Minutes:
The following deputations were made, which are summarised:
i) Ms H Taylor objected on behalf of local residents in the St. Thomas area, whose points included:
· The attractive Victorian property should continue to be a family house and students were not giving balance to the community
· There was intent to use the C4 use and be basement may also be developed under permitted development rights
· Protection of the community was hoped for and it was unfortunate that the report on the result of review of the HMO SPD policy had been delayed
ii) Mr M Willoughby's points of objection included:
· He did not believe that the 10% threshold rules had been applied properly with not all of the HMOs within the radius being counted; in February residents had highlighted 8 properties for further investigation but were told that some had been removed from the database or had expiring licences
iii) Mr May-Clingo spoke as the applicant, in support of his application, whose points included:
· He had looked at properties in the vicinity and was aware that some of the registered HMOs were kept in better condition by the landlords than the privately occupied properties.
· Low cost rented accommodation did not always require more parking
· It was hard to sell this large property as a single residence, and this part of the road had many flats accessible for those on lower wages, not just for students.
Members' Questions
In response to the questions raised on the counting of HMOs in the vicinity attention was drawn to the table showing the checks on database and licences and that there was a difference between HMOs in planning and private sector housing terms. The leaving of a 7th bedroom empty/as a study was queried and whether it would be large enough for double occupancy (which was confirmed). The Assistant Director of Culture & City Development stressed that this was not a sui generis but a C4 use being applied for within this application and it should be considered on this basis. With regard to the review of the SPD on HMOs she reported that a report was due to go to the next Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development portfolio meeting in the new municipal year, to seek a 6 week consultation before a further report was brought back for adoption/amendment of the policy.
Bruce Lomax, as Private Sector Housing Manager, explained the Housing Act S257 criteria for a HMO properties for which self-contained flats had less than two-thirds owner-occupiers, and he further explained the licensing programme brought in by PCC in 2013 for which the council only licence those properties in which all the units are being let out by the landlord. Some of the properties identified by the residents had historic use as HMOs and could be served an Article 4 Direction to become lawful. The planning officers would check the evidence available to them.
Members' Comments
Members hoped that the revised SPD dealing with HMOs would clearly explain the differences between planning and private sector legislative regimes and definitions of HMOs. It was requested that those neighbourhood groups who had made representations on these issues were consulted on the document.
In considering this application the balance between changing the nature of a community (whilst awaiting the updated SPD) and providing more affordable accommodation was discussed. Members were also aware of the Planning Inspectorate's views on HMOs. They had to judge the application as before them based on current policy and it was reported that the application had been submitted in January so the applicant would be able to appeal on the grounds of non-determination if a decision was deferred.
RESOLVED that conditional planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the City Development Manager's report.