Agenda item

MJC introduced this retrospective application for an HMO for seven people, explaining that planning permission is needed for conversion of a house to an HMO for more than six people – conversion for up to six people comes under permitted development.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Walklett amid concerns in St Paul’s about the proliferation of HMOs.  The recommendation is to grant planning permission.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

JF:  received an email from St Paul’s residents this morning, concerned about the proliferation of HMOs in their area.  This is a real concern, and the council needs a meeting to discuss the way forward.  Asks that this be taken on for further discussion between officers and all councillors. 

PB:  supports the application but agrees with JF.  Was previously a councillor for St Paul’s, and can see that the ward has now changed beyond all measure.  CBC needs to look at what it can do to prevent the gradual degradation of the area.  Other college towns have the same problem, as do other parts of Cheltenham.

PT:  agrees with what has been said so far, and faces similar issues in St Peter’s, with some streets practically at war over car parking.  Is there any legislation in planning to say only a certain number of HMOs can be created in an area, and further applications have to be turned down?

HM:  has similar concerns about the number of HMOs in the town, but is also worried about the adequacy of accommodation for the people living in them.  There are A4 directives CBC can adopt, and suggests the Planning and Liaison Member Working Group looks at this when looking at the Local Plan.

MS:  supports the application, and agrees that the time to discuss this issue is when developing the Local Plan – there is a problem in St Paul’s, St Peter’s and elsewhere.  New policies will help the Planning Committee in their decision-making.

BF:  is concerned about the number of people living in a single dwelling in the event of emergencies.  With the loft converted to a bedroom, it could be hard to get everyone out in the event of a fire.  Realises this is a retrospective application, but what about fire regulations?  How many people can live safely in an area this size?

SW:  has the same concerns as other speakers, but is also taking a different angle.  Students need somewhere to live.  Having seen the property, wonders how it can accommodate seven people; we need to look at the quality of HMOs for everyone, including students.  Supports BF’s concerns about fire regulations, his own son having had a lucky escape from a fire in a student house, and would like to be sure that this will be followed through.

KS:  it is disappointing when everyone is so concerned about this application that there is no way to consider turning it down.  There are two main issues here:  is the application suitable and the number of people to be living in this house appropriate?  And the effect of the ever-increasing number of HMOs on the area.  Grew up in St Paul’s in the 1970s and ‘80s, at a time when everyone owned their property; it was a good area for the less well-off, and for people starting out on the property ladder.  Now that 50% of the houses are HMOs, young families don’t want to live there, and this is having an impact on the cohesion of the area.  Cannot support this application.  Students need somewhere to live but this proposal is not good for the area, including potential parking issues.  The council needs to be more proactive and to form policies to control this.  The new student accommodation at Pittville will help, but converting these two-bedroomed houses into accommodation for seven people is not good – students deserve better.  Wishes we could turn the application down.

AL:  is surprised at the number and size of the rooms.  Is there no minimum room size to apply here?  These rooms should comply with the minimum standard.

[Councillor McKinlay arrived at the meeting at this point.]

MJC, in response:

-       took the first point of concern – the number of HMOs in the area – away after Planning View, and has been informed that this issue has already been raised in a paper to Planning and Liaison Member Working Group.  It is an ongoing issue, with Councillors Walklett and Jeffries, and discussions will continue to take place;

-       Planning Committee cannot fix the issue through one application, which must be determined on its own merits, and in this case, the application is only at Planning Committee because it includes one additional tenant over the six that are allowed without planning permission under permitted development.  Members must ask themselves what harm one additional tenant will cause;

-       agrees that there is a bigger issue here and a more comprehensive view needs to be taken, but for the purpose of this particular application, officers do not feel there are any valid grounds to refuse;

-       to BF, HMOs need to be licensed before they can be let out; in this case, a license already exists for this property, and it is therefore compliant with regulations;

-       to AL, regarding the minimum standards for room size etc, there aren’t any at the moment.  The government recently introduced guidelines, and these will be part of the new Cheltenham Plan for future applications to be used in cases such as this, but not at present.

PB:  for clarification, what stage are we at with the review of HMOs?  A paper was presented to Planning and Liaison Member Working Group in December, but nothing else appears to have happened and it’s now March. A note for Planning Committee about where it is and where it is going would be useful.

MJC, in response:

-       the notes of the Planning and Liaison Member Working Group can be circulated.  Members need to speak between themselves to get momentum on this issue.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

2 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT