| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The internal layout of the proposed HMO is not deemed by the Local Planning Authority to provide a sufficient standard of amenity for the occupants of rooms and would result in a poor living environment for occupants. Specifically rooms 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are cramped, dark, have poor layouts and limited outlooks. The resultant development is cramped and provides a poor living environment. Whilst recognising that rooms are of a sufficient floor space to meet the bare minimum of Environmental Health legislation, its layout is not deemed suitable and creates an unhealthy living environment. Accordingly the proposal is considered contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 127 (f) which states that there should be a high standard of amenity for all existing and future users. |
| 2. | The provision of suitable communal facilities ensures that the occupants of the HMO rooms are not forced to carry out all activities within the confines of their room. Suitable communal facilities provide environmental and amenity benefits for the occupants. The layout as proposed does not contain a living room meaning the proposal lacks suitable communal facility provision. In addition the only communal room (the kitchen) is positioned in an underground basement with no natural light which is both oppressive in character, cramped for the number of people living at the property and also a significant distance of travel from the top rooms on the second floor. Evidence of occupants having cooking equipment in rooms rather than using this communal was present during the site visit.
Consequently the application for an enlarged HMO has been refused as it does not comply with the provision of paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT: In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
