Agenda item

Officer introduction

CD introduced the application as above; she advised that the application relates to a 2 storey mid terrace property at 33 Gloucester Road. She explained that the applicant is seeking retrospective planning permission for a 7 bed HMO which has been in use since 2015. The application is at committee at the request of Councillor Willingham.

Councillor Willingham, in objection

Councillor Willingham requested that the committee refuse the application; he indicated that the matter should have been the subject of stronger enforcement due to a breach of planning. He noted that the planning application had been submitted with inaccurate and incomplete information on the application form. Further concerns included the fact that the public had not been informed of the pre-application advice given to the applicant, which was contrary to the openness and transparency required in the planning process. The applicant had also answered no when questioned whether “parking is relevant to this application” which he considered must have been a misinterpretation or simply, an incorrect statement, particularly given that this was a family dwelling, in a permit parking area that only permits two permits per dwelling. Councillor Willingham was concerned that additional vehicles would park on Alstone Avenue or Alstone Croft, causing danger and irritation to those residents, or in planning terms unacceptable harm to the amenity of the area. 

He further noted that in areas with a high density of HMOs, there are noisy parties running late into the night during fresher’s week and following the exam period. There are also issues of improperly presented waste, with overflowing bins and recycling that blows down the street. He was concerned that the Council had not retained the protections afforded by HS3 from the Local Plan and that these documents had remained on the website.

He highlighted that the back lanes to the rear of the property were extremely dilapidated, evidence in his opinion, of the real harm that afflicts an area when failures in the planning process allow it to be neglected by transient tenants and absentee landlords. He explained that the lane becomes a fly-tipping ground for departing tenants and is a drain on council resources and a source of regular casework. He felt that the fact that no-one had objected to the application demonstrates the extant harm because no-one was concerned enough to object, or in some cases had little faith in the planning, planning enforcement or enforcement processes.  He reasoned that whilst it is just one more person, they needed to be cautious of the cumulative impact and was concerned that there has been no assessment of when the density of HMOs in this area would reach breaking point.

He emphasised that it was not his intention to delay the process but his concerns were as a result of the fact he deeply cared about the area he represented. 

Whilst he requested that the application be refused under SP4a because of the cumulative impact and harm, he suggested that if the committee were minded to approve, they place a planning condition on the applicant requiring them to work with CBC in respect of any alleygate or PSPO schemes in order to minimise the potential harm arising from issues in the back lane.

Member debate

KH: had sympathy with Cllr Willingham and explained that similar issues had been experienced in St Pauls ward. He noted that in the emerging local plan there was the potential inclusion of article 4 direction although appreciated that they couldn’t add sufficient weight to that at this stage. He stressed that the impact on the community should not be underestimated and that it was significant that no neighbours had responded to the consultation. He questioned what the consequences of refusal would be as he feared it would be unenforceable. 

MH, in response:

-       He explained that such situations were as a result of changes in permitted development by central government which allow people to change to 6 people in a unit of accommodation. He advised that Members should consider the difference in what would be permitted development in terms of 6 and what has actually been created at the premises with a licence. He noted that whilst the application was before the committee as a result of the licensing process, licensing is irrelevant to planning. In his opinion, it would be difficult to justify a reason for refusal based on one additional person. Similarly, the cumulative effect could not be considered a policy issue in this instance as CBC do not have the policy to deal with that in this ward.

SW: was concerned about student accommodation in the town and the impact on others residing in the area. Whilst he could not justify a sound reason for refusal he was unhappy with landlords taking small houses and filling them unreasonably with multiple occupants which exceed what the house was originally designed to handle.

RW: was similarly concerned and shared frustration with Members, he felt that the way the applications were presented to the planning committee i.e. one house at a time, made the committee powerless. He queried whether officers were looking at a sufficiently wide enough area for article 4 direction and suggested St Peters is included.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

3 in objection

5 abstention

PERMIT