vacant for 2 years. The site is within Flood Zone 2 (medium risk).”

“The property has no off-street vehicle parking provision and on-street parking is limited due to a pedestrian crossing adjacent to the plot and the site being within a parking permit controlled area (Kingsholm Zone J). Refuse bins are currently positioned in the front garden of the property.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal complied with relevant policies and its adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits.

“Benefits of the proposal: • The increased number of occupants at the property would make a small contribution to housing land supply which is a benefit to be attributed moderate weight in the planning balance. • There would also be economic benefits in terms of the construction of the development itself and those associated with the resultant increase in population on the site to which limited positive weight should be attributed.”

“Weighing all of the relevant factors into the planning balance, and having regard to the NPPF as a whole, all relevant policies of the JCS, the City Plan and supplementary planning documents and guidance, in applying paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it is considered that the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Housing officers found the proposal acceptable, highways withdrew objections after revisions, drainage accepted the flood arrangements, and conservation officers raised no concerns.

“Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer Housing Strategy found the proposal to be acceptable when measured against Policies A2, C1, F6, and G1 of the Gloucester City Plan in regard to the use as a large HMO, active design and accessibility, fire safety, space standards, transport, and waste storage, with an overall conclusion of policy compliance.”

“Drainage Adviser The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was considered acceptable, as was the Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan (FWEP). No drainage strategy was required as the development is for mainly internal changes with no change in footprint. The proposal was considered acceptable providing that a condition is applied for the FWEP to issued and adhered to by the management company and residents for the lifetime of the development.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Neighbours raised concerns about the number of occupants, shared-wall works, the bike store and whether the property should remain a family home.

“Neighbours – first consultation 2 no. neighbour comments were received neither supporting nor objecting to the proposal. The comments can be summarised as follows: - Properties at nos. 16 & 20 Kingsholm Road are licenced 6no.-person HMOs . - For the size of the property, an 8-person HMO would be quite a lot. - Querying how the works will impact on the shared wall, especially in the attic.”

“1no. objection was received from Cllr Hilton, raising the following concerns: - Property should remain as a large family home - Querying site history - Querying the 10% HMOs within 100m radius data - Potential overcrowding and insufficient communal living space…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A director of the applicant’s company spoke in favour, highlighting the established HMO use, refurbishment, sustainable location, storage and lack of planning harm.

What members discussed

Members considered the building’s vacant condition, accommodation benefits, policy compliance, transport, bin arrangements and the absence of a planning reason to refuse.

“Councillor Lewis stated that the majority of properties in the area had hard-surfaced frontages and that the proposal did not change the overall design of the building. He considered the scheme to be a good use of a property that had been vacant for some time and noted the benefit of bringing additional residents into the city. He stated that he could not identify a planning reason to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee accepted the officer recommendation and delegated authority to grant permission subject to conditions, late material and a conservation mitigation undertaking.

“The Chair proposed and Councillor Marshall seconded a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation, which was to delegate authority to Planning Development Manager to GRANT subject to the conditions in the officer report and Unilateral Undertaking relating to Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation.”

“RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Planning Development Manager to GRANT subject to the conditions in the officer report, the late material and a Unilateral Undertaking relating to Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation.”

Minutes