Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) including formation of new parking area to front, bin storage and associated alterations.

The Planning Officer, David Richards gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) including formation of new parking area to front, bin storage and associated alterations and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as detailed within the report.  The Planning Officer noted some updates in terms of conditions, with Condition 8 no longer requiring ‘prior to commencement’ and details of soundproofing had now been provided, with amended wording displayed upon the projector screen.  He noted Condition 7 was a duplicate of Condition 3 and would be deleted.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Councillor L Mavin, Local Member, to speak on the application.  Councillor L Mavin noted her previous statement in relation to 37 Moor Crescent was also applicable to this application and would not reiterate for the sake of brevity.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Mavin and asked Parish Councillor P Conway to speak in respect of the application.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted he too would not reiterate the points from the previous application, however, he would make a few comments.  He noted that firstly, the issue of local circumstances were material considerations for the Committee.  He added that the Article 4 direction referred to a 100 metre radius, however, in this case the area was a cul-de-sac, not a throughfare.  He added that the Article 4 Direction was welcomed 10 years ago, however, there had been substantial creep in terms of HMOs and the situation now was that other Class N exempt properties were not being taken into account, with other types of HMOs.  He noted that a nearby purpose build student accommodation (PBSA) at Ernest Place had places available and the nearby former cinema generate no demand and was for sale.  He noted that local families were being priced out of purchasing properties in the area. 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that terms used by the Officers such as ‘broadly’ and ‘on balance’ were judgements and explained that the Parish Council contested those judgement and felt the application should be refused on CDP Policies 6, 19, 21 and 31 and the NPPF.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked G Swarbrick to speak in support of the application.

G Swarbrick noted the points to consider were similar to those raised in respect of the previous application.  He noted that should this application also be approved, it would result in a percentage of HMOs of 8 percent, still below the 10 percent threshold.  In terms of demonstrating need, he noted that Policy 16 did not require a demonstration of need, however, his client noted a need in terms of students enquiring as regards properties in the area.  He added that while taking on board the points raised as regards PBSAs, their still remained a demand for such properties by students.

The Chair noted the conditions relating to working hours and parking surface that had been amended in terms of the previous application.  Councillor L Brown noted she agreed with those as agreed for the previous application.  She added that she was surprised that Policy 44 had been referred to noting she was not aware the application was within a Conservation Area and was also surprised Policy 6 had note been mentioned.  She noted the issue raised by Parish Councillor P Conway in terms of the price premium for such properties due to their demand as student HMO lets.  She noted that the CDP would be reviewed in 2024 and she noted she had made several representations in term of supplemental planning documents (SPDs) and reiterated that other policies were available to the Committee.

Councillor R Manchester noted his comments on this application were similar to those of Councillor A Bell in terms of the previous application.  He added, however, that he would echo the comments of Councillor J Elmer and while the application did not go against policy, he felt it was not in the spirit.  He moved approval of the application, subject to the amended and deleted condition referred to by the Officer and amended conditions as referred to by the Chair and Councillor L Brown.  Councillor K Robson seconded the motion for approval.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED as per the conditions set out within the report, subject to deletion of a duplicate condition, amended conditions as referred to in terms of soundproofing, construction times and permeable parking surface.