Six-bedroom HMO at 2 Roberts Close, Kegworth, Derby

What was proposed

The application proposed changing a detached dwelling into a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents, with front and rear extensions.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of an existing dwelling house (C3 use) at 2 Roberts Close, Kegworth to a 6-bedroom House of Multiple Occupation (C4 use), with a maximum of 6 residents. The proposal also includes ground floor and first floor extensions to the front and rear of the property.”

“The application site consists of a two-storey detached dwelling. The existing floor plans show three upstairs bedrooms and one bathroom, with downstairs kitchen and living areas and an existing integral garage. The proposed plans show that there would be three upstairs bedrooms, one within the proposed rear extension, and two bathrooms.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey detached dwelling within Kegworth’s settlement boundary and the adopted limits to development.

“This site is situated within the settlement boundary of Kegworth. The site is located within the Limits to Development, as defined by the Policy Map to the adopted Local Plan (2021).”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history at the property.

“Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history at the property.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission with conditions limiting residents to six and securing parking, cycle spaces and surface water drainage.

“RECOMMENDATION – PERMIT, subject to the following conditions:”

“Standard time limit (3 years). Approved plans 3. Materials 4. Maximum of 6 residents living on site at any given time. Three parking spaces 6. Cycle parking spaces 7. Surface water drainage…”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Six neighbours objected over HMO concentration, loss of family homes, noise, overlooking, extensions, parking, access, character and trees.

“Potential noise and overlooking from extensions…”

“Character and Visual Impact Overdevelopment of the site due to the size of the extensions proposed would be out of character with the surrounding area…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The senior planning officer presented the application, and Councillor Ray Sutton spoke as ward member urging refusal.

Members’ debate

Members questioned residential amenity, demand for HMOs and the weight that could be given to the emerging policy on HMO concentration.

“During discussion, members stated that the development would have impacted residential amenity. While it was noted that the proposed HMOs were intended for students or young professionals, members commented that universities near to the development had made many cuts to the courses they offered, and the need for more HMOs in the area was therefore questioned.”

“Members also considered the protection that could have been offered by the emerging draft Local Plan that included a new policy which placed restrictions on the concentration of HMOs in Kegworth. Members were advised that, as the Local Plan was currently a draft and was yet to go through Regulation 19 consultation and then examination by an Inspector, there was little weight that could have been afforded to it at this stage.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Ray Morris moved approval, Councillor Jenny Simmons seconded it, and the motion was carried by recorded vote.

“It was moved by Councillor R Morris, seconded by Councillor J Simmons and…”

“Chair’s initials Motion to approve the application in accordance with the officer's recommendations. (Motion) Councillor Russell Boam For Councillor Ray Morris For Councillor Morgan Burke For Councillor Rachel Canny Against Councillor David Everitt For Councillor John Legrys For Councillor Peter Moult For Councillor Carol Sewell Against Councillor Jenny Simmons For Councillor Doug Cooper For Councillor Kenny Horn For Carried…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“The application be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendations.”

Minutes

Why refusal was difficult

Members were advised that refusal based on HMO concentration would have been vulnerable because responsible authorities had not objected and the emerging policy had little weight.

“The Legal Advisor added that it would have been difficult to have refused the application on planning grounds due to the lack of objections raised by the responsible authorities, and stated that a refusal based on the concentration of HMOs in the area would have been vulnerable at appeal stage as it risked relying on the emerging Local Plan as opposed to the one that was currently adopted.”

Minutes