A proposal for supported living accommodation at a Sparkhill property has been rejected following concerns over parking and claims the “cramped” property has been operating as an “unauthorised HMO”. The outbuilding at the back of the nine-bedroomed house on College Road in Sparkhill was converted without proper consent, planning documents state.
The outbuilding, which has two ‘meeting rooms and a lounge’ was constructed in the back garden and was first refused permission in Jan, 2022. The main semi-detached property consists of four self-contained letting rooms on the ground floor each with a WC and kitchen and a shared communal lounge.
There are three further rooms on the first floor with a toilet and a shared lounge. And two letting rooms on the second floor with a communal lounge and shower room.
Read More: The tranquil park in the heart of Birmingham which is lacking one thing say locals
The applicant had applied for ‘retrospective change of use to supported living accommodation and part-retention of existing rear outbuilding with amendments to height and scale’ but in March, the council rejected their latest plea for retrospective planning permission following complaints. The outbuilding is subject to enforcement proceedings.
Residents and Councillor Nicky Brennan claims the property has been operating as an ‘unauthorised HMO for almost a year and caused anti-social behaviour, litter, vermin and noise in reports’. Some of the 14 concerns cited an oversaturation of HMOs within a 100m radius and a ‘loss of privacy as service users and staff were constantly using the shared alleyway’.
Inspectors said the rooms are “unacceptable”, “confined and cramped”. They said in a report: “Although the main communal lounge(26.4 sqm) is provided at ground floor, this would not overcome the fact that the existing flats would provide insufficient space for future residents to comfortably live within, store their possessions and furniture and do not allow for any circulation space for residents to move through these rooms.”
It added: “Consequently, the development provides a very poor, cramped and over-intensive internal living environment for existing occupiers by virtue of insufficient internal space which falls significantly short of adopted spacing standards, poor internal communal space and poor internal light provision, very restricted outlook and overlooking which is unduly harmful to the amenity levels of existing occupiers.”
Planners also agreed with residents concern regarding noise, stating: “because of the increased comings and goings of visitors and occupiers to and from the property.”
The officer’s report concluded: “In addition, the change of use to non-family accommodation has an adverse impact on the residential character of this area due to the existing concentration of non-family dwelling houses. Furthermore, the development provides a cramped, over-intensive and very poor internal living environment for existing occupiers with inadequate external amenity space and due to its intensive form, would adversely affect the amenities of occupiers of dwellings in the vicinity by reason of noise and general disturbance.
“Finally, the scheme has an adverse impact on highway safety and the outbuilding has an overbearing presence and a detrimental visual impact on the existing dwelling house and surrounding area.”
A statement by Claremont Planning Consultancy who has been instructed by the applicant said although the applicant acknowledged that the outbuilding was supposed to be removed by Feb, 2023, he hoped the amended proposals addressed concerns with respect to the intensity of use and accommodation ‘quality’.
It said: “Amended proposals are also presented which seek to reduce the scale of the established rear outbuilding on site to a scale and height which could, in principle, be delivered through householder permitted development rights. Whilst the property does not benefit from these permitted development rights due to the change of use, it is considered an appropriate way to assess an acceptable scale when considering the residential context of the application site and associated impacts of the development for which planning permission is sought.”