The Committee considered an application for
the proposed erection of a single storey rear and side extension to
an existing 5 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation property (Use
Class C4) at 23, Bozward Street.
Reason Why Being
Considered by Planning Committee
The application had been referred to the
Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Alan Amos on the
grounds of previous decisions on this same site both by the
Committee and the Inspector.
The report set out the background to the
proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself,
relevant policies, planning history and the representations and
consultations where applicable.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to
Appendix 1 attached to the report which related to a copy of the
appeal decision with regard to Application P18K0466 which was
refused planning permission. The appeal
was dismissed on 26th July 2019. In respect of the Inspector’s conclusions at
paragraph 13 of the decision, application 19/00801/CLPU was
submitted for a certificate of proposed lawful development.
The Committee’s attention was also drawn
to the late papers which related to:
clarification by officers regarding the implementation/changes of
Application 19/00801/CLPU and the fallback position;
email correspondence from the agent to Councillor A. Amos and the
consultee comments from the County Council Highway Authority.
The information was presented as set out by
the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in
conjunction with a powerpoint
presentation for the item.
Members were informed that since the
publication of the report that was withdrawn from the agenda for
the meeting on 25th June 2020, the agent has confirmed
in a revised planning statement that there are currently 6
occupants living at the HMO. The agenda
has also confirmed that the applicant intends to update their
existing HMO licence accordingly should consent be granted.
The Development Management Services Team
Leader stated that the applicant would not implement the scheme
under 19/00801/CLPU if the current application is
approved. This scheme no longer
included the rear dormer window. In
terms of design and appearance Officers have no objections.
There had been no one registered to speak on
the application. However a local Ward
Member, Councillor Udall addressed the Committee objecting to the
Key Points of
A local Ward Member, Councillor Udall addressed the Committee
objecting to the proposal identifying that there were two concerns,
over occupation of site and no parking.
In referring to the City Council’s Housing Officer’s
consultee comments he stated that the rooms were not
adequate. There are neighbour
objections to this proposal.
It was noted that the difference between this application and the
previous one is that the Highway Authority now recommends
refusal. Some Members felt that the
proposal was inappropriate with no parking and issues regarding
occupancy and should be refused. A
fallback position has now been developed.
It was clarified that the Certificate of Lawful Development had
been issued but the scheme had not been implemented. A material consideration to be ...
view the full minutes text for item 34.