Agenda item

EP introduced the application, which was deferred at last month’s Committee to allow Members the opportunity to do a full site visit, to include the inside of the house.  It has been operating as an 8-bedroomed HMO for seven years, with a license but without planning permission.  Officer recommendation is to permit.  It is at Committee because officers consider it comparable with the application at No. 2 Courtenay Street.

Public Speaking:

Mr Cooley, applicant, in support

Speaks as the owner and applicant for 43 Courtenay Street, which complies with all HMO requirements, has been relicensed three times, complies over and above with fire regulations and with University of Gloucestershire guidelines, and is on the university’s list of accredited accommodation, as safe, well-maintained and affordable property, in a safe environment.  Many students return for a second year, and there have been no complaints.  The planning department’s recommendation of refusal relates to the wider issue of the number of HMOs in the street, but has personally been managing houses for ten years, has much experience and has made positive changes, with improved storage, parking and rubbish disposal.  Students in the area add to the rich mixed and vibrant community, and have positive relations with the community, together with landlord owners.   Retrospective planning permission was granted earlier this year for a seven-bedroomed HMO in Albion Street; his application is not looking to increase the number but to regularise the HMO that has been in place for seven years, and continue to provide good quality, well-managed and affordable student accommodation.

Member debate:

SW:  was horrified when he saw the proposed numbers and front of the house last month, but was actually quite pleased when he looked inside the house on Planning View this month – apart from one of the rooms on the ground floor.  Does not have too many concerns now, although the basement rooms, even with the windows wide open, still had a damp smell.  Was struck that the house is being well-managed, but although students will put up with a lot, an eye needs to be kept on this. 

MC:  it was very useful to look at the inside of the house – was impressed by the well-maintained and mainly acceptable accommodation.  Remains concerned  with the smallest room, which seems only to be compliant with standards by having cupboard space elsewhere in the house – if this makes it compliant, it is slightly ridiculous. 

CN:  his previous comments on 2 Courtenay Street still apply with reference to the Cheltenham Plan.  Is bemused that the property has not had planning permission yet has been licensed for seven years; would have thought that if the landlord has 17 properties, he would have known about the need for planning permission.  Where does this type of application sit with the rule that if changes or development have existed for four years without planning permission, there is no need to apply?

EP, in response:

-       the four-year rule applies to new buildings and use of properties as dwellings.  Otherwise, it requires ten years for retrospective applications.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT