Agenda item

Councillor David Fuller left the meeting for this item and Councillor Judith Smyth took over as Chair.

The Planning Officer presented the report and added that in Supplementary Matters Report that had been circulated to the committee:

10 further representations had been received since publication of the report objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

a) short notice given to residents to make comments;

b) no facilities in the area to accommodate the needs of the residents;

c) off-licence very close to the site which would not help residents;

d) inappropriate location with many elderly residents and families;

e) increased pressure on local health services;

f) increased parking problems due to lack of visitor parking;

g) concern that some local residents still have not been consulted properly about the proposals; decision seems to be being rushed through;

h) problems in the area have already increased since temporary use of the building;

i) flats do not meet required size standards;

One additional representation received in support of the proposal, making the following points:

a) the change of use will not be significant;

b) the use is likely to generate less traffic as the residents are unlikely to own cars;

c) the area has good accessibility to the city centre by public transport and cycling;

d) provision of move-on accommodation for the homeless is essential;

e) Drayton would benefit from a more diverse population.

Officers considered that the matters raised in the further representations had been addressed within the committee report. 

Further written deputations were read out as part of the officer presentation from:

Against

Marcus Kaye with additional comments from his daughter Susannah Williams

Julie Salmond

Darren Brewer

J M Parry

Spencer-Gardner

Dawn Young

Supporting.

Applicant

Deputations were given by Councillor Steve Wemyss and Councillor Terry Norton.  Both were against the application.

Councillor Darren Sanders gave a deputation in support of the application.

Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link https://livestream.com/accounts/14063785/planning-12aug2020

Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, officers explained that:

·         The planning committee has no control over codes of conduct or eviction policies for occupiers or tenants.

·         This application has been assessed as a specific type of accommodation: move-on.  Planning Officers have used The Homeless Foundation's definition of move-on accommodation as set out in paragraph 5.4 of the report. 

·         The officers' view is that although room sizes are significantly below the nationally set minimum room size standards, this is acceptable in this instance.

·         The application is for self-contained units and therefore fall within Class 3 use category as the property is not for one family nor is it a HMO. 

·         The recommended condition stipulates that tenants' can reside there for a maximum of two years.  This adequately mitigates the use of the land.

·         PCS19 states that all new developments should meet the size standards.

·         There is a need to consider whether the need to house rough sleepers outweighs the need to meet the minimum standards.

·         This is the first time that a planning application for this type of accommodation has been presented to Portsmouth City Council's planning committee.  Similar conditions have been imposed on planning permission in other local authority areas.

Members' Comments

Members expressed concern regarding:

·         The size of the property and the possible implications of not adhering to the nationally recognised minimum size standards. 

·         The lack of a nationally accepted definition of move-on accommodation.

·         Access to public transport is not ideal nor cheap.  Most people in the area have cars.

·         The lack of shared communal space which would be useful to enable conflicts to be resolved.

·         Tenants who are not working or employed would spend a lot of time in their small units to the detriment of their mental health.

·         Granting planning permission for units that fall significantly below the minimum size standards could set a precedent and lead developers to design micro-flats and claim exceptional standards.

However, members recognised the need for new housing in the city and noted that the Society of St James had explained that the tenants would be better off with smaller rooms and that the expectation is that most of the time they would be at college or work.

RESOLVED

Permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and delegated authority granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth.