Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer:

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

Mr David Allen, Applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

·         His properties were not owned by a charitable organisation.

·         This property had been owned by his company since 2004.

·         The charitable organisation had taken over the property on the assumption that it was already a HIMO.

·         Prior to this time the property had been a HIMO and let as C4 since 2004.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, raising concerns in relation to this application being in an area well over the 10% threshold for concentration of HIMO’s.

The Planning Manager offered advice as follows:

·         The HIMO status ran with the property.

·         The confusion here was created by national legislation in that occupation of homes by specific charitable organisations were not considered as multiple use properties.

·         When the charitable organisation took on this property before 2010, C4 classification did not exist. It was taken over as C3 use but then changed to multiple occupation before planning permission was required. Now the former use by the charitable organisation had been vacated, the property required planning permission to continue as a HIMO.

RESOLVED that permission for change of use for 97 Vernon Street to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) be refused.

Reason:

Due to the breach in the threshold for Houses in Multiple Occupation in the area which exaberated the social imbalance in the area.