Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Tierney, ward councillor. Councillor Tierney stated that he is the County, District and Town Councillor for this area but Councillors Hoy and Wallwork have fed into what he is going to say and Councillor Edwards who is a Town Councillor is also present to support residents in opposing this application. He stated that Queens Road is a normal residential street full of family character homes in a well-established community neighbourhood and under the Local Plan’s health and wellbeing guidance LP2 it aims to provide high levels of residential amenity which, in his view, this proposal only pays scant lip service to, with it having almost no communal areas and does not give a sense of community.

 

Councillor Tierney stated that LP2 also states the ambition to create an environment in which communities can flourish and, in his view, people cannot easily flourish in these sorts of proposed accommodations. He expressed the opinion that this proposal is also contrary to paragraph 8 of the NPPF which states that development should support strong, vibrant, and healthy communities and living in a small box room with no community space he feels is the opposite of that ambition and is not conducive to a healthy life.

 

Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that the key reason why this application should be refused is that it breaches LP16 in multiple ways, LP16(b) states that development should protect and enhance biodiversity on and around the site, with this proposal not doing this as the garden is removed to create multiple parking spaces but not enough parking spaces, LP16(d) states that developments should make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and this application cannot possibly, in his view, do this, LP16(e) states that development should not adversely impact upon the amenity of neighbouring users, with one example given being loss of privacy, and, in his view, this site will lead to overlooking of No.39 and so contravenes this. He added that LP16 sets out the desire to deliver and protect high quality environments, with this building normally being a high-quality family home but under these proposals becomes multiple small dwellings creating isolation and having an negative effect on the physical and mental health of people forced to live their entire lives in one room.

 

Councillor Tierney expressed the view that the parking provision is poor for this many proposed residents and committee did refuse another application last year at Langley Lodge, 300 yards along the road, for the same reason, with that application going to appeal and the appeal supported this committee’s reservations and decision and he feels this is the same situation. He stated that LP15(c) stipulates development schemes should provide well-designed car parking appropriate to the amount of development proposed and in line with car parking standards but this development proposal would result in a shortfall of car parking which would result in on-street parking to the detriment of road safety and contrary to the aims and objectives of this policy.

 

Councillor Tierney asked for consistency asking members to replicate that logical decision and turn this application down. He referred to the Town Council comments when they discussed this issue which is that a lot of problems that Wisbech has come from poorly planned and poorly placed HMOs and, in his opinion, this proposal is in a poor place and is a poor plan requesting that it be refused.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Tierney as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whereabouts would the overlooking occur that was mentioned? Councillor Tierney responded that one of the neighbours at No.39 will be overlooked from one of the high repositioned windows.

·         Councillor Benney asked what is the on-street parking situation in Queens Road? Councillor Tierney responded that lots of cars park along the road, with residents often complaining about people speeding and driving recklessly down this road, but it is an odd road as it very wide so there is no easy way to slow people down or control parking. He added that the on-street parking is first come first served and there is already a parking difficulty and issues with the traffic and he feels this proposal would exacerbate the issues.

·         Councillor Hicks requested clarification that the 6 car spaces are for the residents and not for visitors and that there are double yellow lines all the way around the front of the building and on the side so the immediate parking is not outside the property? Councillor Tierney responded that he cannot remember where the double yellow lines run to but he believes this is correct and there are 6 parking spaces for 8 residents presuming one car each and no visitors which is not enough and will create an overspill. Councillor Connor stated that there are double yellow lines down Queens Road and also down Kings Street.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from William Morris, an objector. Mr Morris stated that he is a resident of Queens Road and has been asked to speak by other residents who are very concerned about this application and do not want it to be approved, with there being a lot of depth of feeling. He added that he has lived in Queens Road with his wife for very many years and brought up his family here, with it being a road of family houses and to his knowledge there have not been HMOs in that road before.

 

Mr Morris expressed the view that multiple occupancy has never really featured and if this application is approved this is going to change the situation fundamentally and will change and debase the amenity of the road and its character. He feels it is important to realise that this application is for 8 people and 8 bedrooms but 6 of the 8 bedrooms could accommodate a double bed so what is going to stop up to 14 people residing in this property albeit against regulations and rules but, in his view, these things happen and he suspects it will happen. He questioned how the Council would enforce the restriction on numbers, with this point being raised in correspondence to the Council as there had been another similar case in another district where the Planning Inspector had said that “they are not persuaded that a condition attempting to limit the number of occupants would be practicably possible to enforce in terms of its interpretation and detecting a contravention consequently it would fail the tests of precision and enforceability set out in the NPPF” and this concern was raised with this Council within a letter of objection sent on 12 January 2024 but has not been acknowledged within the summary of objections at Section 5.8 of the officer’s report but it is a real issue if there is to be multiple occupancy on how can it be policed.

