Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer:

a.    described the application site situated on the northern side of Foster Street, within the Boultham Ward of the city and within Flood Zone 2, a mid-terrace 3-bedroom dwelling accessed by a shared passageway incorporating a bay window at street level, with a lounge, dining room, kitchen and bathroom at ground level and three bedrooms at first floor level

b.    advised that this application for planning permission proposed to change the use of the house from a single dwelling, which fell within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), which fell within Class C4, stating that this had been a permitted change of use until the introduction of the City-wide Article 4 direction as of March 1^st 2016, after which time the change of use came under the control of the Local Planning Authority, requiring an application for planning permission

c.    stated that there were no changes proposed to the use of the rooms within the house

d.    referred to the planning history to the application site as detailed within the officer’s report

e.    highlighted that this planning application had been brought to committee as the applicant was a relative of an employee of the City of Lincoln Council

f.     provided details of the policies pertaining to the application as follows:-

·         Policy LP37: Sub-Division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings within Lincoln

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

·         Supplementary Planning Guidance (Houses in Multiple Occupation)

g.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

h.    reported that the issues raised by the application related to the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document Approved Draft, firstly in relation to the principle of the development and then the impacts of the use itself in terms of amenity and flood risk

i.      highlighted the purpose of the Article 4 direction, as explained within the draft document, “is not to restrict the supply of HMOs, rather [it is] intended to manage the future development of HMOs to ensure such developments will not lead to or increase existing over-concentrations of HMOs that are considered harmful to local communities.”

j.      concluded that:

·         Although the use of the property as a HMO would technically result in a new HMO, the property had been utilised in the past on a multiple-occupancy basis so there would not be harm caused to the physical and social character of the residential area in relation to the nature and composition of the local community.

·         Similarly, due to the previous occupation of the property, there would not be a need for marketing in relation to the demand for the property as a family home, as it had not been used as such in the recent past.

·         In addition, the proposals would not cause harm to the amenities that the occupants of nearby properties would expect to enjoy as a result of noise and disturbance or car parking; and control over the number of residents would ensure that the occupants of the property would not be harmed.

·         Finally, given the previous use, it would not be reasonable to impose controls over the use of rooms at ground floor within the property in terms of the risk of flooding to sleeping accommodation.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, raising concerns in relation to:

·         Current legislation which allowed non profitable organisations to run as HIMO’s although not classified as such.

·         The need for local people to be made aware of this legislation to avoid the planning authority being unfairly criticised.

·         The need for more accurate figures on the number of HIMO’s in the area as a vast majority of properties operated as such.

·         A huge problem with car parking congestion in the area.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the property had been leased to a charitable organisation by the applicant, however the lease had now expired and the premises no longer came under legislation as a charity.

The Planning Manager offered the following advice:

·         This application was a complex case. The consideration was not about use by a charity but the need to pull out these types of usage as a C3 dwelling.

·         Each application had to be considered robustly on individual merits.

·         There were significant and material differences between this application and others taking out a family home, as this property had already been taken out of family use.

·         It was not known how many other properties operated by non-profitable organisations although it was not thought this number would be significant.

·         This planning application had been brought to committee as the applicant was a relative of an employee of the City of Lincoln Council in the same directorate as the Planning Section.

RESOLVED that the change of use for 39 Foster Street to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), be granted subject to the following conditions:

The following Planning Conditions are recommended:-

Standard Timeframe for Implementation (3 years)

Approved Plans

Flexible Use Condition

The use hereby approved is permitted to change from C4 to C3 and back again to C4 without the need for a further application for planning permission for an unlimited number of times for a period limited to ten years hence from the date of this permission. The use of the premises at the expiry of ten years shall then be the use of the premises from that point forwards.

Reason: In order to enable the applicant/owner of the property to respond to market conditions, without the need for multiple planning applications.

Restriction on Occupants when a HMO

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 (SI 2010/653) or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order, no more than 4 residents shall at any time occupy the property whilst it is in use as a C4 dwelling house (house in multiple occupancy whereby the premises is occupied by unrelated individuals who share basic amenities).

Reason: The occupancy of the property by more than four residents could be harmful to amenity.