Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed change of use from house in multiple occupation (HMO) to supported housing for 5 residents.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)            That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

(2)            That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Jasmin Tailor (Planning Officer) introduced the report which the Committee was advised was seeking a change of use of the existing property, recently used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to a C3(b) use for supported housing for up to five residents where care is provided with no external alternations proposed.

The Chair thanked officers for introducing the report, and then invited Bimla Thakur (who had registered to speak in objection to the application) to address the Committee.  The following key points were highlighted:

·                 Concerns were raised in relation to what local residents felt would be the intended use of the property as a supported care facility given the significant impact on the surrounding area and neighbouring properties.

·                 Further concerns were also raised in relation to security and safety risks relating to the proposed use and management of the property and the impact on the wellbeing of local residents.

·                 Whilst sympathetic to the efforts being made to care for the more vulnerable in the community, the need for this type of provision in the area was queried given the existing availability of purpose built supported housing in the locality and what was felt to be the unsuitability of the property given its current construction, layout and boundary walls.

·                 Concerns were also raised in relation to adherence to previous planning consent along with the impact in relation to parking, traffic and nuisance on neighbouring residents and on the overall character of the area with the Committee therefore urged to refuse the application.

The Chair thanked Bimla Thakur for addressing the Committee and then invited questions and comments from members in relation to the information heard.  Whilst no specific questions were raised, confirmation was provided that Bimla Thakur was speaking as a neighbouring resident to the application site.

The Chair then welcomed Smita Patel (who had also registered to speak in objection to the application) and invited her to address the Committee. The following key points were highlighted:

·                 In addressing the Committee, Smita Patel outlined what she felt to be the flawed nature of the application given the amendment in proposed use from a change of use from Class C3a to C3b to a change of use from an HMO to supported housing for 5 residents; previous planning history of the property including refusal of an HMO application and what was therefore felt to be its current unlawful use along with lack of reference within the plans to any external or internal works despite reference to the cost of works within the application.

·                 Concerns were also raised in relation to the suitability of the property with specific reference to the unsafe boundaries, the current internal layout of the property, lack of sufficient communal facilities for residents or care staff, crime and safety within the surrounding area, levels of rubbish and traffic associated with current use of the property and the number of existing purpose built supported living accommodation units already available within the locality.

·                 Given the concerns identified members were asked to refuse the application with the property felt to be unsuitable for a change of use from a family house to supported living accommodation.  The Committee’s attention was also drawn to case law examples proved in relation to two supporting cases where planning permission had been refused for a change of use to supported living accommodation and principles to be applied in relation to that use.

The Chair thanked Smita Patel for addressing the Committee and then invited questions and comments from members in relation to the information provided.  As no specific questions were raised the Chair then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity regarding the application.  Members raised queries relating to the principle of the development and proposed change of use with the following responses provided:

·                 In recognising the unusual nature of the application, further clarification was sought on the principle of the development and position regarding use of the property should the application be refused.  In response the Committee was advised that whilst the property was in use previously as a single-family dwellinghouse (Class C3) a Prior Approval application had been made for a single-storey rear extension.  Although approved, the works were not carried out in accordance with the plans with use of the property subsequently changed to become a Use Class C4 small HMO.  The applicant had advised this change was made prior to the introduction of the Article 4 direction (which removed the permitted development right for this change) and was therefore of the view the conversion did not require planning permission.  As the extension had not been completed in accordance with the approved plans, however, officers confirmed the property had lost its permitted development rights and an enforcement case was opened in relation to the breaches in planning control.  The extension was subsequently granted planning permission, however, the C4 use remained unlawful.  As an Enforcement notice was not issued requiring a change back to Use Class C3, the change of use from the previous unlawful HMO (Class C4) use to the previous lawful use as a dwellinghouse (Class C3) now required planning permission.  Officers confirmed that if the Use Class C4 HMO use had been lawful then the change back to C3 would not have required planning permission.

Should permission be refused and enforcement action be taken (on the basis of harm demonstrated) officers confirmed this would still result in the same outcome with the property needing to be returned to its last lawful use as a C3 dwelling house.

·                 Addressing the examples of case law referred to as part of the representations made by the objectors at the meeting, the Committee were advised these were not directly comparable to the application being considered. The first case concerned a property housing children who could not live on their own. The second was an application where rooms in the house were being used as five separate flats, which was the reason for the refusal in that case.

·                 In clarifying the position regarding the change of use being sought, the Committee was advised the proposal under consideration was for the change of use of the premises to supported housing (Use Class C3(b)) with the last lawful use as a C3 dwellinghouse.  This Class Use would allow for up to six people living together as a single household (even if not a family group) and receiving care (e.g. supported housing schemes such as those for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems).  Whilst a change from a lawful Use Class C4 HMO to any use within C3 or a change in use from Class C3(a) to C3(b) or C3(c) (given that all sub-classes (a, b and c) sat within the same Use Class as a C3 dwellinghouse) would not usually require planning permission an application was required in this instance, with the previous lawful use therefore a material planning consideration.

As there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 7 and Against 1)