Agenda item

Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of a Residential Care Home (Use Class C2) to two 12-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy (Use Class Sui Generis)

Location: Birchwood Nursing Home, 6 Dudley Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 9AA

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

Proposal: Planning application for a proposed change of use of a Residential Care Home (Use Class C2) to two 12-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy (Use Class Sui Generis).

Location: Birchwood Nursing Home, 6 Dudley Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 9AA

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

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillor                  Cllr Matt Bailey – statement to be read out

Cllr Patsy Ellis

Cllr Graham Jeal

  Against                               John Morgan (speaking as St Vincent Town Ward Councillor but not on behalf of the Town Council)

Steven Preston

Caryn Garner

  Applicant                           John Benson – statement to be read out

 

Together with: 

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011 – 2036, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Lincolnshire County Council (Highways).

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Council.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Community Based Services).

·       Comments received Lincolnshire Police (Designing Out Crime).

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Councillor Tracey Forman.

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       No comments received from Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Councillor John Morgan.

·       Comments received from Grantham Town and District Ward Councillor Charmaine Morgan.

 

Councillor Sarah Trotter made the following statement:

 

‘As community champions, it is legitimate for members to campaign on local issues and advocate for their residents. This is support by section 25 of the Localism Act 2011, which provides that members should not be regarded as having a closed mind, simply because they, directly or indirectly previously indicated a position they may take in relation to a particular matter.

 

A Member is entitled to be predisposed on a matter before it comes to Committee, provided they remain open to considering all the arguments and changing their views in light of the information presented at the meeting. Whilst it is the case that the SKDC Conservative Group have actively advocated for greater statutory rigour around HMO’s and a removal of associated permitted development rights. I personally consider that I have an open mind upon the application to be determined. I can openly consider all planning arguments and information presented upon this specific application before forming any firm view upon the decision to approve or refuse the application.’

 

(Councillor Helen Crawford and Gloria Johnson concurred with the statement made and remained open minded).

 

(Councillor Max Sawyer declared he knew a public speaker; however, he remained open minded on the application).

 

(Councillor Patsy Ellis did not sit on the Committee for this application, as she had registered to speak as Ward Councillor).

 

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

 

·       Excessive density contrary to Policy DE1.

·       Harm to Conservation Area through subdivision of heritage bay windows contrary to Policy EN6.

·       Adverse impact on neighbouring amenity contrary to Policy DE1 through waste management and noise.

·       Failure to demonstrate alternative uses explored as required by Policy SP6.

·       Nearby residents had sent 56 objection letters. This application would adversely impact residents of Dudley Road.

·       Concern was raised on cumulative impact of HMO’s in Grantham’s town centre.

·       The lack of a parking survey on vehicle ownership and parking was raised. It was noted there was no cycling infrastructure in Grantham.

·       A waste and site management plan was suggested.

·       Concern was raised on anti-social behaviour and possible increase of crime alongside the lack of policing.

·       That previous CQC reports had shown no more than 16 people resided in the property, when it was a care facility.

·       The bin storage at the property was a great concern for the neighbour, alongside privacy concerns.

·       Concern was raised on the number of bathrooms and kitchens not meeting the specified requirements. 

·       The lack of laundry provision was raised.

 

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

 

·       Whether residents had stated that the future 24 occupants of the HMO were unlikely to own cars. 

 

Residents had highlighted that the future occupants of the HMO would likely own a vehicle.

 

·       Whether residents had confidence in parking data that had used people with 0 cars and 1 car only alongside a waste collection site that did not currently exist on the site.

 

Residents had highlighted that they were not confident with the parking data or waste collection route provided. 

 

·       It was noted that the Committee attended a site visit at 11:30am, where the traffic was busy. It was queried whether this was the ‘norm’ for this area at that time of day.

 

The District Ward Councillor confirmed that was the ‘norm’. It was highlighted that 5 schools were within close proximity to the site. He felt it was the wrong application in the wrong location.

