Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above.  It is a retrospective application and has been used as an eight-bed HMO for seven years.  This application was not called to Committee, but in light of the application at No. 2 Courtenay Street being so (now deferred), officers felt the two should be considered together.  The recommendation is to grant permission.  Officers appreciate that there is a bigger concern about the number of HMOs in St Paul’s, but feel that the issues cannot be resolved by one application – there is a much wider piece of work to be done.  This application is to allow two extra people in one house.

Public Speaking:

Ms Tess Beck, local resident and representing St Paul’s Residents Association, in objection

It’s a shame that Cheltenham students are expected to live in more crowded conditions than students in neighbouring university cities, and that the space here described as adequate by the planning officer would not be considered adequate elsewhere.  Rooms have been subdivided, and there remains just one combined living room/kitchen as the only shared space.  If CBC introduces additional licensing in the future as has been discussed, this property would not be considered big enough for eight people; such overcrowding is not beneficial to the tenants.  More students means more noise disturbance, and with limited communal space indoors, students are more likely to socialise outside, often late at night, with noise travelling a long way and disturbing a lot of people.  The planning officer notes that there have been no complaints to Environmental Health about the noise from this building but as one of several properties on Courtenay Street and Marle Hill Parade which backs on to it, it isn’t always possible to identify where noise comes from.  Noise complaints about student houses are usually reported to the University rather than Environmental Health, as it is more responsive in dealing with complaints.

There are 19 student HMOs in Courtenay Street, this being the most densely occupied, with the others 5-6-way lets.  This makes up over 40% of the properties, creating a significant community imbalance, contrary to CBC’s corporate strategy for strong and healthy communities.   The conservation area character assessment acknowledges that although students bring vibrancy to an area, there is a fine line between the beneficial nature of student activity and the nuisance caused by the intense nature of the use.  By having eight rather than six students, this application has crossed that line. 

Residents are concerned that the property has been operating as a licensed HMO for seven years without planning permission, which suggests lack of communication between departments at the council.  It is  not only council officers who should take the blame for this; the applicant owns and manages several student lets in St Paul’s and elsewhere in Cheltenham, and should therefore be aware of the relevant planning regulations.

Mr Martin Cooley, applicant, in support

In 2007, acquired the property and carried out large-scale refurbishment to create good-quality accommodation, which has been let to eight students from September 2008.  Applied for a license in 2009, and  has since renewed it twice.  Student accommodation is regulated by the University, and inspected by their officers.  This is a well-managed house, popular with students, who often return for a second year.  Demand for student accommodation is high in Cheltenham and likely to increase.  Respectfully asked to be allowed to continue to let this house as it currently is.

Member debate:

PB:  thanked the speakers for good presentations for and against this application.  Was councillor for St Paul’s ward many years ago, when it was a lovely, well-maintained area of the town.  Now it is awful, with property prices badly affected, noise, rubbish everywhere, car parking issues and so on – this is a real shame.  Understands that the town needs student accommodation, but we also need to provide good areas for people to raise their families.  Clearly this particular horse has bolted and it is too late to change the situation here, but we have to introduce something to the Local Plan to improve the quality of student accommodation and protect areas of the town from this imbalance.  Is the speaker right that Cheltenham is providing poorer student accommodation than other neighbouring towns?  It’s high time that this issue was tackled properly for St Paul’s residents.  Something is needed in the Local Plan to prevent this area from being further downgraded.

MC:  was disappointed not to see inside the property on Planning View, as this  would have been useful.  Is very concerned about the objections, one of which lays out the square meterage of the rooms in this house and the suggestion that CBC is using different guidelines from universities in neighbouring cities.  Is it right that the standard doesn’t meet the University of Gloucestershire’s own landlord guide?  This is a real concern.  Is eight people living in 18.4 square metres compliant?  Notes that Gloucestershire Highways has stated that there will be no difference in impact between six and eight residents, but how many parking permits per dwelling are allowed in this area?  Eight students could mean eight cars. 

BF:  PB is right and we are between  a rock and a hard place here, with the University building additional student accommodation in Albert Road, Gloucester, and around the county to fulfill demand.  To answer MC’s question, two parking permits are provided for each house, to the owner of the property, so it is up to him whether or not to pass these on to the students or to charge for them.  The University tells students about the parking schemes in the area, that there is no room for more than two cars per house, and that they need to discuss this with their landlords.  This particular HMO has been operating with eight people for some time; it’s a shame Members couldn’t see inside, but not true to say that there were dustbins everywhere.  There can be problems with students at this density, and this is somethingthat the Cheltenham Plan can address.  Will be interested to hear officer comments about eight people living in a small terraced house.  St Paul’s has a lot of plusses still, and isn’t as bad as it’s painted.  Most students are a credit to the University and the area.

KH:  knows this area, and noted on Planning View that it didn’t appear swamped with rubbish, and the minibus was able to park.  Realises that the students were moving out that day, but regrets that Members weren’t able to see inside the house – it is very important to take this into consideration when making their decision.  Backs PB’s comments which were very pertinent.  It was good to hear from both speakers.  Regarding officer comments, notes at 6.2 the acknowledgement of the possibility of this application adding to the cumulative impact of noise – this is important not only to permanent residents but also to students themselves, who need peace and quiet to study.  They also need adequate space in their rooms for a desk etc.  Accepts that the property is already being used for eight  people, which we must bear in mind – so generally supports the officer recommendation to permit, but considers it important to recognise that the cumulative impact.

