Agenda item

Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of Offices (Use Class E) to 3no. houses in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class Sui Generis)

Location: 29-31 Avenue Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 6TH

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 3no. houses in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class Sui Generis)

Location: 29-31 Avenue Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 6TH

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)

Cllr Paul Martin

On behalf of the Applicant                               Jon Cook

 

Together with:

 

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

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways)

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Council

·       Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection

·       Comments received from County Councillor Paul Martin

 

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

 

·       That due to other HMOs on Avenue Road, this could mean up to 100 HMO residents within an area in the centre of Grantham.

·       Concern around parking, traffic and road congestion on the road.

·       Noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour concerns.

·       Loss of family housing.

·       Intensification of HMOs within Grantham.

·       That the application differs materially from both the previous use and the surrounding residential context.

·       Concern was raised around activity levels, waste management, parking pressures, and the wider cumulative effects of HMO concentration.

·       Over-Concentration of HMOs with no demonstrated local demand.

·       Highway safety in terms of schoolchildren.

·       Total loss of employment with no marketing evidence provided.

·       Insufficient information and amenity in terms of refuse storage details, and boundary treatments.

 

On behalf of the Applicant:

 

·       The Agent confirmed 14 off-road parking spaces and bicycle storage would be provided.

 

·       HMOs and shared living accommodation were overlooked solutions to the country’s housing crisis. It would help to meet the demand through reuse and conversion of existing properties and house multiple people at lower cost.

·       The Agent noted the Applicant was a local and reputable award-winning landlord with a collective experience of more than 40 years owning and managing properties of this nature.

·       It was noted the proposal would not bring any harm to the character of the area as the only alterations would be boundary treatments and the installation of the bike storage.

·       There had been no objections from statutory consultees.

·       The proposal was a central location with good access to local facilities and amenities.

 

During questions to public speaker, Members commented on the following:

 

·       A query was raised on how Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) justify that residents of the property would not own a car.

 

The District Ward Councillor clarified the authority follow a sustainable transport initiative whereby public transport can be used instead of a car.

 

·       One Member requested clarification around the concern on emergency vehicles accessing the property due to parking issues.

 

It was confirmed that Highways had stated 2 cars could pass parallel on Avenue Road alongside parked cars. The District Ward Councillor felt this was incorrect. If an emergency service vehicle needed to park/access the road, it would most likely block the road.

 

·       Clarification was sought around the main concern of 3 buildings becoming in terms of over intensification.

·       Comments received from local residents on parking were requested.

 

The District Ward Councillor noted that surrounding streets to the area were overcrowded at present. It was felt the area was over saturated with issues around parking and traffic and this application would make it worse.

 

·       Whether there was enough space available to the rear of the properties for cars to manoeuvre and utilise the spaces.

 

The District Ward Councillor stated the rear of a property was a small lane and was quite small and restrictive.  

 

·       One Member queried why the Agent had not considered turning the properties into dual use to cater for a wider range of communities.

 

The Agent clarified that more than 1 person per room may potentially exacerbate the parking issues. The business model from the Applicant was to cater for young, single professionals.

 

·       Whether there would be any space lost for waste bins.

 

The Agent confirmed there was plenty of space at the back of the properties and down the side of the building to accommodate waste.

 

·       Clarification sought that out of 34 people possibly residing the property, that only 14 would own a vehicle.

 

The Agent outlined that not everyone was likely to have a vehicle, and it was a sustainable location in the town centre. There were close car parks nearby and the Applicant would explore options for including free parking in their rent.

 

·       One Member felt the application failed policy SP3 due to 34 people residing in the 3 houses. The Agent was asked to clarify how the application met policy SP3.

 

It was confirmed the building was previously used as a large legal practice. The properties would enable young professionals to work locally or use various modes of transport.

 

·       Concern was raised on safety in the event of an emergency and evacuation procedure.

·       A member queried if an agreement regarding parking could be reached with SKDC who own Welham Street Car Park nearby, however it was confirmed that any decision made could not be dependent upon a third party without their prior agreement.

 

The Applicant would require a HMO license and adhere to building regulations. This was a separate regime.

 

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

 

·       Whether the property would be one person per bedroom or not.

·       It was felt the application would impact the area. The buildings were previously used as an office between 9-5pm and the application would mean people living in the properties at all times.

