Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal - Change of use from a 6 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) to a 7 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) involving internal alterations.

2. Shared Space - Officers explained that
(a) the previously refused application for change of use of the property to an 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) had included a shared communal space of about 30sqm;

(b) the London Plan standard for an HMO of 6 persons was provision of 31sqm of shared space;

(c) the property was currently used as an HMO for up to 6 people;

(d) the current application was for an HMO for up to 7 people with -
(i)  an L-shaped shared space of about 42sqm, formed by removing an internal wall into an area described on the plans as offices; and
(ii) the use of the garage as an extra bedroom; and

(e) there was no specific standard for an HMO for up to 7 people as regards the amount of shared space, but the current proposal provided for an increase of some 30% in shared space and one extra person.

3. Possible Sub-Division of Shared Space – Officers advised that if Members were concerned that the proposed shared L-shaped communal space would be inadequate to provide for different activities at the same time, then it would be possible to impose a condition requiring that the space be restructured to provide some sub-division.

4.Discussion – There was extensive discussion of the proposals.  Members were concerned that current proposal didn’t overcome all of the issues raised by the Inspector in dismissing an appeal for the refused application for an HMO for up to 8 persons, including the provision of adequate internal space in the building for relaxation/leisure and for visitors.

4.1 Members recognised that the application should not be refused on the same grounds as the previous refusal for an HMO for up to 8 persons (as detailed in para. 4.1, page 59).  Members concluded that the application should be refused on the basis that it was still contrary to Policy CS.14 (b) (vi) of the Core Strategy Policy (July 2011), and in particular that the application failed to overcome all of the issues raised by the Inspector, as set out in her decision letter in paragraph 19 (on agenda page 76).  It was noted that some of the wording of paragraph 19 would need to be amended to be applicable to the current application.

5. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused on this basis as detailed below.  The motion was carried by 6 votes to 4 (Councillors Tobin Byers, John Bowcott, Daniel Holden and Najeeb Latif dissenting).  Subsequently the Committee agreed that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal and also agreed (C) below.

Decision: Item 7 - ref. 15/P0499 (14 Burley Close, Streatham, SW16 4QQ)

(A) subject to detailed grounds of refusal being agreed in accordance with (B) below, REFUSE permission on grounds relating to the following -  

(i) The application had failed to overcome all of the issues raised by the Inspector, as set out in her decision letter in paragraph 19 (on agenda page 76) in relation to a previous application for an HMO for up to 8 persons) which stated -

“I therefore find that the proposal would not provide adequate internal amenity space and as such is contrary to criterion (b) (vi) of Core Planning Strategy Policy CS.14.  The proposal fails to fully comply with the guidance set out in the Appendix A to the Housing SPG adopted in November 2012 and therefore conflicts with the requirement of Core strategy Policy CS14 (d) that all residential development complies with the most appropriate space standards.”

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration  be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the proposed grounds/policies.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for permission: The Committee disagreed with the views in the officer report on the application of Policy CS.14 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014) to this case.