Agenda item

95 Sideley Kegworth Derby Leicestershire DE74 2ER

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor M Hawksworth, on behalf of Kegworth Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He informed the Members that the report in front of them reached the conclusion that the effect of the proposed development on Kegworth was acceptable but the Parish Council felt that the development was not acceptable in the local context. He asked that the application be refused as it was an over-intensive residential use of the site, it caused significant loss of amenity to neighbours and that there were not enough parking spaces provided for a 7 bedroom house in multi occupation. He stated that there was a precedent for refusal as in September 2017 a similar application for an 8 bedroom HMO on Broadhill in Kegworth had been refused by the authority.

He highlighted that the planning report considered that it was unlikely that all occupants of the HMO would have a car, however Kegworth Parish Council did not accept the assessment as adequate parking provision for large HMO’s in Kegworth. He stated that 10% of the housing stock in Kegworth was occupied by students of the University of Nottingham, who were often veterinary students, who had cars to enable them to take placements with Veterinary Practices as part of their training, and that other HMO’s in Kegworth were occupied by staff at East Midlands Airport and construction workers working on major infrastructure projects in the area, who all seemed to have cars. He expressed concerns that the 3 parking spaces shown on the plan would have a new dropped kerb access across the grass verges along Sideley and such removal of the grass verges would be detrimental to the street scene and amenity of existing homes, and the pavement crossover would remove space for street parking, adding that there was already concerns about parking on Citrus Grove, almost opposite the site, that a consultation on the implementation of a road traffic order in that part of Kegworth closed on the 5^th January 2018 and that the provision of cycle storage would not compensate for the limited car parking available.

Mr M Hawksworth stated that 7 lettable rooms were proposed by extending a 3 bedroom semi-detached house and the use of an HMO would not be similar to that of a large single family dwelling as there was not the same continuity of occupancy or self-imposed constraints as a family house, and more people come and go so that the impact from noise and disturbance to neighbours is far greater. He advised Members that the attached semi at 93 Sideley had been lived in by the owners since it was built in the 1960’s and that the 3m two storey extension to the rear of number 95 would block some sun from reaching 93, particularly in the winter. He urged Members to refuse the application.

Councillor R Adams moved that the application be refused due to over intensification of the site, and the impact on the neighbouring properties. The motion was seconded by Councillor R Canny.

Councillor J Legrys stated that the application was not acceptable for the area and the application should be refused to over intensification of the site, unacceptable behaviour that would be imparted on the neighbours.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that there had been a total lack of thought in the application and the development would not fit in with the area. He stated that the Ward Member was right to call-in the application and he supported the Parish Council.

Councillor D Everitt expressed concerns over the amount of parking that was proposed as he felt that two spaces were not enough and could not support the application.

In response to a question from Councillor V Richichi, the Principal Planning Officer advised Members that the property was facing north.

Councillor G Jones stated that he fully supported the motion to refuse the application and that the site looked untidy. The bins were already overflowing and it was already an amenity issue.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused due to over intensification of the site, and impact on the neighbouring properties.