The objector compared Cheltenham’s student accommodation with other university towns.  Knows that Bath has introduced additional licensing, and that what is permitted in Cheltenham may not be permitted elsewherebut we have to judge this application on our own current guidelines.  MC mentioned the University of Gloucestershire’s landlord guide, and understood that a student HMO should have a sitting room with enough sofas and easy chairs for all the tenants.  Cannot see that this can be provided in this house, even though the applicant said that the house is well managed.  Additional space to socialise is important.

It is a fact that the street has a large number of HMOs, and in view of the cumulative impact of authorising these extra bedrooms, the application could be refused.  However, it is a retrospective application and has been used for some time.  It seems odd that it has been licensed by this authority – this needs to be looked at.

As a final point, it is important to make it clear to applicants that they should get planning permission before making any changes to a property.  Is not convinced that the rooms let out on the plan are of sufficient size for students to do what they need to.

HM:  we have seen a lot of HMO application recently, and similar concerns are expressed every time.  Is looking forward to the Cheltenham Plan finding a way forward for residents and for students.  Regarding the density and the facilities being offered in these houses, we need to look at the student guide in Gloucestershire and other neighbouring towns and universities.  This needs to be done in depth, and as officers are stretched, suggests a working group or scrutiny task group to make sure that a good, reliable and enforceable policy is included in the Local Plan.

MJC, in response:

-       this has been an interesting discussion.  Regrets that Members weren’t able to see inside the house, for the reason as stated that the tenants were moving out that day.  In view of this, has suggested to the applicant that if Members are minded to refuse the proposal, they should defer their final decision to allow them the opportunity to see inside the house first; the application could be brought back to Committee next month. This would be appropriate particularly in view of the fact that the applicant isn’t being awkward here – there were legitimate and logistical reasons why Members could not go inside the house on planning view;

-       regarding various Member comments about university standards and whether this HMO meets them or not, it should be remembered that these are university standards not CBC ones – a useful benchmark, but we cannot make planning judgements against them;  and under the current framework, we can’t assess on something that might happen in the future;

-       regarding parking permits, does not know the number allowed per household; BF has informed Members that it is two, but officers cannot endorse this;

-       regarding the wider issue of the number of HMOs in St Paul’s, this is a bigger discussion which needs to be had.  The problem cannot be fixed by this one application – that horse has bolted as PB has said, and the landlord has been operating this 8-bedroomed HMO for seven years;

-       HM is right – officers have started to look at the issue – Mark Nelson is doing some work on behalf of the Planning and Liaison Member Working Group, and his reports will ultimately feed into the Cheltenham Plan.  HMOs were discussed a few meetings back, and as a result of Members’ obvious concerns, Mark Nelson has started work on it;

-       reiterates the point, however, that this application is retrospective, has been in operation for seven years, and that is at the heart of the recommendation to permit;

-       if Members feel inclined to refuse, suggests they defer instead, and re-visit the house.

MC:  this is all useful information; will move to defer.

CN:    MJC didn’t address the issue about the difference between an HMO being licensed and having planning permission.  Which comes first?  Planning and licensing need to keep some sort of record to avoid this silly situation, which has happened before.  This could be addressed now rather than waiting for the issue of HMOs to be addressed in the Local Plan.

DS:  if the house is licensed by CBC, does that mean it passes all the tests regarding fire escapes etc?  Clarification of this would be helpful.

CH:  was going to make the same point.  Also, regarding parking permits, two are allowed per household, and it is the person who pays the council tax who can apply; any resident can buy visitor permits.  Would expect parking to be quite reasonable in this area during the day, but residents’ parking schemes don’t apply at night. 

It would be helpful if Licensing was to liaise with Planning when giving a license for an HMO to operate with eight tenants, as Members will be able to see the reasons given which will help in determining why another department felt it to be OK, and for similar applications in the future, for Licensing to see what Planning has done.  When a landlord applies for a license, prior planning permission should be required or the licensing team will pass the application on to Planning; if no application is put in, enforcement action should be taken.  We should take some learning from this, and engage in some tidying up of the way the two areas work.   In fairness to the applicant in this case, agrees that deferral is the best option tonight.

GB:  all these points will be taken away and dealt with outside the meeting.  Are Members happy to vote on MC’s move to defer?

SW:  is OK with voting on this, but not happy with the number of students being squeezed into these houses.  If the decision is deferred, Members go and look inside the house, are not happy with what they see but officers continue to say it is OK, there is not point in deferring the decision.  This HMO has a license but no planning permission; attended a meeting not long ago where a ‘one-stop-shop’ approach was discussed, through which applications would be shared between licensing and planning.

MJC, in response:

-       SW is quite right, and officers have been working hard on this for two years, with the aim of improving the lines of communication, and working with environmental health and licensing officers in other areas; this particular area of HMOs has not yet been dealt with.  Realises that the planning team is not yet fully engaged in the process; it is a Systems Thinking issue, part of the REST project, and has already improved, although there is still room for further improvement.  Planning officers will continue to work with the enforcement team;

-       to DS regarding the fire escape, is not actively involved in the licensing of HMOs so cannot say whether or not this house complies, but the applicant stated that the the property has a license and has been relicensed since 2008; these matters can be difficult as they fall in the perceived linked areas such as planning and building control;

-       officers will take away the points made by Members tonight and actively engage with the housing standards team.

-        

SW:  following on from his earlier question, are Members likely to find anything to object to if they look inside the house?

GB:  that is hard to answer and they cannot tell until they see it.

Vote on MC’s move to defer, pending visit to property

12 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION CARRIED – DEFER