11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

Third party objection has been made to the proposal on the ground that generally HMO
residents do not look after the property, maintain the gardens or dispose of rubbish in a
satisfactory manner. Concern has been raised regarding the impact of the proposal upon
The Walks and the general aesthetics of the area.
The proposal shows no physical changes to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse
and no changes to the parking arrangements are proposed. The use of the property as a
HMO could have an impact however on the character and amenity of the area through
inadequate facilities for bin storage. In this case, however, the site has ample space for the
storage of wheelie bins within the confines of the garden area, which is screened by existing
hedges and walling. This will not have a significantly detrimental impact upon the character
of the area or the Conservation Area.
Other material considerations
The site is located within Flood Zone 2. The Environment Agency raises no objection to the
proposed development but they do recommend that no ground floor bedrooms are provided.
In this case the dwelling already exists and has a bedroom at ground floor level. The
proposal would result in three bedrooms at ground floor level. Both uses of a dwellinghouse
and a HMO are in the same ‘vulnerability’ category within Table D2 of PPS25 ('More
Vulnerable'). Given that the property could be used as a HMO for up to 6 people without the
need for planning permission where bedrooms could be on the ground floor it is not
considered this would be a valid reason for refusal in this case, or reasonable to impose a
condition restricting such use.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Section 17 of the above act requires Local Authorities to consider the implications for crime
and disorder in the carrying out of their duties. Norfolk Constabulary has been consulted
with regard to the application but at the time of writing the report no feedback has been
received.
Despite concerns raised about anti-social behaviour by local residents, it is not considered,
however, that the application before the Board will likely have a significant impact upon
crime and disorder.
CONCLUSION
In this case the property is already a five bedroom dwelling and the application proposes
seven separate bedrooms with a communal living room, two communal kitchens (one on
each floor) and shared bathroom and toilet facilities. Permitted development rights would
allow six people to live together as a single household without the need for a planning
application. Assuming each room is occupied by one person this is only one more resident
than would be permitted under the 2010 amended regulations.
In this case it is not considered the occupation of the dwellinghouse by potentially one extra
person would lead to such significant highway, amenity and noise issues to warrant the
refusal of planning permission. Accordingly the application has a recommendation of
approval.
11/00732/CU Development Control Board
25 July 2011
128