 

Mr Morris queried the amenity of residents in the HMO if the proposal is approved as it seems that the accommodation will not be fit for purpose, there are limited communal facilities and the residents would be expected to relax, cook and eat all in the same room, which, in his view, is not good. He questioned again how many residents there would really be, would there be 8 or will there be more.

 

Mr Morris referred to the impact on the amenity of Queens Road and he thinks there are real issues as there would be a lot more noise from comings and goings to this property, with the people who will suffer particularly will be those that live next door and close by and there will be an increase in litter, with there already being a litter problem and anybody that goes down the service road behind Queens Road properties see how so often that there is fly tipping here and he suspect this situation will be made worse with this proposal. He stated that the site is close to a tricky crossroads and the situation will be made more difficult here with a multiple occupancy house just next door and environmentally it is not good as they are proposing to remove the garden for residents parking.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Morris as follows:

·         Councillor Marks referred to an HMO that has been approved in Manea and there was a lot of people against it and time will tell whether it actually works out or not but from this there is a noise issue from night workers 24 hours a day going in and out. He asked with what is proposed on this application does Mr Morris feel it is going to be more transient workers or for longer term residents? Mr Morris responded that he suspects the property will be used by transient workers but he does not know but he is convinced there will be more interference.

·         Councillor Marks asked for confirmation as Mr Morris has lived in the area for a long period of time whether there has been any anti-social behaviour up to this point? Mr Morris responded that there has not been anti-social behaviour that he is aware of.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the alleyway behind the proposed development and asked what the problems are as when he visited the site there were wheelie bins placed on both sides of the road and one of his concerns is the parking at the back and does this remove the place where you can put wheelie bins and in HMOs they do not take responsibility for rubbish collections. He asked what the situation was with the alleyway currently, is there any fly tipping issues and are bins being collected regularly? Mr Morris responded that most to the houses in Queens Road put their bins in the alleyway behind and they are collected but the problem is the dumping of rubbish, which is not collected at all and his wife is very often having to contact the Council to say there has been fly tipping or refuse left and can it be collected and the Council is extremely good at collecting it. He stated that one of the fears they have is that if this application is approved then there will be more of this problem and the road behind Queens Road, Chestnut Road, is fairly narrow and not well maintained.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated he was pleased to see the officer’s report and the recommendation of approval. He added that one of the key points of the application being the existing dwelling is not to be extended and the property was originally constructed as a 2½ storey dwelling with rooms in the roof and there are already windows in the side gable and at the front, which are not being touched and no windows are being introduced at the first or second floor.

 

Mr Hall stated that the proposal is not to enlarge the property in any way and only 2 additional en-suite frosted glass windows are to be introduced in the side wall facing No.39 and they are both at ground floor level, with the design of the proposal being specifically set out to ensure the actual dwelling from the street scene would remain as existing. He expressed the opinion that with a house of multiple occupancy of this size there would be additional sound proofing added to the property as part of Building Regulations and the Environmental Health Officer is not objecting to the proposal.

 

Mr Hall made the point that officers are happy with the bin storage provision and the proposal leaves over half of the plot as garden area, which is in accordance with Policy LP2. Mr Hall expressed the view that there are 6 onsite parking spaces, which the Highways Officer and Planning Officer have not raised any objection to and under 9.14 of the officer’s report it states that this is reasonable.

 

Mr Hall stated that when he took on this job he did look around the area and 2 streets away from this site at Alexandra Road is an 8-bed HMO that was approved at No.26 with no on-site parking  in 2019 and at No.27 a 9-bed HMO was approved with no parking also in 2019, with both of these applications being 100 metres from this site. He made the point that all technical consultees support this application including Highways, Environmental Health and the Private Sector Housing Officer.

 

Mr Hall stated that during the application the layout has been amended in conjunction with the Private Sector Housing Officer and also the applicant in terms of communal facilities and sizes of rooms, with the Planning Officer being very proactive during the application and worked with them excellently to allow the application to come forward with a recommendation for approval and, in the officer’s opinion, this proposal is policy compliant.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Hicks referred to the other HMOs in the area as mentioned by Mr Hall and asked if these were surrounded by double yellow lines? Mr Hall responded that when he looked at these applications they were approved under delegated powers in 2019 and he believes there are yellow lines along this road. It was indicated that there are not yellow lines.