 

(The Committee declared they knew Charmaine and John Morgan, however, remained open minded).

 

·       Clarification was sought around the photos shown, where the neighbour would overlook the bin storage. It was queried how far away the bins were from the neighbouring property.

 

The Public Speaker confirmed the bin storage was within close proximity to the neighbours’ hallway/lounge windows. It was approximately 3 metres away.

 

·       A query was raised on where the previous care home stored their bins.

 

The Public Speaker clarified the care home had previously stored bins on the rear side of the building which was not in view.

 

A statement was read out on behalf of the Applicant which outlined the following:

 

·       The Conservation Officer had not raised any concerns on the proposal and minimal changes to the exterior of the building would have no detrimental impact.

·       That the building would not be extended to facilitate the end use.

·       It was unlikely that the differences in the number of visitors and deliveries would be significantly different to the previous use. 

·       Lincolnshire County Council Highways had no objections to the proposal.

·       Extensive cycle parking provides 24 secure spaces along with 8 car parking spaces on site.

·       Car ownership in the area is low which was evidenced in Census data.

·       That prospective residents should be treated differently than other residential occupiers.

·       That the property will be well managed and occupied by tenants who are fully respectful.

 

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

 

·       One Member queried whether Lincs Fire and Rescue had submitted any comments on the application around the safety of residents.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner informed the Committee that fire and rescue safety were matters for building regulations.

 

·       It was noted key issues around parking and bin management had to be an assumption. Members were disappointed that they were unable to ask robust questions of the Applicant.

 

It was confirmed that Highways had assessed parking provision and had not objected to the application.

 

·       One Member queried whether cumulative impact was a matter for planning or licensing.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner highlighted that the type of cumulative impact would need to be assessed on harm. Clarification was sought on whether the cumulative impact was in terms of amenity or parking. The number of HMO’s within the area was not a planning consideration for cumulative impact.

 

·       Clarification was sought on whether any grass or mature hedging was being removed.

 

There were limited changes to the external appearance of the building. The application proposed to remove a small section of mature hedge from the pillar to halfway across the window, which would then be split and hard standing would replace a section of grass to accommodate parking.

 

·       Whether the Committee could share their concerns on parking of 4 or more cars being unacceptable for the site. It was queried whether the Committee could change the perspective from Highways.

 

Parking was a relevant planning consideration. Highways had the responsibility to assess the likely requirements that sort of development would have in terms of movements and demand and base their assessment on whether the site could accommodate that or not, alongside whether it would have an impact on the local highways network. Highways had assessed the application as a town centre location, and they felt there was sufficient opportunity for parking.

 

·       Clarification was sought around heritage and the division of the bay windows and whether this was a planning consideration.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner confirmed the bay windows were operational development and a relevant planning consideration. It was noted the Conservation Officer had not raised any concerns.

 

·       A query was raised on whether a parking stress survey had been undertaken.

 

A parking stress survey had not been completed, and the Highways authority had made their assessment and were satisfied there were no unacceptable impact in parking zones.

 

·       Clarification was sought on whether the HMO would act as one 24 occupancy HMO or two 12 occupancy HMOs.

 

Conditions had outlined the two properties could occupy up to 12 people in each building. The internal standards, internal space and level of occupancy that was acceptable from an HMO licensing point of view was a separate process.

 

The Development Management and Enforcement Manager informed the Committee that the intensity of the development and the harm from that was relevant to debate.

 

·       One Member suggested the following policies to debate: EN1 - landscape and character, DE1– loss of amenity, increased noise/disturbance, EN4 – mitigating pollution and protecting amenity.

 

It was clarified that policy EN1 primarily related to landscape character. Policy DE1 seemed more relevant in terms of the concerns around the impact of street scene. Other concerns highlighted would come under the remit of an alternative regime.

