Agenda item

Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of Offices (Use Class E) to a 13-bedroom House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) (Use Class Sui Generis) at rear ground floor and upper floors. Replacement windows

Location: 24 St Peter’s Hill, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 6QF

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of Offices (Use Class E) to a 13-bedroom House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) (Use Class Sui Generis) at rear ground floor and upper floors. Replacement windows

Location: 24 St Peter’s Hill, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 6QF

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillors                       Cllr Ben Green (Statement)

                                                               Cllr Matt Bailey (Statement)

Applicant                                                Rahul Patel  - Eldom Properties Ltd 

 

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways).

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Council.

·       No comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Police Designing Out Crime Officer.

·       Comments received from NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board.

 

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

 

·       The over intensifications of HMOs in Grantham affecting the neighbourhood character, residential amenity, and community cohesion.

·       That the application did not comply with DE1 and EN4 due to respecting local character and avoiding unacceptable impacts alongside environmental effects in terms of noise, waste storage, servicing, disturbance, and over-concentration.

·       A failure to satisfy policy E6 due to loss of employment space. It was felt the supported housing benefit was not secured.

·       Concern was raised on the consistency with a previously refused application of an HMO.

 

·       The Applicant confirmed the building would be used as a therapy centre. The ground floor frontage would remain as commercial use.

 

·       It was noted that no objections had been received from consultees or neighbours.

 

·       That Policy GR4 supported the reuse of an existing building for a range of purposes, including residential.

 

·       Officers had concluded the scheme would not provide harmful over concentration.

 

·       The property would be leased to a registered social housing provider, working with the Council to ensure the scheme provides benefits for the community.

 

·       In terms of amenity standards, all bedroom exceed the HMO licensing standards.

 

·       Dedicated bin storage, a secure cycle shelter and on-site parking would be provided with no objections from Environmental Health. 

 

During questions to the Applicant, Members commented on the following:

 

·       Clarification was sought around the term ‘supported housing’ and who would be providing the support at what times.

 

The Applicant confirmed the property would work in conjunction with the Council, Chapta and 3C Housing Association to deliver support housing. There would be a counselling room on site and would cater for residents with mental health, recovery from drug abuse or people released from prison.

 

·       Concern was raised on the size of the rooms and outdoor space, especially if people with mental health struggles would reside there.

 

Clarification was provided around the size of the rooms, off-suites and dressing rooms and they met HMO standards for licensing.

 

·       A query was raised on whether the Applicant had undertaken a broader search on other businesses on what could be commercially available.

·       Clarification was sought on why the Applicant felt this location was appropriate, given the small outdoor amenity space for potential residents. 

 

It was highlighted that the proposed therapy centre seemed like the ideal location due to its proximity to the centre of the town.

 

The Applicant had allocated 14 cycle sheds to the rear of the building, which would provide each occupant with a space to park their cycle, alongside a space for the counselling team. It was felt the location had adequate train and bus services nearby. The property would also have commercial bins available.

 

·       Whether staff would be present on site 24 hours a day.

 

It was confirmed that a counsellor would visit the counselling room for 2-3 hours per day.

 

·       A query was raised on who would maintain the 2 communal kitchens.

 

The Applicant stated that a lease would be signed with Chapta who would maintain and clean all communal areas. The property would have regular inspections take place.

 

·       Whether the Applicant had considered using the counselling room as dual purpose.

 

The Applicant confirmed they were open for suggestions on use of the counselling room.

 

·       One Member queried how the application complied with SKDC Local Plan Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The Applicant highlighted the application complied with all minimum standards by 20% and they would work in close conjunction with Chapter.

 

·       Concern was raised that no contract had yet been signed by Chapta and that another HMO provider may come in and negotiate for the site.

 

The Applicant confirmed Chapta were awaiting approval of the planning permission prior to signing the agreement.

 

·       One Member requested whether surveys and evidence had been produced on parking. Concern was raised that majority of people may have a vehicle.

 

It was clarified that information had been provided from Chapta and the Council on the targeted residents and tenants for the property. The feedback received showed a very high chance of the residents Not owning their own vehicle.

 

·       Further clarification was sought around waste provision.

 

It was confirmed 2 commercial bins would be provided for mixed waste and recycling. It was assumed the collections would be weekly, however, this would be dealt with Chapta and the Housing Association.

 

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

 

·       That bedroom 10 did not have any wash facilities or cooking facilities.

