Agenda item

Change of use of first floor from office (B1) to House in Multiple Occupation (C4) (Retrospective).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding a retrospective application for the change of use of first floor from office (B1) to House in Multiple Occupation (C4) at 33 Cockton Hill Road, Bishop Auckland (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Harkness, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, photographs of the front and side of the building, a wider street scene view and existing and proposed floor plans.

Councillor Lethbridge, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  He informed the Committee that Mr Drennan, a local resident who objected to the application was unable to attend the meeting and had sent his apologies.

Councillor Lethbridge referred to a nearby development where a property was used for the rehabilitation of young people which had resulted in high levels of anti-social behaviour and which had brought a healthy and inclusive community near to the point of destruction.  Councillor Lethbridge informed the Committee that there were parallels between that development and this application.

Councillor Nicholson reminded Councillor Lethbridge that he should refer only to this application and not to other historic nearby applications.

Councillor Lethbridge referred to Policy H18 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan which stated that conversion of premises to flats would be approved if it would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining residents and informed the Committee that adjoining residents had suffered 10 months of purgatory since this property had been converted into an HMO.  He had been told there had been a suicide in the building as well as drugs dealing.

Paragraph 24 of the report stated that the use of the building had raised no policing issues and no objections were made and Councillor Lethbridge informed the Committee that his was contrary to what he had been informed.  This development would have an adverse impact on the community of Cockton Hill and there was a need to protect individuals and families.

Councillor Lethbridge referred to Paragraph 51 of the report which explained that Paragraph 58 of the NPPF stated that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments created safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, did not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion, and he considered the application to be contrary to this.

Councillor Lethbridge asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr P Hardy of Cornerstone Supported Housing addressed the Committee in support of the application.  While he understood the concerns of the local community, he informed the Committee that Cornerstone Supported Housing was a charity which worked with the homeless, not necessarily those released from prison.

The charity had a good record of supporting those in their properties to gain employment, and of the three people currently in this property, two had gained employment and one had enrolled as a music student.

When the charity started using the property local neighbours had been contacted but no feedback had been received.  The charity visited the property on a daily basis Monday to Friday and was unaware of any problems other than the reported suicide.

If problems were brought to its attention, Cornerstone Supported Housing operated a ‘3-strike’ rule.  There were structure and support plans in place for residents and there was also internal CCTV to monitor activity.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the police had been consulted on the application who had confirmed that there were no issues with the property other than the reported suicide.  There had been no police raids at the property.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that applications such as this always came with negative perceptions.  However, he considered that Cornerstone Supported Housing had demonstrated it exercised good monitoring and control of the property.  This type of project helped to reduce crime and had been working for 10 months with no evidence of any negative impact in the area.  Councillor Dixon moved approval of the application.

Councillor Davidson seconded approval of the application.  There were no valid planning reasons for refusal and there were other means of redress for issues referred to such as drugs and noise.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that while the importance of this initiative could not be denied, the potential for problems living next to the property should not be underestimate and there was a difference between recorded crime and non-recorded issues.  The issue of monitoring by Cornerstone Supported Housing was crucial and local residents needed to be made aware of how to report problems.  However, Councillor Clare agreed with Councillor Dixon that the application should be approved.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.