 

·       Clarification was sought around the report which stated, ‘suitable as a residential use, particularly taking into account the previous use of the site as a care home’. It was noted that the operation of a HMO compared to a care home was completely different.

·       Further clarification was sought around the note on scheme of crime prevention measures having to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to occupation. This implied an increase of crime was expected from the application.

 

A note had been received from the Crime Prevention Officer, which related to the internal requirements for the property e.g. locks inside the rooms.

 

·       Further concern was raised on the over occupancy of the site and waste management.

·       Another concern was raised on the impact of parking provision on the area.

 

 

One Member proposed a deferral of the application due to the Committee not having the robust site-specific evidence to determine the application. A deferral would allow the Applicant to provide the necessary information and clarification. A site-specific parking and car ownership assessment, clarification and correction of the design and access statement, a clear waste and servicing strategy and a re-consideration whether 24 occupants was appropriate for this site.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner informed the Committee that the appropriate route for the Committee to take would be to refuse the application on the basis of insufficient information rather than defer the application. If the application be deferred on a specific point, the Committee would be making it clear that they accept the application in all other aspects, if the specific point be addressed.

 

This proposal was withdrawn.

 

One Member proposed to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

-       The proposed use for two 12-bedroom HMOs was an over intensification and harm to residential amenity (contrary to DE1 and NPPF).

-       Inadequate living conditions for future occupiers, internal layout, communal space, constrained bathroom provision and restricted external amenity space (contrary to DE1 and NPPF).

-       Harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, including bin storage and parking (contrary to EN6 and NPPF).

-       Cumulative impact of HMOs. The proposal would contribute to an over concentration of HMOs within the surrounding area exacerbating existing social and environmental pressures and undermine the balance and mix of housing (contrary to policies H4 and DE1).

-       Insufficient and inconsistent information where the application contains conflicting and incomplete information regarding waste storage, management arrangements, internal facilities and parking (contrary to DE1 and NPPF).

 

The Development Management and Enforcement Manager provided advice to the Committee that the intensity of use and associated harm on the character and appearance of the area (DE1 and S12 of NPPF) had merit in terms of refusal. 

 

Insufficient information around parking and waste management could also be considered in terms of refusal for the impact.

 

·       Clarification was sought from the Legal Advisor. It was noted that ‘a deferral does not imply acceptance of any other issues, all matters remain live’ (Section 38.6 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act). 

 

The Legal Advisor clarified that deferring for further information at this meeting and then returning to the next meeting to reconsider the application and refusing it for a different reason (not the issues previously deferred on). It could be considered as unreasonable behaviour by the Applicant and potentially an Inspector, as it was not best practice.

 

One Member felt they were unable to make a decision on accepting or declining the application due to lack of evidence.

 

Some Members of the Committee had raised concern on the operation of the development affecting character and appearance of the property (internal subdivisions).

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting until 5pm.

 

The previous proposal was withdrawn.

 

·       One Member raised concern on risks to the Council if the application is deferred, the developer go to appeal and wins against deferring and requesting further information and make an assessment on all information. 

 

The Principal Development Management Planner confirmed the likelihood is that it would end up at appeal in both situations. Either the application is refused and the Applicant appeals against the reasons given or the Applicant appeals against non-determination. The risk is normally a lot higher for non-determination applications as the Local Planning Authority would have failed to make a decision.

 

Final decision

 

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

 

‘The proposed change of use to 2(no) houses of multiple occupation, each with up to 12 occupants, would require operational development in the form of subdivision of an existing window, removal of boundary treatments, increased hardstanding and additional bin storage and cycle storage, which would cumulatively result in harm to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan. The material considerations in this case, including the public benefits associated with the provision of 2 residential units, which is identified as a significant benefit, would not outweigh the identified harms as similar benefits could be derived from a less intensive residential use.’

 

‘There is insufficient information on which to assess the potential parking and waste storage required to support the development, such that the local planning authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would not result in an increase level of on-street parking, or would result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan.’