Agenda item

Change of use from dwelling house (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4). [Osbaldwick] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mrs Heather Richardson for a change of use from a dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

In their update to Members, Officers reported that more objections to the application had been received since the agenda for the meeting had been published. One Member raised concerns about public objections not being viewable on the Council’s website.

In response Officers stated that all objections both online and offline were received by the Case Officer. On receipt, as well as being sent to the Case Officer for taking into account, objections are initially logged as “sensitive” so they can be checked before being publicly displayed. The Support Team would then process the comments and change the status to public as appropriate. Officers stated that given the volume of comments received on a daily basis this often could take a little time. All objections and comments were taken into consideration by Officers when writing their reports, and any received after publication were reported to the Committee and considered.

Some Members were concerned about the access for vehicles to the property and suggested that an informative be added on to planning permission for the kerb outside the property to be lowered.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident Julie Darlow. She raised concerns about viewing objection letters on the Council’s website, parking problems that could be caused by an increase in vehicles in the small cul de sac where the property was located and the percentages of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the area.

Representations in support were received from the applicant’s agent, Mark Newby. He stated that the proposed layout could accommodate six people and that it would refurbished to reflect this. He also informed Members that as a HMO the dwelling could be occupied by six related people without planning permission. In response to a question from a Member about the possibility of adding further toilet facilities into the building, it was confirmed that this could be done.

During discussion some Members felt that the application should not be judged on the possible residents who might inhabit the building. They did add however, that it was unfortunate that the property under consideration was adjacent to an existing HMO.

One Member felt that policies, such as the Council’s Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)  which set out percentages for HMOs in an area should be applied in a more flexible manner, to take into consideration special circumstances. They referred to a previous appeal decision to the Planning Inspectorate on an application for another HMO in York. This appeal had been granted even though the percentage of HMOs in the area was higher than those set down in the Council’s Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The Member felt therefore that even though the application under consideration was in an area where the number of HMOs was below the percentage thresholds laid down in the Draft SPD, that Members could argue that it should be refused, because the aforementioned appeal decision called for a pragmatic approach.

They felt that the property’s location in a quiet cul de sac, in which two other HMOs were currently located, would be detrimental to residential amenity. They also felt that if the property was inhabited by students this might lead to an increase in vehicles using the property and therefore the existing parking provision would not be sufficient.

A motion to follow the Officer’s recommendation was moved. Another motion to refuse the application was also moved. Following a tied vote, the Chair used her casting vote for approval.

Councillor Warters requested that his vote against approval be recorded.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved.

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to residential amenity and the impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal complies with Policy H8 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Controlling the concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupancy’