Minutes:
The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that the applicant has submitted the following comments in support of their application:
'There are only 2 HMOs registered in Allens road number 1 and 16. The house in question is not a student property neither is it for DSS or LHA, it is for working professionals who hold positions at various companies that contribute immensely to Portsmouth's economy. A house of young professionals is not detrimental to street. Comments regarding "students party all night" are incorrect and misinformed. Regarding the parking issue we ensured that the housemates did not all drive and will continue that policy.'
A further submission from the applicant in support of their application was attached as an appendix to the Supplementary Matters List which set out their proposed management arrangements for the property.
Further representations have also been received from the occupiers of a number of properties in Allens Road suggesting the wording of the SPD should be amended. This matter is being looked at by Councillors and Officers as a separate issue to the planning application.
This item had been deferred from the committee meeting held on 6 August to allow further identification of any HMO properties.
A deputation was made by Mr Edwards of Allens Road, objecting to the proposal, whose points included:
· He was grateful to the committee for their previous deferral so that other HMOs could be investigated, and whilst these had not been discovered within the 50m radius approval would mean 6 HMOs in Allens Road, which was near the higher concentration of HMO properties in Waverley Road
· This would be against the council's own policy to retain "mixed and balanced communities" as there would be an imbalance within this short road towards HMOs and it would drive families out of the area.
· He asked that in future smaller roads such as this could have a separate criteria to retain the community spirit.
Councillor Matthew Winnington appeared as a ward councillor objecting to the proposal whose points included:
· He felt the current HMO policy was in need of review as had been previously suggested via the Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development (PRED) portfolio, as the 50m radius did not work for roads like this.
· He referred to the recent Planning Inspector's decision for 34 Playfair Road where PCC's HMO policy had been disregarded in connection with an appeal.
· The committee should look at the whole area and turn down this application as it is inappropriate for the area, and if the application was agreed he suggested that further applications on HMOs should not be decided on until there was a full review of the policy.
Councillor Luke Stubbs, Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development's points included:
· The review of the HMO policy had not been undertaken by the previous Administration and he was already being lobbied by landlords who wanted more HMOs in larger roads.
· There was a need for clear rules so that these were not ambiguous when considered by Planning Inspectors - it would be hard to explain why some roads were treated differently, therefore a change in policy would not be straightforward.
· There should be reference to requiring details of the location of bin stores (as for the cycle stores) which should be covered stores.
In response to the policy issues raised the City Development Manager advised members to consider the application before them; a review and revision of policy would be for the PRED portfolio to decide upon separately, and it was not for the committee to disregard the current policy and SPD as these are material considerations. The Inspector's decision which had been referred to in respect of Playfair Road, would be reported back to committee.
Members' Questions
It was asked if a condition could be placed on a permission to require compliance with fire regulations to ensure safely in this 3 storey property being used as a HMO; in response the City Development Manager reported that where there is separate legislation (covering Building Regulations and the licensing of HMOs) a condition cannot be attached, however these would be dealt with by other PCC departments who would be asked to look at this. It was also asked if the SPD had to be adhered to; the members were advised by the City Development Manager to give significant weight to their adopted policy. The Planning Solicitor further commented that if the SPD setting out the 50m radius for measuring HMO properties was not given sufficient weight this would undermine the Council's case in an appeal by a developer as it would show inconsistency.
Members' Comments
Members were sympathetic to the objectors in Allens Road but were mindful of the need to consider and give appropriate weight to the existing policy (SPD). They would wish to add a condition requiring details of the covered bin stores and add an informative to request that the building complies with fire regulations. It was suggested that the Chair write to the Cabinet Member for PRED, Cllr Stubbs, to request a review of the policy measuring the density of HMOs via the 50m radius.
The Senior Solicitor (Planning) clarified the different responsibilities of the Planning Committee as the regulatory body which determined planning applications and that of the Cabinet Member for PRED whose functions included consideration of planning policy. Councillor Stubbs confirmed he would be happy to receive a letter from the Chair of the Planning Committee and Councillor Gray confirmed that he would write on behalf of the Planning Committee to request a review of the SPD.
RESOLVED that conditional planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions outlined within the City Development Manager's report, with the additional condition requesting details of the bin stores to be submitted, and with the informative requested by the committee relating to fire safety.
(The order of business was varied and Councillor Fuller left the meeting at 6.07pm so he was not present for the consideration of planning applications 5, 4 or 3 which were taken in that order.)