·         Councillor Imafidon made the point that Alexandra Road is right next to the big public car park so it will not require any parking spaces for HMOs there so, in his opinion, this is entirely different from this property, which has no parking spaces surrounded by double yellow lines and the front garden is going to be lost as well as the garage demolished in the rear garden to create 6 parking spaces for 8 residents who may have more vehicles who may have visitors who will then park on the street. He asked Mr Hall to agree that this is not the same situation? Mr Hall responded that the public car park is close to both sites and accessed from Queens Road and Alexandra Road and the properties in Alexandra Road provided no on-site parking but this proposal provides 6 and whilst it is an 8-bed HMO, in his opinion, and he thinks the Highways Officer’s opinion also, this is considered a town centre location. Councillor Imafidon referred to a map and where the car park was and, in his view, it is not the same thing. Mr Hall responded that whilst it is not ideal residents from this property could access the car park off Queens Road and Alexandra Road also has a public car park next to it and, in his opinion, all sites are close to public car parks.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if people were living in the dwelling currently? Mr Hall responded that when the applicant purchased the property it was empty and to his knowledge it is still empty.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked about the overlooking mentioned by Councillor Tierney? Mr Hall responded that on the side of the dwelling overlooking No.39 at the moment there are windows in the roof now which are staying, nothing is being introduced at first floor level but at ground floor level which does face No.39 there will be an additional 2 en-suite windows 600 wide with frosted glass.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that Mr Hall is saying that this proposal is suitable but in his opinion would he want this next door to him? Councillor Connor stated this is a leading question and Mr Hall did not have to answer it.

·         Councillor Marks stated that committee have heard from a resident and Councillor Tierney and he has a real concern over 8 bedrooms, with the proposal being reduced from 12, and how quickly will this be increased to 12 to 14 to bed sharing, etc. He asked what is being put in place for some sort of management and that there are not people going in and out 24 hours? Mr Hall responded that with regard to the persons that are going to occupy the property are they going to be in 9-5 jobs or are they going to be on a night shift he does not know and is that something that can be controlled by planning condition, in his opinion, probably not and he can see a proposed planning condition limiting the numbers to 8 and if there are more people it can be enforced. He stated that he has worked with the Private Sector Housing Officer and they were going to provide facilities in the rooms due to the size of the rooms but they said no. Mr Hall stated that he cannot give a guarantee that there would be more than 8 people living there but there is a planning condition limiting the numbers and that would be what the licence would be if approved.

·         Councillor Marks asked if there would be some form of management in place for this building? Mr Hall responded that the applicant owns several other properties in Wisbech, he is a management letting agent himself and his understanding looking at some of the positive comments online from the Council’s Private Sector Housing Officer he is the management company and he would do this himself.

·         Councillor Marks expressed concern that the 8 is going to escalate as it goes forward and is there anything else being put in place, such as security cameras? Mr Hall responded that the applicant would be happy to accept security cameras if the application is approved and would be happy to accept a condition that there needs to be a management plan agreed with officers.

·         Councillor Connor stated that when he visited the site there was a for sale outside the property and he thinks it is still advertised with a local estate agent.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Hicks asked why with 8 residents 6 car parking spaces are allowed? Gavin Taylor responded that the Local Plan does not set out parking standards for HMOs and Section 10.2 of the officer’s report draws on what officers have gleaned from numerous appeal decisions where a Planning Inspector generally considers an HMO yields lower car ownership, which would make officers consider whether or not the loss of potentially 2 parking spaces, making assumptions that every occupant would have a car, is a reasonable reason to refuse the application. He referred to Paragraph 115 of the NPPF where it sets out that applications should only be refused on transport grounds if there are severe cumulative impacts or on highways grounds or highway safety grounds and there are no technical objections on that basis and it would be difficult to defend an appeal on those grounds. Gavin Taylor made the point that the site also lies close to a town centre location and the Local Plan does set out the parking standards where in market towns where there are more local jobs and better transport networks that a lower parking provision can be considered notwithstanding that there is not a standard for HMOs. He feels that the 6 parking spaces is more than would normally be secured on HMOs and there is no evidence that this would result in a severe harm in highway safety terms.

