Proposal:  Double storey side extension and change of use from a single dwelling to a HMO (Sui Generis)

Some members of the committee were unhappy with the lack of parking spaces associated with the scheme, and made it clear their strong preference for a second parking space to be added.  Some added to this by stating that there was an existing overspill of parking in the area, the bus network was inadequate and the nearest train station was a 39 minute walk.  Some members highlighted that the area was also a hot-spot for learner drivers and the volume of existing parked cars meant that they considered there was a highways safety risk. However, Surrey County Council as highways authority had not objected on safety grounds and it was unlikely to be demonstrable that an increase of 2 bedrooms was likely to have a severe impact (which was the relevant NPPF test)

Members indicated that they would like to be certain that all efforts had been exhausted with regards improving parking on the site. A member indicated that they were minded to defer the item for further investigation of options by officers with the developer.

It became clear that most of the committee supported this position, officers would seek to negotiate with the developer to attempt to secure an additional parking space, and should an additional space be forthcoming officers would be authorised to issue permission under delegated authority.  Failure from the developer to provide and additional space would result in the application coming back to committee for further debate.

During the debate several councillors commented on the conversion to HMO and the prospect of the property being permanently removed from family housing stock in the area, and there was debate on the overall issue of policy on HMOs. Officers advised that the use of the building as an HMO did not in principle conflict with planning policy.

The Head of Planning advised that for planning purposes the scheme continued to meet the need for housing in the borough, the design of the building was one that had previously been approved in a 2017 scheme on the site.

The concerns of some of the committee with regards HMOs was noted however the committee was sitting in an applications determination capacity rather than a policy formulation capacity. As such the scheme had to be judged on the council’s existing policies rather than where it aspired to be. Any other issues must be taken up at the appropriate time, which was likely to be during the local plan review.

Resolved that –

a)    The application was deferred and delegated to the HoP to secure an additional parking space secured by condition.

b)    Should the additional parking space not be secured the application would be returned to planning committee for further debate.

c)    Should the additional parking space be secured the HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions 1-6.

d)    The HoP was authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 not progress to his satisfaction or if any significant material considerations arose prior to the issuing of the decision notice that in the opinion of the HoP would warrant refusal of the application. Reasons for refusal relating to any such matter were delegated to the HoP.