Seven-person HMO at 43 Malmesbury Road, Southampton

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a seven-person HMO for unrelated individuals, with internal alterations and cycle storage.

“Proposed development: Change of use from a dwelling to a 7-person HMO (Sui Generis) with associated amenities.”

“Proposal 2.1 The proposal is for a change of use of the property to a (Sui-Generis) House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to seven unrelated individuals within five bedrooms. No external alterations to the building are planned. A cycle storage area is proposed within the rear garden. Access to the cycle storage will be via the assess way adjacent to 41 Malmesbury Road. The refuse bins will be located in the front garden as is currently the case.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey semi-detached property beside a school playing field, with no dedicated parking and a rear garden.

“The application site is a two-storey, semi-detached rendered property. The property is located adjacent to St. Mark’s school playing field, which forms a gap between the application site and the neighbouring property at 53 Malmesbury Road. The front of the property is enclosed by a brick wall, which serves to partially screen the refuse bins and is proposed to be retained.”

“The property’s current planning use is as a C3 dwelling for use by a single household. While it does not have dedicated parking, it is situated within residents' parking zone 16, which serves the majority of the local area. The site is just over 100m from the defined Shirley Town Centre.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier applications to convert the dwelling into self-contained flats were refused in 1988.

“Case Ref Proposal Decision Date 881194/W Change of use from single dwelling to self contained flats Application Refused 03.08.1988 881976/W Change of use from single dwelling to 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats and alterations to Elevations Application Refused 14.12.1988”

Officer report

What people said

Representations raised concerns about overdevelopment, parking, disturbance, waste and the loss of family housing; consultees gave qualified support or no objection.

“The proposal raises concerns about overdevelopment and housing imbalance, potentially leading to the loss of family homes and negatively impacting the community and character of the area. There is a worry that Shirley and Freemantle might experience over-intensification of HMOs, similar to the Polygon area. Additionally, existing HMOs on the road have already raised objections.”

“The proposal will result in an increase demand for on-street parking. Malmesbury Road already suffers from congestion and limited parking availability. Response The existing dwelling has no on site parking either. Whilst no car parking is proposed to serve the development, the Council’s parking standards provide a maximum level for the amount of car parking that can be incorporated, meaning provision of less than the maximum is permissible.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and two ward councillors addressed the Panel with the Chair’s permission.

The committee vote

The Panel confirmed the Habitats Regulation Assessment and carried the amended recommendation, with four councillors voting for and two against.

“Upon being put to the vote the Panel confirmed the Habitats Regulation Assessment.”

“The Panel then considered remaining recommendations that the application be delegated to the Director of Transport and Planning to grant planning permission subject to criteria listed in the report (as amended). Upon being put to the vote the recommendations as amended were carried.”

Minutes

The decision

Authority was delegated to grant permission, subject to conditions and a mitigation contribution, with refusal authorised if that contribution was not secured.

“Delegated to the Director of Transport and Planning authority to grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions recommended at the end of this report and the payment of a contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP).”

“In the event that the contribution is not secured within a reasonable period following the Panel meeting, the Director of Transport and Planning be authorised to refuse permission on the ground that the proposal has not secured adequate mitigation towards in combination impacts on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area.”

Minutes