Agenda item

Change of use from hostel (Sui Generis) to purposes falling within class C3 (Dwelling House) or class C4 (House in Multiple Occupation).

(TAKE IN REPORT BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER)

The City Development Manager reported in the supplementary matters list that the 1977 permission for the use of the property as a hostel was subject to two planning conditions, one restricting the number of occupiers to 11 persons and the second relating to the level of sound emissions measured from the neighbouring property.

The level of occupation and the associated noise and disturbance which could result from the existing lawful use is considered to be similar if not greater than those which typically result from the proposed uses of the property as either a dwellinghouse or a Class C4 HMO. It is considered that the imposition of a planning condition similar to that on the 1977 permission would not accord with the tests set out in the NPPF as it would not be relevant to planning and difficult to enforce.

The following deputations were heard:
Mr Ballard of Pelham Road, objecting to the proposal, whose points included:

·         The HMO percentage is just above the 10% level for the SPD. 

·         The hostel formerly housed a number of adults with learning difficulties who had jobs in the local community and had constant social support which was well managed.

·         In the 1976 planning permission approval noise levels were specified

·         Victorian properties with thin walls meaning noise is a concern and if approved would request that soundproofing be added.

·         Quiet residential street and a change to a HMO would increase disturbance.

Mr Shute, Applicant whose points included:

·         Spoken to local estate agents who indicate there is no need for a hostel in this location. There is a need for a HMO, either student or private. 

·         Still considering options on whether to convert to a private dwelling house or a HMO but requires planning consent to proceed.

·         Concerned that the neighbouring properties have objected.

·         With regard to soundproofing this would need to be on the southern wall but due to the staircases this would be difficult and do not have the scope to rearrange the fabric of the building.

·         The current use allows for up to 11 residents which is high, changing the use would reduce this to a maximum of 6 and would reduce the number of transient residents.

·         Changing to a HMO from the existing use would also give more control and there would be longer term lets and it was hoped because of this tenants would have more pride in their home.

·         The hostel was run by First Wessex Housing Association who were already based on assured short hold tenancies so therefore a move toward a HMO.

·         Prepared to settle any contribution towards mitigation measures in connection with the Solent Special SPD.

Councillor Andrewes made a deputation as ward councillor.  His points included:

·         Walls to the neighbouring properties are very thin would like applicant to consider amenity of neighbours.

·         If approve application use nothing to stop the owner selling the property and it becoming a student HMO in the future.

Members' Questions
In response to a question regarding whether the committee could permit class C3 use and reject C4 use, the City Development Manager advised that it was not possible to do this. A question was raised with regard to Mr Shute's comment that the hostel before it closed was effectively operating as a HMO.  The City Development Manager advised that the evidence was that it was operating as a hostel, however Mr Shute had suggested that the hostel had operated with shared rents.

Members' Comments

Member's commented that the hostel had never operated as a HMO.  If it changed use to include C4 use it would take the percentage over the 10% limit which is contrary to policy.  It was felt that it would be more appropriate for the property to be converted into a dwelling house.


RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

The proposal would fail to support a mixed and balanced community in an area imbalanced by the level of similar such resources.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to PCS23.

Post meeting note: Although the Planning Committee resolved to refuse permission, before a decision on the application was issued it had been WITHDRAWN by the applicant.