Agenda item

Change of use from a 6 person house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) to a 10 person house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use from a 6 person house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) to a 10 person house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis).

Officers introduced the application. The house was currently in use under use Class C4, which allowed it to be inhabited by up to six people. The application proposed that this be increased to ten people, which would change the use category to Sui Generis. No changes were proposed to the size of the building, with extensions having previously been granted permission.

The only proposed alterations to the external appearance of the building were changes to the front garden layout. Four parking spaces would be provided at the site, which complied with requirements. The proposed room sizes were also complaint with Council standards. No complaints had been received in relation to the management of the premises. The application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman asked officers to confirm how accessible the site was for public transport. The site was located on the edge of a public accessibility level 2 area and was close to being in a level 3 area. The site was therefore considered to have adequate access to public transport.

The Chairman advised that the issue for the Committee to consider was the proposed intensification of the use of the property and the appropriateness of this.

The Committee sought clarification as to whether a ten bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) would normally be required to be built in a detached house. Officers confirmed that the Council's supplementary planning guidance from 2004 specified that HMO'S with around ten people in should normally be located within detached dwellings. Although the house that the application concerned was semi-detached, at 160 square metres plus in size, it was quite large. Therefore, the fact that it was not detached, was not considered to be particularly problematic by officers.

Concerns were raised that one of the habitable rooms appeared to have a garage door to the front of it, rather than a window. Officers advised that an acceptable residential environment for the occupier of the room could be ensured by imposing a planning condition to require the replacement of the garage door with a window.

The Chairman said that the Committee should consider whether the proposed intensification of use, in close proximity to other properties, was appropriate. The Committee should consider the potential for harm to be caused to neighbouring occupiers through noise and disturbance.

Members considered that the proposals amounted to an extreme intensification of use as the proposals were in an area that contained predominantly three bedroom properties. It was suggested that four parking spaces was not enough, although it was acknowledged that it may meet the Council's required parking standards. The availability of amenity space was also mentioned as being a possible cause for concern. Officers advised that space provided by the proposals was well above the minimum level required.

In response to a Member question about whether the applicant would subsequently be able to convert a lounge into a bedroom, officers advised that while there was no specific condition, the applicant would be required to comply with approved plans and to maintain this. It was also noted that approval of the application would grant permission for a 10 person residence. Therefore, allowing more people than this to live at the premises would be in breach of this permission.

Members discussed the possibility of overturning the officer recommendation due to the intensification of use and the inappropriateness of use when compared to the surrounding area. It was considered that building had not been designed for such a use and that it was unlikely that neighbours would welcome ten people living at the premises.

Officers advised that the provision of parking was not a valid reason for refusal and that the Committee needed to consider what harm would be caused by intensification of use. Officers had assessed the ability of the building to reasonably accommodate ten people and had determined that all the room sizes met the minimum standards. The Committee was encouraged to consider what the difference was between the current six people living at the property and the application under consideration which proposed that ten people be allowed to live there. The Committee would need to consider how this intensification would become evident to people living in the vicinity. Officers had not been able to find a reason as to why the proposed intensification would make approval of the proposals unacceptable.

Members felt that the proposed increase in occupancy of the premises from six to ten persons, a 66% increase, was significant. However, it was difficult for valid refusal reasons to be identified as the proposals complied with the relevant planning policies. Members were also concerned about the increase in noise and rubbish that could be caused by an increased number of people living at the property.

The Chairman summarised the Committee's view that the application amounted to an intensification of use by a sizeable amount. The location in a residential street, adjoining another dwelling, created the possibility of a noise and disturbance being caused in the event that ten people were permitted to live at the property. The fact that the Council's own guidance specified that properties housing ten persons or more should normally be detached was also of concern. While it was recognised that the property may be large enough to accommodate ten people, there was concern with regard to there being sufficient separation from neighbouring properties. The Committee needed to consider whether this intensification of use amounted to a valid reason for refusal.

Officers advised that the maximum number of people permitted to live at the property under its current C4 use class was six. More than six people living at a property would be classed as a Sui Generis use. This demonstrated that the Government considered there to be a more significant impact when more than six people lived at a property. It was for the Committee to determine at what point the threshold was crossed for where the number of people in a property was likely to start causing a disturbance.

Officers considered that the applicant was responsible and would be willing to put in place a suitable management plan in order to ensure that issues such as refuse were dealt with. The requirement for a management plan had been secured through a planning condition. This had been in included in one of the recommended conditions for approval within the officer report.

The proposal to overturn the officer recommendation for approval of the application was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be refused for the following reasons:

i)             The increased intensification of the use would create noise and disturbance to the detriment of the residential amenity of surrounding occupiers.

ii)                  The application site fails to accord with the Council’s HMO SPG which advises that HMO’s to house this number of people should be detached properties.

2.    That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to determine the precise wording of the reasons for refusal.