Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a.    referred to the application property, a two storey, 5 bedroomed dwellinghouse located on the south side of St Andrews Drive

 

b.    advised that the application sought planning permission for change of use from an existing dwelling (C3) to a flexible use between a Dwelling (C3) and a House in Multiple Occupation (C4)

 

c.     advised that a city wide Article 4 Direction was adopted from the 1st March 2016 removing the permitted change from C3 to C4, necessitating the formal requirement for planning permission for this change of use; The Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provided criteria for determining planning applications for the development of HMOs

 

d.    highlighted that the applicant previously applied for a HMO use for the property in 2022, but later withdrew the application after being advised that marketing information was required

 

e.    reported that this application had been brought to the Planning Committee due to the number of objections received from neighbouring residents

 

f.      detailed the history to the application site within the main body of the officer’s report

 

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

 

·       National Planning Policy Framework

·       Supplementary Planning Document - Houses in Multiple Occupation

·       Policy S25: Sub-Division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings Within Lincoln

·       Policy S53: Design and Amenity  

 

8. provided details of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, to consider whether the application met the requirements of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Local Plan Policy and assess the proposal with regard to:

 

 

i.      outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

j.      referred to the Update Sheet which contained further responses received in relation to the planning application subsequent to the agenda papers being published

 

11. concluded as follows:

 

 

Rosie Fairweather, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed planning application. She covered the following main points:

 

·       She spoke on behalf of herself and the residents of St Andrews Drive.

·       This was a family street close to two day nurseries and a primary school.

·       There was also an additional school and a secondary school in the area.

·       The application property was a family home which needed to be preserved.

·       Properties of 4+ bedrooms were at a premium demand.

·       There were plenty of single use and HMO unoccupied properties to choose from.

·       There would be issues of noise pollution from HMO use.

·       HMO properties tended to attract a transient population.

·       The potential change of use would alter the demographics of the local area and set a precedent for future use of other properties.

·       The property had only been marketed for four weeks at a reduced price of £1,600 p.c.m for rental use.

·       The marketing photograph of the property had been taken during darkness which did not show the full outlook of the property.

·       The property had been subject to limited rental advertisement, there had been no advertisement board displayed.

·       The monthly income for the owners of the property as a HMO would amount to £2,500 for five rooms.

·       Families would be pushed out.

·       One local resident had been shocked to read that the property had been unoccupied for six months, this was inaccurate information as people had been seen resident there in November 2024.

·       There was limited capacity for additional cars on the driveway, which would exacerbate existing parking issues.

·       This property should remain as a family home.

 

Ms Yanube Ogedengbe, sister of the applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed planning application. She covered the following main points:

 

·       She understood the concerns raised by local residents.

·       The property had been marketed for rent for 7 months without success.

·       Family members had been living there, however, they had to move due to personal circumstances and tenancy/income for the house to pay the mortgage was needed.

·       The applicant wished to help people in housing crisis by offering C4 HMO use which could be rented out for multiple occupancy and shared living costs.

·       This type of use also offered ideal accommodation to professional people such as doctors and nurses.

·       Some tenants could not afford £1,800 rental costs per month and chose to live together to save cost.

·       This was a residential area, however, some families could not afford rental charges and chose to live together to save cost.

·       The cost of utility bills also had to be taken into consideration.

·       The property had been advertised for rent via social media without success.

·       The use of the property as a HMO would help people on low incomes with families, having very good schools nearby.

 

The following concerns were raised in relation to the proposed planning application:

 

·       The area was used predominantly for family accommodation.

·       It was close to schools, nurseries, doctors’ surgeries and local amenities.

·       A ‘for sale’ or ‘to rent board’ had not been seen at the property.

·       The marketing issue should be reconsidered again here, giving further opportunity for the property to be sold or rented out.

·       The member in question had moved to Lincoln and lived in a HMO with young professionals. There was indeed a need for these types of homes, however, there was not enough evidence in this case for lack of demand for this house as a family home.

·       It could be seen that the property was still for sale via internet access, however, the estate agents were not local to the area or a substantial business.

·       The member was sympathetic to the application as a HMO, however, there should also be an advertisement board for marketing to those people without internet access. There was evidence to suggest the marketing issue had not been fully addressed.

·       It had not been satisfied that the property had been sufficiently marketed for rent as a family home.

·       Was this road and property really suitable for HMO use? It was in the right area to be marketed for potential sale or rent having 5 bedrooms.

 

The following comments were noted in relation to the proposed planning application:

 

·       Many of the objections received from local neighbours did not relate to material planning considerations.

·       The Highway Authority commented that this site in an urban area with local services was within a reasonable distance to be accessed via walking, cycling and public transport. More cars on the street would worsen the situation.

·       It was incredible to think that a property of this type could not be let, although comments by the owners that they wanted to look after all kinds of people were appreciated.

·       Article 4 legislation had been intended to give more control over the planning process in local communities in relation to HMO’s.

·       The property could still be operated as C3 or C4 use and it was possible it could be used again in the future as a domestic property.

·       It was not paramount to have an advertising board outside the property as long as the marketing requirements had been met.

·       The concerns were justifiable taking into account HMO properties in other areas not properly maintained, however, this could happen with family properties as well as other uses.

·       The housing situation in the city had changed considerably and more people rented properties or rooms in mixed occupancy.

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification:

 

·       Supplementary Planning Documents set out the qualifying criteria for C4 HMO’s and flexible uses.

·       This application had met most of the criteria in 2022, apart from lack of marketing.

·       It was for Committee to determine whether or not the owners had justified that a HMO was the only option for occupancy of the property rather than a rentable house for family use.

·       Any part of the city was appropriate for HMO use.

 

A motion was proposed that the application be granted according to the recommended officer conditions listed on page 32/33 of the report.

 

The motion failed to receive a seconder, and fell. Planning permission was therefore refused.

 

The meeting was adjourned for a short period of time to allow for settlement and dispersal of the public audience. It was then resumed.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of:

 

·       Policy S25: Sub Division and Multi-Occupation of Dwellings Within Lincoln. It had not been sufficiently demonstrated there was no demand for sale or rent of this property.