Change of use from two flats (residential) to House in Multiple Occupation.

Ward: Aylestone

Change of use from two flats (residential) to House in Multiple Occupation [HMO]

The following updates were reported:

·             A plan has been received illustrating the capacity to create 7 parking spaces with a turning area.

·             A letter of objection had been received from Mr. Bolt and the main points were summarised.

·             E-mail correspondence had been received from Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, and the main points were summarised.  Councillor Wilcox felt that the application should be refused on the grounds that the change of use would be out-of-keeping and detrimental to the character of the area.

In response to the additional representations, the following officer comment was reported:

·             There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal will cause any increased impact on local amenity or any tangible impact on the character of the area.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Bolt spoke in objection to the application.  Mr. Goldsworthy had registered to speak in support of the application but was not present at the meeting.

In response to some of the points raised, the Principal Planning Officer commented that the site was in a sustainable location, close to transport links and other local amenities.  He also commented that it could be difficult to sustain a refusal reason based on the impact on the character of the area as there was no distinct land use due the variety of commercial and residential uses in the locality; it was noted that no internal or external alterations were required to achieve the conversion.  It was noted that the change of use could increase general activity at the property but, given the proximity of a busy main road and footpath links, officers did not consider that an HMO would have a significant impact on neighbouring properties.

Councillor DW Greenow, referring to Councillor Wilcox’s representation, did not feel that any area was suitable for HMOs and considered such accommodation to be outdated.  He proposed that the application be refused on the basis that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and represented a form of over-development.  Councillor WJ Walling supported this view and questioned whether approval might make it more difficult to resist similar proposals in the future.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that HMO accommodation might not be ideal but, nevertheless, there was demand and drew attention to the submission from Private Sector Housing that ‘There is a shortage of this type of HMO accommodation in Herefordshire.  The property is large and will lend itself to multiple occupancy…’.  He felt that there needed to be a broad range of housing types throughout the city and commented on the desperate shortage of affordable accommodation for low paid workers.  Given these considerations, and the close proximity of the site to the city centre, he felt that the application should be approved.

The Principal Planning Officer commented on the lack of high quality shared houses in the Hereford for professional people.  He also commented that in some instances up to six people could share a house without the need for planning permission, although an HMO licence would still be required.

Councillor SJ Robertson noted that there was also a shortage of two and three bedroom units and that an appropriate balance had to be achieved.  She also commented on problems with HMOs elsewhere in Hereford.

Councillor JD Woodward said that, from the experience of HMOs in Whitecross, it was clear that there were few resources available to effectively monitor and police HMOs.

Councillor Benjamin said that Strategic Housing Section was aware that some HMOs did not comply with the law and he noted the difficulties associated with enforcing maximum occupancy numbers.  He noted the demand for self-contained units and felt that shared accommodation represented a backward step.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that every application needed to be considered on its own merits and noted the need for some HMOs.  In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that: the layout plan received had demonstrated that the site had capacity for parking spaces and a turning area; and there was an area for refuse storage but a further condition could be imposed to ensure that this was sufficient.

A number of members commented on the merits and disadvantages of shared accommodation and the potential impact on the character of the area.  The Development Control Manager emphasised the need for the Sub-Committee to focus on the specific planning effects and noted that a number of concerns could be addressed through conditions; i.e. a requirement for a scheme of noise attenuation measures could mitigate the potential for noise disturbance to the adjoining property.

In response to a comment made by Councillor Benjamin, the Chairman made it clear that the name of the applicant/s was irrelevant to the discussion and that members should avoid matters that could not be considered by the Sub-Committee.

Councillor Greenow maintained that the proposal would have a detrimental impact, he also felt that fear of crime was an issue.

RESOLVED:

That  

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      The proposal would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the area contrary to Policies S2, H17 and HBA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 particularly by reason of increased noise and disturbance to adjoining and nearby residential properties arising from the intensification of the use beyond that which would be normal for a single family dwelling or a dwelling divided into a small number of self contained units.

2.      It has not been demonstrated that the development will not lead to an increase in the fear of crime and personal safety and as such the proposal is contrary to Policies S2, DR2 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.]