Agenda item

MJC introduced this change of use application.  The house is currently occupied by four tenants.  Planning permission would not be needed to increase this to six.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Wheeler who is concerned about the intensity of use and additional cars in the area.  The officer recommendation is to permit

GB:  checked that Members have read the blue update.

Public Speaking:

[See below]

Member debate:

BF:  if eight people live in this house, all going to work in different directions with cars, bikes, pushbikes etc, there is going to be very little space outside for parking.  These are average-sized terraced houses and with eight adults living together, it’s going to be very crowded. The rooms are small, the sitting room is very small.  Tenants are likely to be students, working men, professionals, civil servants – the size of the rooms is very small to accommodate eight people.  Realises this is not necessarily something that should be considered from a planning point of view, but has safety concerns about the cramped space.

CN:  also has concerns, which were not apparent on reading the report but became so on planning view.  Agrees with BF’s comments.  The report seems to indicate that five people will share one bathroom – is this realistic, especially if they are all working people needing to leave the house at a similar time?  Understands this type of issue is addressed in the HMO side of things after planning applications have been granted, but with no sinks in the bedrooms, there is going to be a lot of pressure on the bathrooms.  The applicants have built two rooms on top of the house and then applied for planning permission.  Why did they not apply for planning permission first?  Comments from Environmental Health officers have been included in the report, but does the proposal deal adequately with the EH officer’s concerns?  Also notes that the report states that the road is wide.  There were not many parked cars on planning view, but imagines that parking is probably quite a problem at night.  The property is also close to a sharp bend, giving rise to safety issues.  There are four people living in the house now and this application seeks to double the number of occupants.

AC:  shares BF’s concerns about safety, particularly in relation to the fire escape.  Raised this question on planning view, and how easily people could get from the top floor to the ground floor. Realises this is part of the HMO process, but MJC said he would look at this and come back to Members.  Remains concerned about safety. 

JF:  there are currently four parking spaces on the site – feels this is adequate and that parking will not be a problem.  However, is worried about the two bathrooms serving eight people.  There are not even any washbasins in the rooms.  Will this issue be dealt with through the HMO process after planning permission is granted if Members have highlighted it?  Also raised the question of safety on planning view – how would people get down if there were a fire?  This is a problem.  MJC was going to look into it. 

FC:  can officers clarify the size of the smaller rooms as shown on the plan? Are they just bedrooms or are they bed-sitting rooms with kitchen facilities?  If so, they are extraordinarily small.

MJC, in response:

-          has spoken to colleagues in the housing standards team, and they have confirmed that they are in discussion with the applicants to grant a licence.  They have indicated that there are no concerns with the property regarding space standards and the number of people;

-          to FC, the small rooms are 3.9m x 2.5m, and are bedrooms, not bed-sitting rooms;

-          in an HMO, people share communal living space - kitchen, bathroom and living rooms – this is normal;

-          regarding space, Members need to be careful how they approach this as there is separate legislation to set out what is appropriate and what not;

-          Members need to consider the use – does the building meet the new needs with regard to bin and cycle storage, car parking, how it sits in the locality?;

-          bin storage is enclosed and adequate;

-          the applicants have had a parking survey carried out and the County Council is satisfied with this; there were spaces in the street at 4.45pm and 7.30pm, within a short distance of the house;

-          regarding wash-basins in bedrooms,  this is not a planning issue – there is separate legislation to deal with this.  Two bathrooms for eight people is OK – Members should not impose their own standards on other people;

-          regarding the fire escape and dormer windows, these were discussed with the housing team, and also comes under separate legislation – feels uncomfortable when Planning Committee stray into discussion of this sort of issue;

-          the dormer windows come under permitted development and do not need planning permission.

PT:  with one kitchen between eight residents, and the bedrooms at the top some distance away, imagines residents might be persuaded to have a picnic stove or something similar in their rooms.  Realises that this is straying into other territory but Members want to be reassured about their concerns and are not being.

MS:  wouldn’t want to live in this house but is sure that many people would find it suitable and useful.  We always talk about the need for affordable places to live and this provides eight affordable places.  We are straying into territory outside planning regulations, and have already been told that six people can live there without planning permission.  The application is only asking for two more.  Members should support it.

GB: reiterates officer’s comments, and reminds Members to be careful they are not chasing hares.

CN:  the EH officer is an expert on noise etc, and in his report, queries whether new windows are to be installed to mitigate potential noise issues, but later in the report, this advice is dismissed by officers without adequate consideration.

MJC, in response:

-          planning permission would not be needed for six people to occupy this house, so the additional impact of two extra people is what needs to be taken into consideration tonight;

-          the EH officer did not request that the applicant made the suggested changes before being permitted to go forward.  Considering that two additional tenants could live in the house without planning permission, it would be difficult to justify a requirement of additional windows;

-          to PT, MS has more or less answered her question.  Issues she raised come under building control and HMO legislation – Members must consider the application on its merits and assess it against planning policy.

KS:  this is a difficult application, and an example of problem which isn’t going to go away around the town or the country, due to changes in the welfare system and young people being unable to afford a home of their own.  This puts us in a difficult position - there will be eight people living in a family home, with two bathrooms, and there could be substantial impact on neighbouring amenity, and yet this sort of accommodation is clearly needed.  We are between a rock and a hard place; these are not the living conditions she would like for the people of Cheltenham, but if there are people who can only afford this, it is difficult to refuse.

[Mr Sawer asking when he would get to speak]

GB:  will allow Mr Sawers, the applicant, to speak at this stage as, due to a misunderstanding, although he had made contact to be registered, this had not been recorded.

Public Speaker

Mr Sawers, applicant, in support

Would like to clarify a couple of points of fact.  There are four bathrooms in the property, not two as has been discussed.  The top floor was converted many years ago, and complies with building regulations. There have been no external changes.  In two weeks of marketing, there have been seven of the eight rooms have been let, demonstrating a clear demand for this kind of accommodation.  The property meets HMO safety standards – the applicant has been working closely with the HMO licensing team on matters of fire regulations, size of room, number of bathrooms etc.  There are two shower rooms on the top floor, one on the first floor, and one on the ground floor.  There are four toilets and wash basins.  The property was previously a six-bedroomed house – four double and two single – and therefore capable of housing 10 adults.

JF:  are the plans on show not the present ones?  Cannot see the four shower rooms on the drawings.

BF: the drawings on the wall show them, can see shower room on the top floor, if you look very closely.

MJC, in response:

-          apologies to the applicant for not being in possession of all the facts.  Unfortunately the case officer is unable to be present at the meeting tonight – she has visited the site and could have answered Members’ questions more fully.  There was no access to the building on Planning View, and MJC has not been in the building;

-          having examined the plans more strenuously, can see two en suite shower rooms – apologies to the applicant for overlooking these previously;

-          so the property has two main bathrooms and two en suite facilities on the top floor.  This is a better situation than he had anticipated.  

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

1 in objection

4 abstentions

PERMIT