 

It was confirmed bedroom 10 had an off-suite bathroom and dressing room across the hallway to access. They could access a kitchen on the 2^nd floor of the property. 

 

·       That paragraph 7.4.1 outlined proposed that the HMO be used for supported housing for vulnerable individuals. It was queried whether the property would be entirely supported housing.

 

It was proposed for the entirety of the building to be supported living and individuals would be assessed through Chapta in line with a contract.

 

Members were reminded that there should be no consideration for the people who may reside the property. The Planning Committee needed to consider the land use only.

 

For transparency, the Chairman highlighted that the Council were in conversations with the Applicant in terms of housing certain people in the property but this should not prejudice any decision.

 

·       One Member felt the application conflicted against policies DE1, E6, H4, SP3, GR4 and the NPPF.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified policy E6 related to the loss of employment land and would need to meet the criteria, however, the policy allowed loss of employment land to non-employment uses where it demonstrates compliance with any one of the criteria.

 

The policy itself protected primary shopping frontages; however, the proposed property was not within the primary shopping frontage. The ground floor frontage use would be retained for commercial purposes.

 

The site was considered a town centre location with local transport available nearby. The site was within close distance to public car parks.

 

·       One Member queried whether the parking provision had been ‘stress-tested’ locally.

 

It was confirmed that no parking assessment had taken place, however, Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) were satisfied with the parking provision.

 

·       Concern was raised around the external amenity space being too small for 13 people.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the space was a suitable quality of amenity space internally and externally for possible tenants.

 

·       Clarification was sought on whether a measurement had been completed on the external space of the building for bins.

 

It was clarified there was not a minimum requirement for outside amenity space for an HMO. The drawings illustrated there would be sufficient space for two large bin containers.

 

·       Concern was raised on mass congregation outside the front of the HMO.

·       A query was raised on whether any weight could be given to the shop frontage being sold below the property.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner highlighted policy GR4 and primary shopping frontages. The policy recognised that the ground floor commercial use wanted to be retained but did allow for other uses.

 

·       Concern was raised on a fire evacuation risk of 13 people evacuating from the back door only, amongst bins and bicycles.

 

Licensing regimes would deal with minimum space standards for the internal area. There was no standard for external amenity space.

 

·       One Member proposed refusal of the application based on the cumulative impact of HMOs in Grantham in terms of character of the area and parking provision meaning it was contrary to policy DE1 and the aims of the NPPF.

·       Further concern was raised on health, safety and wellbeing of the occupants of the HMO.

 

The proposal to refuse the application was not considered due to an original proposal to approve the application being debated. Under the Constitution it would require the proposal to approve the application to fall before the refusal could be debated. 

 

·       A query was raised on whether licensing regimes were a material planning consideration.

 

The Legal Advisor noted that matters covered by licensing regimes were not a material planning consideration. The NPPF dictates that Members should assume that other regulations and regulatory functions would operate appropriately and successfully.

 

The Chairman noted it was SKDC policy to encourage landlords to open up accommodation above shops and that at least 60 flats were available in Grantham Town Centre.

 

Final decision

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions:

 

Time Limit for Commencement

1          The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Approved Plans

2          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

i)               Site Location Plan and Existing Block Plan, drawing ref. FB25-0802 EX01A (received 03/12/25)

ii)              Proposed Floor Plans, drawing ref. FB25-0802 PL02 (received 03/12/25)

iii)            Proposed Elevations, drawing ref. FB25-0802 PL03A (received 04/02/26)

iv)            Proposed Window Details, drawing ref. FB25-0802 W01 (received 17/12/25)

          Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

          Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

During Construction

Crime Prevention

3        Before the development hereby permitted is occupied, a scheme of crime prevention measures shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Thereafter, the approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation, and shall be retained and maintained throughout the operation of the use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of minimising crime and disorder, and the fear of crime and disorder.

Management Plan

4        Before the development hereby permitted is occupied, a Site Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Site Management Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following details:

• Noise Management;
• Waste Management; and
• Amenity area management (including internal and external shared areas and hours of use)

Thereafter, the approved Site Management Plan shall be implemented prior to first use and shall be strictly adhered to throughout the operation of the use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of existing and future residents of the area.

Ongoing Conditions

5      The HMO use (Sui Generis) hereby permitted shall be limited to 1(no) individual house of multiple occupation with 13 no. bedrooms and no more than 13.no occupants, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

 

(Councillors Tim Harrison, Mark Whittington, Sarah Trotter and Harrish Bisnauthsing voted AGAINST the proposal to approve the application).