Agenda item

EP introduced the application as above, reminding Members that it was deferred from last month’s meeting; the applicant has now withdrawn the dormer window element of the application, which will now be dealt with separately.  The additional rooms are created by using the basement and sub-dividing a first floor bedroom.  A six-bedroom HMO does not require planning permission; it is the seventh bedroom that triggers this application.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Walklett, and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Norvill, applicant, in support

Purchased the property in March this year.  It has always been an HMO, previously let in an unlicensed, unfit and hazardous condition, with dangerous boiler, condemned electrics, and serious damp problems.  Intends to refurbish the property to a high standard, making it a safe and properly managed HMO.  Has an excellent relationship with the council’s housing standards officers, having dealt with them for over ten years; they have visited the property and support the accommodation. The application is for change of use from a six-bedroomed to a seven-bedroomed HMO; realises that consent is not needed for six bedrooms, but this house can easily accommodate seven people, with a spacious lounge, large separate kitchen with plenty of units and worktop, two shower rooms, three toilets, and all bedrooms above minimum size set by housing standards.   Is an experienced landlord, managing his properties closely himself and living only five minutes from the property, so can ensure tenants have a hassle-free stay in return for which he expects them to look after the property and respect the neighbours and local community; makes regular visits to ensure this is the case, with parents acting as guarantors for student tenants.  Supports community activities and has always had good relationships with neighbours of his properties; is regularly complimented on how well his properties are managed and already knows the neighbours of 2 Courtenay Street who have no objection to this COU.  The University of Gloucestershire is expanding and an asset to the town; first-year students will be looking for good-quality second and third year accommodation, which is currently in short supply, and could become a serious issue for the University – last year, some students were forced to take up emergency accommodation due to the lack of private housing. His investment in this property will help keep this part of Cheltenham respectable and presentable, where many properties have become run-down and neglected in the past.

Member debate:

DS:  on Planning View, viewed the top bedroom and was concerned about the ceiling height at the apex; it may comply with standards, but is too low for an above-average height person.  Also remains concerned about how residents would get out in an emergency, particularly from the attic room.

CN:  commends the applicant on his professional and well-executed pitch.  Has similar reservations to DS, but if the dimensions comply with guidelines and officers are happy, will go with the officer recommendation.  Notes the number of objectors to this and to the application at 43 Courtenay Street – the body of evidence is to do with the policy issue, and there will be a review of HMOs in the forthcoming Cheltenham Plan.  It would be good if all the objections are captured for discussion of the issue for the Plan – hopes this will be done, as there are some very valid observations.

KH:  also echoes DS’s comments.  Was not on Planning View this month, but being over six foot tall, thinks some students would find the loft room without a dormer window something of a.  Apart from this, still feels that the application as presented represents ‘over-massification’ of accommodation in a small housing unit.  Respects that changes of use occur over time, and the applicant’s desire to do what he wants with his property, but the cumulative effect of these types of application is enough to sway him not to support the proposal.  Agrees with CN’s comments about the letters – there are a significant number objecting to this and the other Courtenay Street application.

PB:  can see that this application would be tricky to refuse – on what grounds?  Commends the applicant – we need more respectable HMO owners around the town; a lot of landlords are not, and HMOs have bolted in St Paul’s.  Is therefore a reluctant supporter of the proposal, and hopes that officers are taking on board what is happening in the town; most landlords are looking to improve standards, and this one has already done so, but there are many who haven’t.

MC:  echoes other comments.   Has heard that this application is in line with current local requirements but is it in line with national university standards.  Would like all landlords to comply with the same standards, as set out in the British University Guide. 

CH:  agrees with most of the other councillors who feel that the situation of not having a policy to protect St Paul’s will lead to problems.  With the slippage of the JCS and the Local Plan, there may be time to to address the issue, but the question is whether St Paul’s has that time.  The application proposes one extra bedroom being created by splitting one larger room, as a result of which the rooms on the left more or less match the rooms on the other side of the house, making it difficult to argue that the rooms are too small.  Is in total agreement with other members that St Paul’s is suffering from over occupation, but we do not have the policies at the moment to do anything about this.  Is therefore minded to permit, as the house could have six tenants without planning permission.

PJ:  everyone is aware of the ongoing issues in St Paul’s, but this applicant has been working with planning officers to find a good way forward.  Takes on board KH’s point about British University standards, and hopes for a policy regarding HMOs in the Cheltenham Plan.  Regarding this application, however, for one additional bedroom, is hoping for reassurance from officers regarding the safety concerns raised.

GB:  appreciates the need for accommodation, and understands that this meets local requirements.  However, regarding the loft space, agrees with DS and wouldn’t want to see his child trying to study in that space.  It is all about standards – we do enough to meet them but sometimes could do that bit more to make living conditions more comfortable for tenants – and that has not been done here. 

EP, in response:

-       the main point of concern – the loft – is an existing room in this HMO.  The two new rooms are the basement and the divided first floor front room;

-       regarding the status of the loft room, it has building control approval fro 1994, when fire regulations would have been looked at.  Licensing officers have been there and on site, and the housing standards officer went through the proposal and confirmed that all the rooms comply with local floorspace standards;

-       in view of this, we would be hard pressed to find a valid reason to refuse.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT