Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer foe a retrospective application for change of use to a 6 bed HMO at 18 Borrough Avenue, Gledhow, Leeds, LS8 1LR.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sought retrospective planning permission for the conversion of 18 Borrough Avenue, Gledhow, Leeds, LS8 1LR from use as a dwelling to a HMO C4 of the Use Classes Order.

The application was brought to 2^nd June 2016 Panel at the request of former Councillor Bill Urry who cited his reasons as increased levels of noise and disturbance from the C4 use and additional parking pressures and safeguarding issues for the child minding operation to the adjoining property due to the uncertainty of whom would reside at 8 Borrough Avenue.

The application had been deferred from the meeting held on 2^nd June 2016, whilst clarification was sought on the Core Strategy H6. Minute 14 refers.

The application proposed a six bedroom HMO with off street parking for 3 cars with two bedrooms to the ground floor with shared bathroom, lounge and kitchen and four bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor. Bedroom 3 was served by a skylight while the other bedrooms were served by side windows.

Members attention was drawn to 1.3 of the submitted report which highlighted the concentration of HMO’s in the area. It was noted that HMO’s were spread across a wider geographical area in a family suburb.

Members were also asked to note that condition 1 should be deleted from the submitted report.

Miss Babra the child minder who lives next door to 18 Borrough Avenue spoke at the Panel informing Members that there was constant noise from the property including music, and football played inside. She said that her daughter’s bedroom adjoined the property. 

She informed the Panel that there were eight houses on her side of Borrough Avenue and that there was already not enough parking.

Miss Babra also said that the applicant had lied on the form as HMO had started before planning permission had been sought with residents unsure as to how the house was being used.

She said that issues had arisen with noise as the fire alarm had kept going off and she had made complaints to the landlord.

She informed the Members that she was a child minder and had concerns that the use of the property as a HMO would affect her business as the property overlooked her garden and she was unsure who was living at the property. She had been told that the people who would be living there would be young professionals.

Mr Windress the agent and the landlord were also in attendance at the meeting and informed the Panel that this area was a mix of communities and was in line with policy guidelines. He said that in that locality only 7% were HMO’s.

Mr Windress explained that at the beginning of the year the property had been rented as a family dwelling but ownership had changed and the management of the property was better with noise issues being addressed straight away as the landlord lived close by.

The landlord informed the Panel that he had been a landlord for 16 years he lived only 5 minutes away and that all tenants were vetted. He said that at the beginning there had been some problems but these had been addressed and no further complaints had been received.

Members raised concerns that the noise issue seemed to be ongoing according to Miss Babra and suggested that sound proofing should be considered.

The agent said that a noise specialist had been contacted and if granted permission would install sound proofing to the four bedrooms adjoining the next door property. It was noted that sound proofing would be effective and was simple and relatively cheap to install.

In response to Members questions in relation to this being a retrospective application the landlord explained that when he had purchased the property he thought that it had been operating as a HMO as it had fire doors and smoke alarms in keeping with HMO regulations and was given the impression that the property was a HMO by the agent. When it became apparent that it had not operated as a HMO he had submitted the relevant forms.

In relation to Members queries on safeguarding they were informed by the Legal Officer that DBS checks could not legally be conditioned as they would be difficult to enforce and would be deemed problematic.

Discussion took place in relation to HMO’s in close proximity to nursery’s and child minders.

Members were of the view that the landlord and the neighbour Miss Babra should meet and talk through issues.

The Highways Officer in response to a question explained that a swept path analysis had taken place and there was sufficient car parking space for 3 cars with independent accessibility. However, the access point would need to be widened

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation subject to:

·  The deletion of condition 1 – in relation to the commencement of the development

·  The addition of a condition to require details of a management scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to record, address and to take remedial measures to resolve any complaints made in respect of noise and disturbance and that the records be provided to the LPA on request.

·  Condition 6 to require the widening of the access point.