Your Councillors

Agenda item

16/505311 - CHANGE OF USE FROM A C3 (4 BEDROOM HOUSE) TO SUI GENERIS USE HOUSE OF MULTIPLE OCCUPATION FOR 8 FLATS - 47 FREEMAN WAY, MAIDSTONE, KENT

Minutes:

Councillors English and Powell stated that they had been lobbied.

 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.

 

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, a motion to grant permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report was lost.

 

The Development Manager advised the Committee that it would be necessary to provide reasons, which could be sustained at appeal, to support a proposal to refuse permission.  Any decision to refuse the application due to misuse of permitted development rights would not be defendable at appeal.  Given that it could be reasonably concluded that the erection of the flank dormer window was work that could be carried out as permitted development as it was undertaken before the use of the house as an HMO had commenced, the issue for consideration was restricted to the impact on the character and appearance of the locality of the change of use of the property from an HMO for six unrelated persons (which could be carried out as permitted development) to an HMO for eight unrelated persons which required planning permission.  The Officers considered the impact to be marginal.

 

The Committee wishing to receive further advice from the Officers in private:

 

RESOLVED:  That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information for the reasons specified having applied the public interest test:

 

 

Head of Schedule 12A and Brief Description

 

Advice Relevant to the Determination of Application 16/505311

 

3 – Financial/Business Affairs

 

5 – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings

 

The Development Manager reiterated that it would be necessary to provide reasons, which could be sustained at appeal, to support a proposal to refuse permission.  At the moment no reasons which could be sustained at appeal had been put forward.  To refuse the application for reasons which were not sustainable could result in the award of costs against the Council.

 

The Committee:

 

RESOLVED:  That the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

 

It was moved and seconded that permission be refused on the basis that the building had been completed and inhabited without planning permission being granted.  The Development Manager advised the Committee that this reason would not be sustainable at appeal.  The issue was the impact on the character and appearance of the locality of the change of use of the property from an HMO for six unrelated persons to an HMO for eight unrelated persons.

 

An amendment was moved and seconded that permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.  The amendment was put to the vote and carried.  The substantive motion was then put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

 

Voting:  6 – For  1 – Against  6 – Abstentions

 

FURTHER RESOLVED:  That Southern Water be asked to investigate any breach of the Water Regulations, in the interests of residential amenity.

 

Voting:   12 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

 

Supporting documents: