More bathroom facilities included in renewed bid for an HMO at Leverington Road Wisbech
A renewed bid to turn a five bedroom property in Leverington Road, Wisbech into a nine-bedroom house of multiple occupation (HMO) has been made following a failed appeal.
Alan Samuels’ application for the conversion of 17 Leverington Road into an HMO was refused in April by Fenland District Council who raised concerns about living conditions for the occupants.
It was felt the fact the house could accommodate up to 16 people and therefore the two bathrooms and one kitchen were insufficient to provide adequate standard of living conditions. They were also concerned about the level of parking available and the impact it would have on the character of the area.
Mr Samuels appealed the decision and planning inspector Hayden Baugh-Jones upheld Fenland’s decision to refuse. However, he dismissed both the parkig concerns and also the worry over the kitchen provision.
His only grounds for upholding the refusal was the number of bathrooms, which he agreed were insufficient and could lead to “substantial waiting times” as the baths, showers and toilets were all in the same two rooms.
His decision was published on September 4. Now less than a fortnight later Mr Samuels has resubmitted a new application addressing the bathroom issue.
The new proposals include en-suites to five of the bedrooms leaving the occupants of four bedrooms to share two communal bathrooms - one on the groundfloor and one on the first floor.
A design and access statement prepared by Peter Humphrey Associates suggests the inspector’s key comments about parking and the kitchen issues should be carefully considered when the application is looked at.
It also points out “that prior to the submission of the original planning application, pre-application discussions with FDC’s housing officer confirmed that she was happy with the proposed room sizes and facilities provision for use as a nine bedroom HMO for up to 16 occupants. We have now gone beyond this requirement with additional wet room facilities to satisfy the appeal inspector’s comments.”