·         Councillor Marks asked by reducing the numbers from 12 to 8 does this change any legislation regarding fire or anything else or is it just because 12 was felt unsuitable for that building? Gavin Taylor responded that the room sizes are set out through standards and are licensed through the Licensing Team. He advised that fire standards would be captured through the licensing regime and is not a planning consideration and the reasons for going from 12 to 8 may be due to the development as proposed for 12 did not demonstrate it could comfortably accommodate 12 people.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he lives in Wisbech and Queens Road is one of the nicer roads in the town, with a lot of the occupants being owner occupiers and elderly, it is also in a Conservation Area and they are quite substantial properties and asked if allowing an HMO will set a precedent for people to buy up properties and convert them to HMOs which would then ruin the character of that area, which is a lovely, broad street. Troy Healy responded that it is lawful for every single property on this road to be brought and converted into a 6 person HMO without planning control so it is not being considered whether it is acceptable for any property to be converted into an HMO and is about the capacity of 2 beyond what is already lawful. Gavin Taylor added that the starting point is that this property could accommodate 6 unrelated people lawfully so the extra over is 2 persons that need to be considered. He feels it would be very difficult to evidence and demonstrate that the character would be reduced as a result of this property becoming an 8 person HMO, particularly when there is a fallback position of 6 persons so would an additional 2 people result in a degradation of that property that is significant and demonstrable, which, in his view, it would not. Gavin Taylor made the point that there are a number of HMOs across the District, there is a need for HMOs as an accommodation type and there are no strategic policies as to where they should be located so, therefore, it is each case on its own merits. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that there will be character harm as the front garden will become hard standing, the garage will be demolished to provide 3 car parking spaces, which he does not know how these spaces can fit in this space, and provision for bins has not been mentioned. He stated that there are a lot of HMOs in Wisbech already, he is not against HMOs but feels this is the wrong location and the health and wellbeing of the people that live around the site need to be considered.

·         Councillor Connor referred to this proposal being an 8 person HMO but they may have partners who may wish to live with them so there could be 16 people in the premises which would contribute to noise issues and asked what would be put in place to stop this? Troy Healy responded that he has dealt with overoccupancy issues in relation to HMOs historically in other authorities and a lot of these have been lawful HMOs where there has been an issue going beyond the 6 people allowed lawfully without requiring planning permission and whilst he takes on board the comments of the Planning Inspector regarding controlling the number of occupants in relation to a property can be difficult,  the occupancy limits are set both by Planning and the licence and they are ably enforced by Licensing as well as by Planning. He stated that in terms of the total number of occupants, officers would be looking to work with Licensing and if there is a report of over occupancy a Breach of Condition Notice could be issued but there is no provision in relation to proactive visits to HMOs on the assumption they are over occupied.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that it would be difficult to enforce as when you visit a property the total number of residents are not going to be present all at the same time. He made the point that this HMO is not a detached dwelling in a large area, it is a semi-detached dwelling in a predominantly lovely area where you could probably hear noise next door and he is not comfortable with it. Troy Healy responded that occupation of a single dwelling by a single unit of people acting or living as a family has no upper limit on the number of people that could reside there nor on the number of vehicles they could have. He stated that this is a situation where under the extreme circumstances if it is going to be illicitly occupied by more than the requisite number of people it could be lawfully occupied by far more. Councillor Connor expressed the view that these residents will be transient, have no relations there and be probably different nationalities, which could lead to disturbance in a lovely area. Troy Healy responded that this would not be a material planning consideration and the committee should not be basing its decision on this.

·         Councillor Gerstner expressed the view that the occupants could be limited to 6 but 12 people live there and previous applications for HMOs that were approved are also open to abuse on occupancy levels so he is not saying it is a weak argument but it is the level playing field that members are on. He feels the issue is the residential amenity, the loss of the garden at the front, the car parking and the possible number of vehicles that could be trying to access that site and the potential of enforcement is difficult for Planning or Licensing to keep track of.

