Seven-person HMO extension at 60 Avondale Road, Ashford

The site and its setting

The semi-detached dwelling retains a residential appearance, has a two-vehicle driveway and garden, and is close to public transport and local amenities.

“The property is currently in use as a six-bedroom HMO under Use Class C4. The building retains the appearance of a residential dwelling within a predominantly residential street.”

“The property benefits from a front driveway capable of accommodating two vehicles and a rear garden of approximately 147.29 square metres. The site is not located within a conservation area, nor is the building listed. There are no parking restrictions on Avondale Road.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A prior approval notification for a single-storey rear extension was recorded as not requiring prior approval, and that extension has been built.

“60 Avondale Road is a semi-detached dwelling situated on the eastern side of Avondale Road in Ashford. It is noted on site that the Prior Approval rear extension has been built.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension, additional occupant, parking provision and accommodation were considered acceptable and not materially harmful.

“The property has already been converted to a six-person HMO without planning permission under permitted development. The assessment therefore focuses on whether the additional one occupant would materially change the character of the use or result in harm to neighbour amenity or parking pressure. The assessment also includes the impact of the proposed first floor rear extension on the neighbouring amenity and its design and appearance.”

“The site offers appropriate space and facilities internally and externally, and the scale and layout of the extension mitigates adverse impact to the amenity of adjoining properties. As a result of a single additional occupier, it is not considered that there would be harmful levels of activity or disturbance that would justify a reason for refusal.”

Officer report

Consultees and written objections

The highway authority raised no objections subject to conditions, while seven objection letters raised concerns including parking, noise, privacy, waste and overdevelopment.

“Statutory Consultees Consultee Comment County Highway Authority No objections (conditions and informative to be attached)”

“The main planning concerns raised were: • Inadequate parking provision • No dropped kerb access • Overdevelopment of plot…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A speaker opposed the proposal, an agent supported it, and a ward councillor’s statement raised parking, asbestos, property damage and layout concerns.

The votes

The motion to approve received three votes in favour, nine against and one abstention, so it fell; refusal then passed by nine votes to four.

“The motion to approve the application FELL”

“For Councillors Bateson, Buck, Burrell, Clarke, Geraci, Howkins, Lee, Rutherford, Woodward – 9 votes Against Councillors Beecher, Chandler, Nichols, Gibson – 4 votes Abstain 0 votes…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was refused because the missing communal living area and removed kitchen would reduce occupant amenity, increase disturbance and add parking strain.

“The motion to refuse the application was carried for the following reason:”

“The application will not promote a high standard of amenity for occupants, as there will be no communal living area and removal of the second kitchen, and this will result in more intensive use and disturbance to neighbours due to the lack of on-site communal amenities. Furthermore, the additional occupant will likely increase the parking strain in the area.”

Minutes