Agenda item

Change of use from dwelling (Use class C3) to a 6 bed House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) (Hull Road) (Site Visit).

Members considered an application by Mrs Fereshteh Hurst for a change of use from dwelling (Use class C3) to a 6 bed House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

Darren Hartshorn, a local resident, spoke to express his concerns around the number of HMO properties in the area and issues that this led to such as anti-social behaviour, rubbish left in the street and car parking.

Mrs Hurst, the applicant, stated that the house had been occupied as a student HMO for eight years and that the extension was currently unused as she could not let it as a separate property.

Councillor Neil Barnes, Ward Member, spoke on behalf of local residents in objection to the application. He stated that he was unsure as to whether the house had been used as a HMO since 2011 as he had been unable to access Council Tax records confirming this due to Data Protection and had heard information to contradict this. He stated that whilst he realised Members of the sub-committee may have limited powers to refuse this application it was important to show local residents that their concerns were being taken seriously.

In response to Member questions he stated:

·        HMO’s were a huge issue in this particular ward. Anti-social behaviour, rubbish and parking problems were at saturation point.

·        Article 4 direction should be amended to ensure that numbers were not breached and should be taken on a per bedroom basis.

·        There should also be a compulsory registration scheme, given that in some areas of York up to 50% of properties had been converted for use as HMO’s.

Officers clarified the following points in response to Member questions:

·        This was not a straightforward application, essentially Members would be giving permission for occupancy as one 6 bed HMO, not for the annex to be let as a separate property and there were conditions to ensure that this did not happen.

·        The property had been in use as a HMO prior to Article 4 and if planning permission was not granted the property could still be used lawfully as a HMO anyway.

·        The only breach of planning control that was enforceable would be if the annex was let separately or if it were let to more than 6 residents.

·        The impact to HMO numbers would be neutral as this was lawfully in use as a HMO at the present time.

During debate Members raised some of the following points:

·        At least 21% of this street and 47%of the wider area were in use as HMO’s and this may not even be a true figure.

·        This was a new application and should be dealt with as such and therefore overriding weight should be given to the concerns of local residents.

·        Some Members felt that if this application was approved then Officers could enforce planning conditions, giving local residents more protection.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     This should be considered as a new application and therefore fell outside of percentage thresholds for HMO’s in this area. There were concerns on loss of residential amenity and the loss of another family home in the area would cause imbalance contrary to guidance in the SPD.