Wisbech house share plans blocked as it would ‘not provide adequate living conditions’

A house in Wisbech has been blocked from becoming an eight-person house share after a planning inspector said it would “not provide adequate living conditions”.

The inspector highlighted the small size of some of the bedrooms and said there was not enough communal space to make up for that.

The plans to convert the four-bedroom property in Queens Road into a house of multiple occupancy was submitted by Barrett Properties.

The plans proposed to have two bedrooms on the ground floor, four bedrooms on the first floor and to subdivide the bedroom on the second floor to make two bedrooms.

A kitchen with a communal seating area and breakfast bar, as well as a utility room, were also provided on the ground floor.

The house was described as having a “sizable private garden” out the back.

The plans were rejected by Fenland District Council in March this year, with the authority raising concerns about there not being enough on-site car parking and the potential impact on highway safety.

The district council also argued the development would “fail to make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character” of the area, and said the “limited amenity space” proposed would “adversely impact the residential amenity for future occupiers”.

The developer submitted an appeal to try and overturn the decision, but the planning inspector who assessed the plans dismissed this and upheld the refusal.

The inspector said some of the bedrooms would be “small” and would offer “little space to be used by their occupiers for relaxing away from other occupants”.

They said bedroom seven would “feel particularly cramped” due to the narrow layout and the ceiling height along one side reducing to 1.5metres, which they said would restrict head height and “inhibit its use”.

The inspector said: “Many of the occupiers would rely on the communal facilities on the ground floor.

“These facilities are contained within a narrower part of the house and have limited space for multiple users at the same time.

“In particular, the communal seating area would be located within a busy kitchen environment and would not be conducive to relaxation due to noise and cooking smells.

“The space available may further be reduced should additional white goods be required to serve the occupants.

“Whilst a breakfast bar would also be provided, this would not provide a good quality living environment since its users would look towards a wall in an even narrower section of the building which would also be used as a walkway between the kitchen and utility room.”

While the inspector accepted the back garden offered alternative communal space, they said its use would be restricted by the weather.

They concluded that the proposed HMO would “not provide adequate living conditions”.

The planning inspector also said the development would have an “unacceptable effect on the living conditions” of neighbours, particularly due to noise and disturbance from more people coming and going from the house.

However, the planning inspector said they did not agree with all of the district council’s reasons for refusal.

The inspector said they did not think the HMO would harm the character and appearance of the area.

They also said they did not believe the HMO would have a harmful effect on the demand for on-street parking, or impact highway safety.

While they said the district council had argued eight spaces should be provided, the inspector highlighted the authority had no policy setting out parking standards for HMOs.

Despite dismissing the appeal and refusing to grant planning permission, the planning inspector still ordered the district council to pay the developer’s appeal costs.

The inspector said there had been “unreasonable behaviour” by the district council.

The inspector highlighted that no objection had been raised by the highways authority, and that the district council had “failed to substantiate how the appeal proposal would result in any highway safety issues”.

The planning inspector also raised concerns that not enough detail was provided with regards to the other two objections and said the decision was “vague and generalised”.

The inspector said while they had dismissed the appeal based on one of the reasons for refusal given by the district council, they said this did “not excuse the council from the need to clearly substantiate its decision”.