Agenda item

4a. Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of a former Nursing Home (Use Class C2) to a 20-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy for up to 20 people (Use Class Sui Generis).

Location: Castlegate House Rest Home, 49 Castlegate, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 6SN

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

 

4b. Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of a former Nursing Home (Use Class C2) to a 20-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy for up to 20 people (Use Class Sui Generis).

Location: Castlegate House Rest Home, 49 Castlegate, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 6SN

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT listed building consent, subject to conditions

 

S25/1192

 

Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of a former Nursing Home (Use Class C2) to a 20-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy for up to 20 people (Use Class Sui Generis).

Location: Castlegate House Rest Home, 49 Castlegate, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 6SN

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

 

S25/1357

 

Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of a former Nursing Home (Use Class C2) to a 20-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy for up to 20 people (Use Class Sui Generis)

Location: Castlegate House Rest Home, 49 Castlegate, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 6SN

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT listed building consent, subject to conditions

 

Noting comments in the public speaking by:

 

District Ward Councillor                        Councillor Matt Bailey

                                                              Councillor Paul Martin

                                                              Councillor Tim Harrison

Grantham Civic Society                         John Manterfield

Against                                                   Paul Hardy

                                                               Mary Gharbi (statement)

Agent/on behalf of Applicant                  Tim Stubbins and Phil Holmes

 

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 Lincolnshire County Council (Community Based Services).

-       Comments received from Lincolnshire Police.

-       No comments received from Historic England.

-       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

-       No comments received from Environmental Protection.

-       Comments received from Grantham Civic Society.

 

The following comments were made by public speakers:

 

-       A concern was raised that the building was in the wrong location and would cause heritage harm. The property was a listed building and would require the replacement of windows.

-       The application did not make reference to how many people would be living in the property or the management of it. It was noted there were no enforcement powers on HMO’s.

-       It was felt the property had inadequate amenity space and bedrooms were small.

-       Concern was raised on the property being within the Conservation Area and parking within the vicinity was already inadequate for nearby schools, St Wulframs Church and Grantham House.  The road was a narrow one-way street and a through route.

-       It was noted the Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) had not visited the site to establish the parking arrangements.

-       Concern was raised that an acoustic report had not been produced and that noise may affect neighboring Almshouses.

-       Concerns over crime and safety were outlined.

 

-       The agent noted that Lincolnshire Police and Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) had not objected to the proposal.

-       It was highlighted that there were no amenity space restrictions or standards on HMOs.

-       The previous reason for refusal was around the listed building consent.

 

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

 

-       That Highways had no objections to the application and Lincolnshire County Council controlled the parking within the area of the application.

 

A Ward Member highlighted that residents and visitors had to park on side streets within the area and residents did not have parking permits. A further concern was raised on waste freighters being able to access the site.

 

-       One Member sought clarification over clause 27 of the Inspectors report on the previously refused application.

-       That Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) had stated the parking for the application was sustainable.

-       It was queried why the application form did not specify how many people would reside within the property.

 

The agent confirmed only 20 people would reside within the property, at any one time.

 

-       The agent highlighted that the building previously was a nursing home, however, it did not comply with nursing home standards due to size of bedrooms.

-       Clarification was sought around laundry facilities.

 

The agent confirmed a vacant room adjacent to the kitchen would become a laundry room.

 

-       Concern was raised on ventilation of the property and any internal or external changes that would be required.

-       It was queried what age group the HMO would target.

 

It was confirmed the HMO would be required to apply for a licence, which would establish who would reside there. The licence would also require a manager for the HMO.

 

Following a query in relation to waste, it was clarified waste provisions would be the same as a care home setting.

 

In relation to the old use of the building, the care home was not suitable for manoeuvring residents with mobility issues around narrow corridors and small bedrooms.

 

It was clarified that there was disabled access at the modern area of the building.

 

-       One Member queried whether the HMO would have residential management, meaning accommodation would also need to be provided for a member of staff.

 

It was confirmed a manager would not live on site and management would be determined by a licence.

 

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

 

-       Whether condition 5 could specify that no more than 20 occupants should reside in the property.

-       That generally the fear of crime is increased when a property is changed to a HMO and fear of crime was a material planning consideration.

-       There was a previously dismissed appeal relating to this site for a change of use to a HMO in November 2024 it was queried how that application substantially differed to the proposed application.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified the application was previously refused based on concerns on amenity, heritage impact, potential loss of a community facility. The appeal decision had been circulated to Members and addresses all previous issues for refusal.