 

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he does not support this application for the many reasons he has stated and, in his view, it is overdevelopment and under LP2 it does not facilitate the health and wellbeing of Fenland residents. He recognises what the officers have said that there could be a family of 6 living there but then they are a family, with most properties on that street seem to have a maximum of 2 cars, and a family of 6 is most probably not going to have 6 or more cars. Councillor Imafidon made the point that on this site there are going to be people of working age maybe seasonal workers or shift workers and due to the District’s transport facilities, which is non-existent in Wisbech, people are going to have cars and they are going to park them somewhere, whether it be at the property or on the street. He does not feel this application should be supported, he referred to a doggy park just down Queens Road beside Kings Street where there has been problems in the past where HMOs in the area have caused issues and the Police have had to be called, which drains their resources, and thankfully that property got closed and the problem got resolved and the reason he is referring to it is the park is called the doggy park and is notorious for people sitting around and doing nothing and for fly tipping and he does not feel this is the right location for this HMO. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that decent houses are required in Wisbech and there is a shortfall of 3-4 bed family homes so this will be a loss if it is converted amongst other problems it is going to create, such as social problems.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that whilst councillors have their own areas, they have a bigger duty to represent the people of Fenland and he does not think the people in Queens Road want this proposal and he can see where they are coming from. He does not think there are enough car parking spaces, that it is in keeping with the area, the fact that it has double yellow lines on the road mean that any overspill to the property will result in residents having to park up the road. Councillor Hicks expressed the opinion that members also have to be aware of high-quality development and the loss of privacy, with 8 residents in the property going up and down stairs with it being a semi-detached property it is going to be heard next door and if it was a detached property he would probably be more willing to support it. He stated for these reasons he is not going to be supporting this proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to Policy LP2 which requires development proposals to promote high level of residential amenity and also Policy LP16 and, in her view, this proposal does not do this as it is a semi-detached property. She feels if the application is approved the human rights are being taken away from the local residents who are entitled to enjoy a peaceful home and environment, with this application going against their human rights.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he came to the meeting with an open mind, however, having in the back of his mind the HMO in Manea, which has created serious issues and from hearing everything today he will not be supporting the proposal. He expressed the view that  there is no control over numbers, the 3 car parking spaces on Queens Road will be reversing straight out onto a crossroads which is another concern that has not been mentioned today and whilst he acknowledges the comments from Highways this was probably a desktop survey and also the issue with the wellbeing for the people who already live in the area.

·         Councillor Gerstner expressed the opinion that there is also a highways issue here from the Highway Authority about the covering over of the front garden, with it stating that they do not wish surface water to be drained onto the highway so a drain or a channel has to be made, which may be very difficult to achieve.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he does not disagree with the comments made by anyone else and, in his view, the parking is unsuitable in this location, LP16(d) refers to a positive contribution and distinctiveness to the area which this proposal fails on miserably, it adversely impacts neighbours with overlooking, amenity space is an issue with unknown numbers of people there, there will be noise as it is a semi-detached property with people coming and going at different times of the day and he feels it is not a suitable area. He expressed the opinion that the whole proposal to put people in this small area, bearing in mind that officers did mention the local transport and it is known that local transport is appalling in Fenland so everybody has to have a car, results in negatives that are too great to support the proposal.

·         Gavin Taylor referred to the number of people that could occupy the property and made the point that there could be a family of 6 people living here but there could also be 6 unrelated people living here. He stated that he gets the feel for where this application is going, with concerns about the lack of on-site parking and the resultant highway safety issues that may result, the fact that it is not in keeping with the character of the area and that it could cause amenity harm through overlooking and noise.

·         Councillor Marks added residents’ wellbeing with the people living in this property in a large house with very small rooms. Councillor Connor agreed with these comments.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that it is not that many months ago that committee refused an application for a residential home not far from this property for some of the same reasons and it lost at appeal.

·         Troy Healy stated that in terms of impact on quality of accommodation for the potential occupants it is compliant in relation to minimum room size standards so he would not recommend that this is a reason for refusal.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that the welfare of the existing residents has to be taken into account.

·         The Legal Officer reminded members that from listening to the debate and potential reasons for refusal, if this goes to appeal Council will have to demonstrate with evidence that its reasons for refusal are supported and that they are against the development plan and given the response from consultees, in his view, the Council will have difficulty in defending a claim for costs in the event of an appeal.

 

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.

 

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of approval of planning permission as they feel there is a lack of on-site parking which results in highway safety harm, it fails to make a positive contribution to the character of the area, the development would result in an adverse impact on neighbouring properties through noise and it fails to protect the amenity of both future and existing residents, therefore, there would be highway, character and amenity harm.

 

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Imafidon declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Wisbech Town Council but takes no part in planning)

 

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Hicks, Imafidon and Marks declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)

 

(Councillor Benney left the meeting after this application and was not present for the remaining agenda items)