Agenda item

(Councillor Bean left the room for the discussion of this item, having made a Declaration of Predetermination with regard to the agenda item to be discussed.)

 

The Planning Manager:

 

a.    described the application property, 8 Top Lodge Close, a currently vacant two storey detached dwelling located in a cul-de-sac together with eight other properties accessed from Doddington Road to the south, close to the junction with Whisby Road

 

b.    highlighted that Top Lodge Close was privately owned and maintained, having a private driveway to the front and a large garden to the side and rear, bounded by approximately 1.8m high fencing with 9 Top Lodge Close to the east of the site, 6 and 7 Top Lodge Close to the west and properties on Swaythling Close to the north

 

c.    advised that planning permission was sought for change of use from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a seven bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis); proposing to maintain the four bedrooms on the first floor, two on the second floor (within the roof) and a further bedroom created as part of a self-contained unit within the double garage

 

d.    reported that works to create this unit had already commenced involving the installation of internal stud walls and the partial bricking up of the garage door openings to creating window openings, the occupants in the main house would have access to a lounge, kitchen/diner, snug and bathrooms

 

e.    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Policy LP9     Health and Wellbeing

·         Policy LP10   Meeting Accommodation Needs

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity Standards

·         Policy LP29   Protecting Lincoln's Setting and Character

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

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

                       

f.     outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

g.    referred to the update sheet which contained a further objection received from Councillor Bean, member of Planning Committee and picture evidence of parking issues

 

h.    advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regard to:

 

·         Use and Policy Context

·         Lack of Demand for the Dwellinghouse Use

·         HMO Concentration

·         Parking and Effect on the Amenities of the Wider Area

·         External Communal Space, Cycle and Bin Storage

 

i.      concluded that:

 

·         In accordance with CLLP Policies LP9 and LP10 officers were fully supportive in principle of the provision of the type of accommodation that was suggested by the application, however, it was the HMO use and not the specific operator that had been considered.

·         The potential for mental health benefits would not therefore outweigh the requirement for the HMO proposal to meet Policy LP37 and the SPD. These both required that applications should demonstrate that there was an established lack of demand for the use of the property as a family dwellinghouse. The application had failed to provide such evidence and officers recommended refusal on these grounds.

·         Similarly, while the application stated that there would be limited vehicle ownership associated with specific use, officers had to consider the potential for a seven bedroom HMO to be occupied by seven occupants, each with their own car.

·         There was no objection from the Lincolnshire County Council as Local Highway Authority in terms of highway safety although officers considered that the potential for increased vehicle numbers and the insufficient parking provision within the application site would result in on-street parking, which would in turn cause harm to the amenities of local residents. Officers would recommend that the application is also refused on these grounds.

·         Notwithstanding the impact on neighbouring properties through increased on-street parking it was not considered that the principle of the HMO use would result in undue harm to neighbouring occupants or the visual amenity of the wider area. The application would not result in an over concentration of HMOs within the area. The application site also had the potential to provide adequate provision for external communal areas for amenity, cycle storage and bin storage.  

·         Officers would therefore recommend refusal of the application on the grounds of lack of evidence of the demand for the property as a family dwelling and the impact on neighbouring occupants as a result of the potential for on-street parking, contrary to CLLP Policies LP26 and LP37, the SPD and the NPPF.

 

Mr Richard Sargent addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         He spoke this evening with unanimous support from the residents of Top Lodge Close and Swaythling Close.

·         The character of the application site represented typically a strong family residential area.

·         There were issues associated with the proposed use in terms of integration within the community and safeguarding.

·         There were no other HMO’s in the area.

·         This area was not an appropriate or safe environment for a HMO.

·         Residents did not deny there was a need for this type of accommodation, however, it should be in the right area.

·         There was a high demand for these residential houses.

·         The driveways only had space for three vehicles.

·         The proposal for seven occupants within the property was not achievable as the Close was too small in terms of parking provision.