 

A member highlighted that the reasons for refusal the Planning Inspector upheld the impact on the heritage asset and the overall density of occupation of the site. He dismissed other concerns raised regarding parking and impact on amenity of the area citing the central location of the site and its proximity to the Conservative Club next door.

 

The proposed application sought to retain the historic form of the building and the HMO bedrooms would be the same size as the spaces in the care home. The alterations required to the building were less than what was previously needed as a result of the reduction in planned occupation to 20.

 

The Conservation Officer was satisfied that there did not need to be a great level of alternations to historic fabric that was earlier concerned with the previous refused application. The alterations proposed were more beneficial by returning historic fabric that had been lost.

 

-       How the Council came to a presumption that these residents would not use cars and would access public transport only.

 

Lincolnshire County Council had advised that parking was not necessary. The application was a town centre location. The application had two parking spaces for maintenance and purposed relating to the operation of the HMO. It was proposed that space in the basement of the property would be used for bicycle storage.  Access to bus and railway services would also be available for the occupants, alongside town centre car parks.

 

-       Further concerns on parking were raised.

-       It was hoped that CCTV could be installed nearby to the property.

-       Inadequate amount of space in kitchens for 20 single occupants. Concern was raised that occupants may cook in their bedrooms which could cause extra moisture in the fabric of an old building.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified the licensing regime was extensive and would examine minimum space standards in terms of bedrooms, heating, wash facilities, kitchen areas waste provision etc. The regime would also control the number of occupants appropriate for the space available. Any breaches of licence against the landowner would result in enforcement action being taken.

 

-       Further details of the licence submission were queried, alongside timeframes on how the applicant can apply for further occupants to live in the property.

 

The Environmental Health Manager (Private Sector Housing) confirmed that licensing was not required until it was occupied by five persons. The HMO would have a statutory offence to operate without a licence if the application was being reviewed by the Council. If a licence was not applied for after the fifth occupant moved in, the offence would be investigated.

 

-       Concerns of noise for existing residents was raised.

-       Concern was raised that the bedrooms were not en-suites, it was noted that males and females would have to share bathrooms.

-       There had been no layout plan or measurements for the top floor of the property provided.

-       One Member noted that HMOs historically had relatively low security issues in regard to neighbours and issues usually occurred internally within the HMO. Lincolnshire Police did not have any objections to the application.

-       One Member discussed the previously refused application where Lincolnshire Police had provided a report.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner confirmed the previous refusal was also down to harm of the building where harm was likely to the fabric of the building due to additional servicing required.

 

Comments from the Inspector on the previously refused application noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposal would increase noise and disturbance in the local area. HMOs were a standard of accommodation that people would be aware of before moving into them.

 

-       A query was raised whether a site management plan could be included in order to protect amenity and residents within the property.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner informed the Committee that conditions should not be imposed where there are separate regulatory regimes that cover the issues.

 

During the debate a member of the committee asked whether controls could be placed on who should live in the HMO. The Chairman clarified that it is not a matter for the Planning Committee to consider who the occupants of the HMO are. Accommodation for asylum seekers is managed by the Home Office and not the District Council. All HMOs were subject to licensing regulations.

 

It was proposed and seconded to GRANT planning permission with the addition of a condition to restrict the HMO to a maximum of 20 occupants and require a site management plan to include noise, waste, protection of amenity internally and externally for residents.

 

This proposal fell.

 

Members discussed further concerns in order to provide a further proposal:

 

-       Highways and parking issues.

-       Impact on Grade II Listed Building in Conservation Area.

-       Impact on amenity of neighbours in relation to residents internally and externally.

-       Density on the population of the building.

-       There was no ‘resident-only’ parking available in the area. The impact on neighbouring residents was raised; in the event 20 people moved into the property with 1 car each.

 

It was confirmed any alterations to the fabric of the building would require listed building consent.

 

Any noise impacts would be dealt with via a separate regime in terms of statutory noise nuisance.

 

It was suggested whether the Council could write to Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) in respect of requesting further resident parking in the area.

 

It was proposed and seconded to GRANT planning permission with the addition of a condition to restrict the HMO to a maximum of 20 occupants and require a comprehensive site management plan to include noise, waste, protection of amenity and security for both residents of the HMO and neighbouring properties. The wording of the conditions would be finalised by the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth.

 

This proposal fell. No committee member proposed a motion to Refuse the application when invited to do so.

