The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the change of use of the existing vacant clinic to form 6 no. residential apartments (1 x one bedroom, 3 x two bedroom and 2 x three-bedroom apartments) together with external elevational alterations, car and cycle parking and landscaping.

Following notification of the application, an objection was received from the Abbey Hey Residents Association, and their reasons for objecting has been supported by Ward Members.

Key issues regarding the application were:

• Sustainability of the proposed use in this location and the impact on the character of the area
• Impact on potential residential amenity
• Potential over-insensitive use of the site
• Waste management
• Impact to the operation of the highway and access.

The Planning Officer drew members attention to the late representations, which included further objections from a resident’s association and ward councillors. It also included information on a prior approval process in relation to the potential change of use to residential use for the application property.

A ward Councillor addressed the Committee, noting their concerns that the application was recommended for approval. The owner of the property had 21 people living at the site illegally, not responding to Council instruction to evict the tenants. The police and fire services also gave notice that the building did not comply with health and safety legislation, with no response from the owner. The ward Councillor felt it surprising that the building only required small changes to become six apartments and felt that the owner intended to disguise the property as an HMO. They felt there was insufficient car parking for the proposals, with inadequate road and pavement infrastructure in the immediate vicinity. There was believed to be bedrooms overlooking nearby properties in the proposal, and an anticipation of significant noise from this. The ward Councillor noted that there had been noise complaints whilst the building was being used as a hostel. They felt that the scale and massing of the building was out of character with the surrounding area. The ward Councillor had concerns that extra residents in this building would put extra pressure on an already failing sewerage system. They asked the Committee, if they were not minded to refuse, to perform a site visit.

A second ward Councillor addressed the Committee, noting that they did not believe the use of the building would change if the application was approved. They asked the Committee to perform a site visit that included the inside of the building, if possible.

The Planning Officer noted that there many issues raised by Councillor Reid, and these were dealt with in detail within the report before Members. Officers understood the concerns of ward Councillors and residents regarding HMO use but noted that enforcement action had been taken against the owner and there was a condition of permission recommended which would prevent use as a HMO. The Planning Officer summarised the changes to the scheme to give it a more residential appearance including garden areas, boundary treatment and landscaping. It was noted that six car parking spaces for 6 units was in accordance with the necessary policies. If the Committee resolved to complete a site visit, it could not be guaranteed that access inside the building would be possible.

Members raised concerns regarding the external impact of the proposals and the internal design. It was felt that clearer images were required, if an inside site visit was not possible, to give members a better understanding of the proposals. They felt that the floorplan gave no impression of what the site would look like and there was little detail provided.

The Planning Officer noted that they had negotiated the proposal down from eight to six apartments which meet the Council’s space standards, utilising existing windows. It was noted that the grant of planning permission would provide control to the Planning department whereas a Prior Approval submission would only allow limited control from a planning point.

Members questioned if they would be permitted to enter the building on a site visit and if there would be any overlooking from the property. Members also raised concerns over the applicant’s behaviour. There were also concerns raised about noise emanation and the detail regarding the sizes of the properties.

The Planning Officer noted that there would be no additional windows overlooking the neighbouring gardens, only existing windows would be used. It was noted that the proposals met the space standards required, but if deferred then Planning Officers could provide further detail regarding this.

Councillor Curley proposed a site visit to allow for members to see the site and what is proposed, particularly regarding issues raised by the ward Councillors.

Councillor Davies seconded the proposal.

The Director of Planning did note that there was no right of access inside the building but that can be sought from the applicant. If it was not possible to get inside, Officer’s would provide as much detail as possible.

A member queried if there was a possible condition to prevent the use as an HMO.

The Planning Officer noted that a condition had been recommended to prevent HMO use.

Decision

The Committee resolved to defer the application for a site visit.

(Councillors Hughes and Kamal declared a prejudicial interest in the item and remained in the room as Ward Councillors until they had spoken, subsequently leaving the room and taking no further part in the discussion or decision-making process).