| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | As a matter of law and on the facts of the application submitted, an application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can only be used to vary or remove conditions attached to a planning permission and cannot be used to alter the description of development, and that there should not be a conflict between what was permitted in the original permission and what the new condition requires. The original permission (06/18/0345/CU) is for "Change of use from hotel to house in multiple occupation with managed accommodation," where the presence of on-site management is an essential component of the approved use.
The proposed removal of the manager/family accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the development, eliminating direct supervision and day-to-day operational control. This would be inconsistent with the approved description of development, contrary to the principles set out in R (Finney) v Welsh Ministers [2019] EWCA Civ 1868, which confirm that Section 73 cannot be used in a way that contradicts the description of development.
Accordingly, the proposed variation would be unlawful, as the description of development cannot be altered via Section 73 in a manner that removes the essential element of managed accommodation. Permission for this Section 73 application. In addition, should a S73 had been lawful the application would be refused for the following reasons. |
| 2. | The proposed increase in bedroom numbers from 12 to 20, coupled with the removal of on-site managerial/family accommodation, would result in an over-intensive form of development. This would materially alter the character and functioning of the previously approved "managed accommodation," leading to a less managed and more congested HMO. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS9, H12 and A1 of the Local Plan which seek to ensure high-quality, well-managed, and appropriate development that protects the amenity of occupants. |
| 3. | The concentration of communal spaces almost entirely within the basement, with only limited kitchen provision on the upper floors (9m² on the first floor and 14m² on the second floor), would result in shared facilities that are inaccessible and poorly distributed relative to the location of bedrooms, particularly those on the upper floors and in the attic. This would discourage use of communal areas, reduce social interaction, and create cramped, isolating, and substandard living conditions for residents. The development would therefore fail to provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers, contrary to Policies CS9, H12 and A1. |
| 4. | The proposed subdivision of a first-floor bedroom (to approximately 10m²) and the attic bedroom (16m² with restricted headroom) would result in rooms that are of limited usability and fail to meet the minimum standards for internal space set out in the Amenity Standards for Privately Rented Dwellings, resulting in cramped accommodation that does not provide a satisfactory standard of internal amenity for future occupants. This is contrary to Policy A1 of the Local Plan |
| 5. | The site is located within Flood Zone 2, with the ground floor at 4.36m AOD and the first floor at 7.59m AOD. Flood modelling, including updated climate change data, indicates that defended flood levels could reach 4.43-4.84m AOD during a 1 in 200 year and 1 in 1000-year event, and up to 4.87-5.32m AOD under worst-case climate change scenarios. This indicates that the ground floor would be subject to significant flood depths during defended and breach flood events The proposed introduction of 5 bedrooms constituting sleeping accommodation at ground floor level would expose future occupants to an unacceptable level of flood risk. No detailed or implementable mitigation measures nor the recommended "Water Entry Strategy" have been submitted to demonstrate that the development would be safe for its lifetime, in the absence of such information, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would provide adequate protection or safe refuge during a flood event. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy. |
| 6. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): 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. |