 

The Development Management and Enforcement Manager confirmed that reasons for refusal would need to be articulated in order to be reasonably defended at appeal. The recent appeal decision only outlined heritage impact, which had been rectified on this application by the Applicant.

 

It was clarified the change of use of the building from a care home to a HMO was not taking away defined features of the Conservation Area as there would be no external changes to the building and the internal changes refused by the Planning Inspector on Appeal would no longer be required.

 

-       The potential impact on character of the heritage area due to movement of 20 people day/night was highlighted.

-       Concern was raised on lack of sufficient facilities for 20 people including men and women having to share a bathroom.

 

(The Committee had a 15-minute break)

 

The Environmental Health Manager (Private Sector Housing) provided a description of the Licensing process. Assurance was provided that the licencing regime would dictate the number of persons based on several factors

 

Bedroom sizes – the legal requirement for licenced properties is 10.22² metres for a couple and 6.51² for a single occupancy. Amenities such as bathrooms, kitchens and cooking facilities would also be considered under the regime.

 

Any breaches to a licence was an offence and the licence holder could receive a fine up to £30,000. If a HMO isn’t licensable (properties with 3 or 4 persons), the amenity standards still apply such as fire safety, waste and security.

 

-       A query was raised on whether the licencing team would attend the property on a regular basis.

 

The Environmental Health Manager (Private Sector Housing) confirmed the team could enter the HMO at any reasonable time without giving notification. However, ordinarily a 24-hour notification would be provided.

 

During the licence application period, a risk assessment would take place to determine the rating for management and layout etc which would provide a score and monitor how often routine inspections would take place.

 

A warrant could also be applied meaning notification was not needed and the team would force entry and gather any evidence required.

 

-       Whether there was any legal requirements for outdoor space on a HMO property.

 

It was confirmed there was no legal requirement for outdoor space on a HMO property, as long as it was suitable. There was also no legal requirement for laundry facilities in private rented properties due to laundrettes being available in the area.

 

-       Whether the safeguarding concerns associated with male and females sharing bathrooms a matter for licencing.

 

The licencing regime would only look into security provisions such as door locks on balance with fire safety. In terms of bathing facilities, this was a Part 1 issue, which was general property conditions.

 

The provision for disabled people residing in the building was not a licencing regime, however, would be dealt with in regard to fire safety.

 

A member suggested that the HMO was single sex. It was confirmed that the occupation of the HMO could not be determined by the Planning Committee.

 

A member highlighted the potentially high number of changes that may be subsequently required in order to fulfil the licensing requirements including fire safety. The Police report indicated that the highest risk to people relating to HMOs was not those living outside but to other residents within the building. Their report indicated a significant number of recommended internal security measures. The provision of appropriate locks on the bathroom door, to protect the privacy of residents, was used as an example. They asked if these could impact on the heritage asset.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified that any further measures that were not specified in the current plans on changes to the building would require separate listed building consent via a new application.

 

S25/1192 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 (received 20/06/25)

ii)Block Plan (received 20/06/25)

iii)            Proposed Floor Plan, drawing ref. 25 010 2 Rev A (received 07/08/25)

 

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

   

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

 

During Building Works

 

3          Before the development hereby permitted is occupied, details of the storage areas and bicycle storage in the Basement shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Those facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for storage and to promote sustainable means of travel.

 

Before the Development is Occupied

 

4          Before first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, the refuse and recycling storage indicated on approved Proposed Floor Plan, drawing ref. 25 010 2 Rev A shall have been completed and made available for use. Those facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse and recycling and to promote sustainable means of travel.

 

Ongoing Conditions

 

5 The HMO use (Sui Generis) hereby permitted shall be limited to 20no. Bedrooms and no more than 20 occupants, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

 

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

 

Additional Condition A

 

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.

 

Additional Condition B

 

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. 

 

S25/1357Final Decision:

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT listed building consent, 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:

 

iv)                Site Location Plan (received 20/06/25)

v)                 Block Plan (received 20/06/25)

vi)               Proposed Floor Plan, drawing ref. 25 010 2 Rev A (received 07/08/25)

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

 

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

 

During Building Works

 

3        Before the installation of any of the new external windows and/or doors hereby consented, full details of all proposed joinery works for those windows/doors, including 1:20 sample elevations and 1:1 joinery profiles, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

 

Before the Development is Occupied

 

4        Before the part of the building being altered is first occupied/brought into use, the joinery works shall have been completed in accordance with the approved joinery details.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of the building and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.