·       Members felt 14 car parking spaces was not sufficient for the application.

 

It was noted the quality of accommodation was superior to other HMO applications put before the committee with each room containing an ensuite and kitchen facilities. It was queried whether the term HMO was appropriate, or should the application be for flats.

 

Officers advised that were the application to be for flats that it would be permissible development.

 

Members recognised the quality of accommodation but remained concerned at the density of the application with in effect 3 sites being put forward together totalling 34 residents, instead of one totalling 11 which would have been more acceptable.

 

One Member proposed REFUSAL of the application for the following reasons:

 

-       Loss of employment premises (Policy E6 and NPPF paragraphs 82 and 121).

-       Over intensification, poor standard of residential amenity (DE1, H4 and NPPF paragraph 130F).

-       Harm to neighbourhood amenity (Policies DE1, EN4 and NPPF paragraph 185).

-       Inadequate parking and highway safety concerns (Policy ID2 and NPPF paragraph 111).

-       Spatial strategy (Policies SP1, SP2, SP3).

-       Failure to demonstrate need or suitability for specialist accommodation (Policy H4 and NPPF paragraph 62).

-       Conflict with policy GR4 for Grantham Town Centre.

 

·       Members raised concern on comments received from Highways and how they had come to their conclusion.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner highlighted that Officers were satisfied that policy E6 had been met and the loss of the use as an  office at this time would not be detrimental to the overall supply.

 

Members would need to quantify and provide reasons as to why the proposal may be harmful, there were no external changes proposed.

 

In terms of crime and anti-social behaviour, the Committee were urged to assume other regulatory regimes would operate in an appropriate manner.

 

Advice had been provided by the Highways authority, the Committee were urged to follow the advice. If the Committee did not agree with the authority, they would need to demonstrate alternative evidence to support it.

 

The Committee were advised to be cautious on refusing on spatial strategy in terms of unsuitable scale of development. The principle of development in terms of location was the main concern. 

 

·       Members felt adding 34 people into properties in this area would not help in making a balanced community.

·       Members discussed previous reasons for dismissed appeals for other applications that may be helpful in making a decision on this application.

·       One Member queried whether lived experience of the road would be a material planning consideration.

 

It was clarified an Inspector would not accept lived or anecdotal experience, it would be quantitative data that would need to support a reason for refusal.

 

·       One Member felt that 3 HMO’s all next door to each other would be cramped and generate more traffic and issues with highways. The issue was with the cumulation on the amount of housing being put onto the one road.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner highlighted the same number of occupants and density of residential accommodation under permitted development rights if it was residential flats rather than a HMO. The only distinction was the HMO being shared accommodation with unrelated people as opposed to individual units with all facilities to operate independently.

 

·       One Member sought clarification on how the application had evidence of local need in terms of policy H4.

 

Policy H4 was in line with major developments meaning 10 dwellings or more. This application was not a major development.

 

Members discussed the cumulative impact on whether they had sufficient information to be satisfied to determine whether the application would bring issues with parking and highway safety.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner reminded the Committee that an Inspector may deem the Council as ‘unreasonable’ for deferring the application on a single point and the point being rectified, for then the Council to refuse the application for other reasons.

 

·       A query was made on whether permitted development fallback was realistic and demonstrably likely. It was further questioned whether the Committee were entitled to refuse a proposal that resulted in greater harm than the potential fallback position.

 

The Legal Advisor clarified that in all aspects of Planning, there would need to be demonstrable and quantifiable evidence to refuse an application. The Committee were reminded that Highways had not considered the application to be harmful, however, Members did not have the evidence to any harm in refusing the application on parking and highway safety.

 

(The Committee had a break from 13:05-13:35)

 

Final decision

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to REFUSE the application for the following reason:

 

‘The cumulative effect of the proposed 3 houses of multiple occupation together would result in a material intensification of residential activity and vehicular and pedestrian movements, which would cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents, and the character and appearance of the area, and there is insufficient site specific transport evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would provide sufficient off-street parking to mitigate these impacts, contrary to Policy DE1 and ID2 of the adopted Local Plan and Sections 9 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The material considerations in this case, including the benefits associated with the proposals and the fallback position,  could be realised through a less intensive use, such that they do not outweigh the identified harms and conflict with the Development Plan.’

 

(Councillor Mark Whittington left the meeting at 13:45).