Change of use from mixed use - retail (Class A1) and residential (Class C3) - to purposes falling within Class C3 (Dwelling House) or C4 (House in Multiple Occupancy), with associated alterations to shopfront and installation of two rooflights.
Minutes:
The Planning Officer presented
the report. Peter Hayward, Island Highway & Transport
Consultants, was present for this item.
The planning officer reminded the committee that this application
was deferred from the December meeting as a resident who had
objected to the application had not received written notification
that they could make further deputations.
The Planning Officer drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:
Since the publication of the Committee Report, the proposed floor plans have been amended to provide dedicated ensuites for bedrooms 1, 2 and 3.
(HMO SPD-OCT 2019)
Area provided: Required standard:
Lounge 17.5m2 11m2
Bedroom 1 16m2 6.51m2
Ensuite B1 4.7m2 3.74m2
Dining room 15.2m2 11m2
Kitchen 12.5m2 7m2
Bedroom 2 18.2m2 6.51m2
Ensuite B2 3.8m2 3.74m2
Bedroom 3 16.99m2 6.51m2
Ensuite B3 3.8m2 3.74m2
Bedroom 4 10.5m2 6.51m2
WC 1.6m2 undefined
Bathroom 5m2 3.74m2
Total 126.99m2 70m2
The ensuites are all considered to be of an acceptable size and layout. All of the bedrooms are well over the guidance of 6.51sqm following this amendment and the communal space is unchanged. The amended floorplans are therefore considered to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for 3-6 residents sharing.
Since the publication of the Committee Report, an Appropriate Assessment has been completed and Natural England have been consulted and responded; they concur with the Councils conclusion that no mitigation is required for the development.
The Officer's recommendation remained unchanged.
Further written deputations were read out as part of the officer presentation from:
· Mrs Daisy Cobb on behalf of local residents
· The Applicant - Applecore Design Agency - (Carianne Wells)
Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link Planning Committee, 26 January 2021 on Livestream
Members' Questions
In response to questions from members, officers explained that:
· There is a difference of 0.5 parking spaces overall.
· There will be a significant reduction in demand in terms of the commercial elements which will be lost as a result of the proposal. The parking standards require commercial developments to be assessed individually. The committee need to make sure they do not lose sight of the parking demand of the commercial elements that will no longer arise as a result of the application.
· There is a condition on the proposal to provide 4 bicycle parking spaces.
· Solar panels are not included as part of the application and these are not usually attached to a small development. The building regulations will ensure sustainable construction and energy efficiency.
· There are two other HMOs located in the area which are quite close. Both are C3/C4 properties. Twyford Avenue is a primary road and is along a bus route. 249 Twyford Avenue is a takeaway. It is not considered the proposal would result in significant harm to the surrounding residential amenity.
· The Willows is a group of flats and each individual flat is counted within the 50m radius. Of the 34 flats within the Willows a certain number are included within the percentage calculations. Officers explained the process for how the calculations are carried out.
Members' Comments
Members were concerned that the changes to the front elevation adversely impact the street scene and felt the application does not meet the parking standards in a densely residential area. It was also felt that the application was also out of character for the area. Other members disagreed and felt that this would improve the appearance of the building. Members recognised the severe parking issues in this area of the city but noted that the residents may chose not to have a car. The Highways Consultant said that if the committee refused the application on parking grounds it would be hard to defend at an appeal as this proposal reduces demand for parking by removing all the parking required for the commercial element which is one or two spaces.
RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:
The proposal would, by reason of the increased parking demand associated with the change of use, fail to make provision for car parking in accordance with the requirements of the Council's adopted Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Accordingly the development would fail to provide an adequate level of car parking to meet the future transport needs of the occupiers, which would be likely to increase demand for already limited on-street car parking facilities to the detriment of the environment of the area and contrary to policies PCS17 and PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan and the aims and objectives of the adopted Parking Standards SPD to maintain a balanced approach between car parking and sustainable transport.