·         This would result in parking on the street, on the sharp bend of the Close and also other people’s private driveways being used.

·         Issues were envisaged resulting from vehicles parking on the sharp bend as lorries had to reverse in for waste bin collection and would probably not bother to collect with such access headaches.

·         Issues of emergency vehicle access.

·         We had been told that it was intended that residents to the HMO would not require vehicles, however, this was a high risk HMO of three storeys in height with seven occupants, which could attract additional vehicles in the area.

·         The application stated the developers were CQC registered.

·         The company in question was not registered on the CQC website and did not hold a Lincoln city office.

·         Residents wished the Planning Committee to consider safeguarding, integration, parking and safety of residents in relation to the proposals before them.

·         In this case, need did not outweigh harm.

·         Please refuse planning permission.

 

Mr Chris York, agent, addressed Planning Committee in support of the planning application on behalf of the applicant, covering the following main points:

 

·         The policy position here was two-fold.

·         .

·         Demand and supply were linked - prices paid reflected demand and supply.

·         Supply was currently at a heavy market position.

·         There were 52 properties up for sale in the LN6 area of similar price.

·         There was a healthy turnover with no lack of supply.

·        

·         Stringent S106 conditions could be applied to the property.

·         With regards to the legality of the planning application, indirect discrimination had been discussed.

·         It was necessary to take a wider look and ask questions.

·         Why was Article 4 introduced- to discriminate against disabled people? Of course not.

·         Use of LP27 to refuse planning permission would discriminate against disabled people.

·         S106 conditions could be used instead.

·         Use of LP27 to refuse was unlawful.

·         Please approve planning permission with the imposition of an S106 agreement.

 

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification in relation to the above comments:

 

·         Article 4 did not apply to a Sui Generis HMO as proposed (having more than six occupants).

·         The associated Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document Approved Draft (SPD) provided criteria for determining planning applications for the development of HMOs, which were still relevant to this type of HMO.

·         SPD under Article 4 had been ratified by the Secretary of State very recently.

 

Members sought and received clarification from officers that in the event that planning permission was granted and the application for supported living fell, the property would still remain as a HMO.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, making individual comments in respect of the proposed development as follows:

 

·         The ‘not in my back yard’ attitude was concerning.

·         The need for this type of accommodation in this locality had not been proven.

·         There was no objection on highways grounds.

·         The nature of the application was not the concern here, but the type of potential residents in a Sui Generis HMO

·         Future residents may have cars.

·         Help should be given to disabled residents although in this case other considerations outweighed the benefits of granting planning permission.

·         Potentially the seven occupants within the application property could own cars.

 

Members raised questions in relation to whether:

 

·         The reference within the officer’s report to the potential for increased vehicle numbers and insufficient parking provision within the application site resulting in on-street parking was made by Highway Authority officers or City of Lincoln Council Planning officers.

·         An S106 agreement could be imposed to restrict occupants of the property from owning cars.

 

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification in relation to the proposals:

 

·         The reference within the officer’s report to increased vehicle numbers was made by City Council officers.

·         The Highways Authority had assessed the specific proposal as submitted including the statement from the applicants.

·         Planning officers had taken into account the Sui Generis use and the fact that potentially the property could be occupied by seven unrelated individuals all with cars.

·         The site consisted of a small cul-de-sac with a tight bend in the road - four additional cars parked on the street would be an issue.

·         The operation of the premises could be controlled by an S106 agreement to personalise permission, however, the application also failed to meet policy tests for the demand for this type of house.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1. The application fails to demonstrate there is an established lack of demand for the single family use of the application property thereby discouraging owner occupation by families, contrary to Policy LP37 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document Approved Draft and paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2. The proposed seven bedroom HMO could be occupied by seven individuals, each with a car. The driveway within the application site could not accommodate that level of parking which would result in on-street parking. This would have a significant impact on the small cul-de-sac, causing harm to the residential amenities which the occupiers of neighbouring properties may reasonably expect to enjoy, contrary to Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.