Change of use to HMO and installation of fire alarm Grade A LD2, all bedrooms and kitchen doors to be replaced with fire doors, all walls repainted, carpets refitted, additional shower room and toilet, one internal stud wall added. (Retrospective).

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Change of use to HMO and installation of fire alarm grade A LD2, all bedrooms and kitchen doors to be replaced with fire doors, all walls repainted, carpets refitted, additional shower room and toilet, one internal stud wall added. (retrospective).)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Kerry , of Hereford City Council spoke in opposition to the application.  Mr R Hizzey, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Stuligolwa, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor AJW Powers, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        Properly licensed and managed houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) did need to form part of the county’s housing tenure and mix.  However HMOs needed to be in the right place and to be of an appropriate scale.  It was to be noted that the Council did not have a specific policy on HMOs.

·        It was regrettable that the application was retrospective.

·        The WC opened directly into the kitchen.

·        Paragraph 1.1 of the report described the area as suburban; it was in fact in a densely urban part of the city

·        It was generous to describe the area in front of the property as a foregarden.

·        The nearest car park was at Greyfriars 10 minutes walk and 700 metres away.  The report acknowledged at paragraph 6.6 that the advice of the landlord to tenants that no parking was available at the premises could not be conditioned and enforced as part of the planning permission.

·        Contrary to paragraph 4.2 of the report, paragraph 6.6 of the report stated that a bicycle store had been provided. The area to the front of the house was too small to accommodate waste bins and a cycle store.  If the store was to the rear of the property bikes would have to be taken through the kitchen.

·        It was questioned why the Environmental Health Officer had only been asked to comment on noise issues given that a number of other health issues appeared to warrant consideration.

·        There were three main issues:  amenity of neighbours, car parking and overintensification.

·        In terms of amenity Nos 59 and 63 shared drainage and it was apparent that the sewer could not cope.

·        The landlord’s statement that there was no parking for residents and their visitors could not be enforced.  Parking in the area was inadequate.  The nearest car park was often full.

·        The application was overintensification.  There was no communal space apart from the kitchen/diner.  With 6 tenants there had been a separate dining room and a sitting room.  The provision of one WC was below the required standard.

·        One of  the Core Strategy strategic objectives set out at Figure 3.1 of the Strategy was to meet the housing needs of all sections of the community (especially those in need of affordable housing), by providing a range of quality, energy efficient homes in the right place at the right time.  The application did not fulfil that objective.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        A motion that consideration of the application be deferred for a site visit was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote.

·        In response to concerns expressed by Members, the Development Manager commented that whilst retrospective applications were unwelcome this was not a material factor.  The Committee had to consider the application as it was presented: an application to increase the occupancy from 6 residents to 10 residents and the impact that had.

·        The consensus was that the property was not suitable to accommodate ten residents, noting the pressure on parking, waste management problems and other issues.  A number of grounds for refusal of the application were advanced.

The Development Manager commented that the property had now been granted a license under HMO legislation for ten residents.  The applicant could have accommodated 6 residents without planning permission.  The consideration in planning terms was therefore whether increasing the number of residents from 6 to 10 would have a severe impact on matters such as the residential amenity and character of the area and car parking.

The Chairman agreed to request that a briefing note be provided for members of the Committee and all other councillors on the legal framework governing HMOs.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He suggested that there was a need for the Council to develop specific policies for HMOs, such as the supplementary policy adopted by Worcester City Council.  This issue could become more pressing for the authority with the proposed University development, for example, potentially placing additional strain on the rented sector.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication, based on the Committee’s view that the following should be the reasons for refusal:  the adverse impact on the residential amenity, character of the area and car parking.