Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sets out an application for change of use and alterations of single dwellinghouse (use class C3) to a House in Multiple Occupation (use class C4) at No. 8 Ecclesburn Street, Richmond Hill, Leeds 9

 

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the change of use and alterations of single dwelling house (use class C3) to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (use Class C4) at no. 8 Ecclesburn Street, Richmond Hill, Leeds 9.

 

Members had visited the site earlier in the day. Photographs and plans were shown throughout the presentation.

 

The application had been brought to Plans Panel at the request of Cllr. Khan who was concerned over the removal of this family house, disturbance to residents through increased litter and concerns of anti-social behaviour due to the HMO use. His objections in full were presented at point 15 of the submitted report.

 

Members were advised that permission was sought to change the use of a house from a single family dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupation, allowing the 5 single bedrooms to be occupied by unrelated persons. Shared facilities would include the basement kitchen and storage space and the ground floor living room.

 

Members were provided with the following information:

·  This is a red brick mid-terrace located in a predominantly residential area;

·  Minor alterations were proposed to the external appearance which included:

o  Enlarging the existing rear basement window;

o  Converting ground floor rear door into a window;

o  Rear wall associated with basement staircase to be replaced by a lightweight fence;

o  Bin and bike storage within the rear yard.

·  Three of the bedrooms would be en-suite with the two attic bedrooms sharing a bathroom;

·  It was noted that all rooms would exceed the national space standards;

·  12 letters of objection and a 32 signature petition had been received. Objection comments were set out at point 14 of the submitted report;

·  There is no off-street parking with this property.

 

Members noted that there were a couple of HMO’s located within the area and that one was the subject of enforcement action.

 

Members suggested that if the proposal went through that 4 bins would be required 2 for waste and 2 for recycling.

 

A resident of Ecclesburn Street who has lived there for 30 years, attended the meeting and informed the Members that she spoke on behalf of many of the residents who were unable to attend.

 

The Panel were informed of the following points:

·  This community is one that looks after and cares for each either with neighbours offering assistance and checking on each other;

·  There have been issues with other HMO’s in the area such as drinking, littering and drug users;

·  These are family homes with a mix of older people and families with young children;

·  No 15 Ecclesburn Road had applied to become a HMO, permission for this had been revoked;

·  The resident explained that her husband was terminally ill and she did not wish for him to endure any form of anti-social behaviour or feel that they were being pushed out of the area. She went on to say that her husband, her grandson who lives with her and her community are all precious to her.

 

Responding to Members questions, the Panel were provided with the following information:

·  The demand for these types of properties within this area is big and normally houses are only vacant for approximately 6 months;

·  Parking on the street is ‘outrageous’ and the worry would be that this could increase if new residents have vehicles;

·  The community cohesion in the area is  very good, very neighbourly and caring;

·  The back alley to the properties is not usually full of litter but the visit had taken place the day before the bins were due to be emptied and there are people called ‘bin diggers’ who rummage through the bins and leave it untidy.

 

The Agent attended the meeting and informed the Panel of the following points:

·  This company refurbishes properties to a high standard to let to professional people;

·  He understands the concerns of the residents and wants to work with the residents. He said that his company do reference checks on all their tenants, he could provide video evidence for the properties that he holds and the type of lettings they currently have;

·  He said that he had been successful in letting these types of properties in Leeds. He said that if one of their tenants was causing anti-social behaviour they would evict them;

·  The properties are inspected every 3 months, cleaning company are employed to ensure that the property is clean and well maintained on a frequent basis;

·  The management team would work with the neighbours to ensure that the community were happy with the management of the property.

 

Responding to questions the agent provided the following information:

·  The company manage single lets and HMO’s. There are usually no problems as the properties are regularly inspected and this includes  monitoring of the bin area;

·  The agent had not yet consulted with the residents as he had not been given the opportunity;

·  Not all the tenants in a HMO would have a car. The people who live in these types of properties are looking for good transport links to the city;

·  Not all young professionals are able to afford a family house;

·  Tenancies range from minimum of 6 months, however some residents do stay 3 – 5 years;

·  Safety rails would be fitted to the attic staircases, all the rooms would have fire doors as per fire regulations which offer a minimum of 30 minutes protection;

·  The kitchen and dining area has been designed to be adequate for 5 people to eat and cook;

·  Tenants sign an agreement which also states that they will not have friends or partners staying overnight;

·  Internal walls will be lined with acoustic insulation for both heat and sound.

 

Members were of the view that it was a long way from the attic rooms to the kitchen/dining area, this raised concerns in regards to safety, as some may opt to cook in their room. 

 

Members noted the following points provided by officers responding to questions and comments:

·  HMO Licensing guidance is used in relation to room sizes as there is no planning guidance in relation to HMO room sizes. The room sizes for this proposal are compliant with the HMO guidance and in fact the proposed rooms exceed the guidance standards;

·  Originally the proposal was for 6 bedrooms. However, proposals are now for 5 bedrooms and a living room. Within the guidance there is no requirement to provide a communal living room;

·  HMO Licensing Guidance includes the responsibility of the occupants and fire regulations.

 

Members’ discussions included:

·  Amenity space, which included

o  Size of kitchen/diner;

o  Size of outside space;

o  Narrowness of staircases to the attic rooms;

·  Community cohesion of the area;

·  Whether granting this application might cause a precedent for HMO’s in the area;

·  Quality of life for any future occupants and for the residents of the street;

·  Fire safety issues;

·  Off street parking issues;

·  Concerns with the proposed design;

·  Use and requirement for HMO’s.

 

RESOLVED – Members moved to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·  That the development would fail to provide an adequate level of amenity for the occupiers of the HMO;

·  That the use of the dwelling as a HMO would harm the amenities of adjacent residents.

Members also resolved to delegate the drafting of the report for reasons of refusal to officers.