Plans for more bedrooms in student house refused
Concerned residents were there for decision
A BID to increase the number of bedrooms for rent, in a Loughborough student house, has been rejected.
Concerned residents gathered at a meeting of Charnwood Borough Council’s planning committee last week as councillors debated the application for 22 Carington Street, Loughborough.
The landlord applicant A Bailey asked for a change of use “from House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Class C4, to Large House in Multiple Occupation.”
The plan was to increase the bedrooms from four to six, bringing the occupancy levels up to eight persons
There has been strong opposition from nearby residents, and even the town MP Nicky Morgan had written in to the borough over the concerns.
A previous appeal against a refusal to increase the number of bedrooms at the home had been turned down by a Government inspector.
However, the present committee heard that because planning policies had changed since the inspector’s decision in 2012, the councillors had to look at it afresh.
Planning officers recommended that the application be passed with certain conditions attached, such as a restriction on the number of people who could live there.
The officers also said that there had been no complaints made to the borough council of anti-social behaviour at the address in the last 12 months.
Charnwood Borough Council’s policy is that it will object to further HMOs, where 20 per cent, or more, of properties within a 100m radius of the application site are already HMOs.
In Carington Street however the percentage is just 5.6 per cent.
At the meeting, resident Carol Cuttill gave a statement in opposition to the plan.
She said: “I have police evidence, council e-mails, university security and warden e-mails, of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance emanating from 22 Carington Street from 2102 to 2017.
“The anti-social behaviour and rubbish left in our street would be exacerbated should this current plan be granted.
“Residents in Carington Street want a quiet life and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”
Her statement was greeted with rounds of applause from the public gallery.
Mr Stephen Bradwell also gave a statement to the council, on behalf of the landlord.
He said there would be no external alterations to the building and added: “The property is capable of providing five parking spaces and given that the highways standards call for only three spaces, there is clearly adequate provision for parking on site.”
Mr Bradwell also made reference to the percentage of HMOs and that the figure for the application was only 5.6 per cent: “Therefore the proportion of HMOs is substantially below this threshold.
“It is therefore not correct that there are a large numbers of HMOs in the area and on the face of it there could be no objection to the principle of adding these two bedrooms to the existing HMO.”
He also said that the old planning policies regarding the property’s history had now been superseded and the committee had to decide whether the addition of two bedrooms would cause harm to the local area.
Councillors on the committee were split over which way to go with the decision.
Coun Bill Bebbington said that he appreciated the feeling of the residents in the area: “But in terms of the job we have to do as a planning committee, I don’t think we can do anything else but accept the officer’s recommendation.”
Coun Roy Campsall said that he was very unhappy with the application saying: “It would be like putting a mini hotel on that street.”
Coun Ian Bentley said that he agreed with all the negative comments regarding the application, but he couldn’t see any planning grounds for refusal.
A proposal to accept the plan was defeated by five votes to four.
Coun Mark Lowe proposed the application be rejected.
After consulting with officers the committee finally rejected the application, saying it would damage the social and physical character and amenity of the local area and generate detrimental noise and disturbance.