Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 13 October 2016 I submit for your consideration the attached reports for the North West team. Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal Approve - Conditions 8 2016/02927/PA 12 Hallewell Road Edgbaston Birmingham B16 0LR Retention of change of use of a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupancy (Sui Generis). Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration Committee Date: 13/10/2016 Application Number: 2016/02927/PA Accepted: 08/04/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 03/06/2016 Ward: Soho 12 Hallewell Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 0LR Retention of change of use of a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupancy (Sui Generis). Applicant: Mr N Simon c/o Agent Agent: ACP Architects Roma Parva, Level Two, 9 Waterloo Road, Wolverhampton, WV1 4DJ Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions 1. Proposal 1.1. The applicant proposes the retention of a change of use of the application premises which has been converted from a house (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupancy (Sui Generis). The premises is occupied by up to 8 people even though I note that some bedrooms have double beds. The HMO license issued by the council restricts occupation to no more than 8 and the agent confirms that the property management company, that is employed to manage the site, does not rent to couples. The agent confirms the building has been rented out as a HMO since February 2016. 1.2. The submitted plans show that the ground floor provides two bedrooms, hallway as well as a communal kitchen, bathroom and lounge/TV room. The first floor provides 4 bedrooms as well as a communal bathroom. The attic space (second floor) provides two further bedrooms. 1.3. The site provides for a rear communal garden which measures approximately 145 sq.m. 1.4. No on site parking would be provided. 1.5. The site benefits from a small garden to the front of the premises. 1.6. The applicant has provided a copy of the licence to operate the premises as a HMO as supporting information. 1.7. Link to documents 2. Site & Surroundings Page 1 of 7 2.1. The application premises is semi detached two storey building (with attic space forming a second floor). The application site is set in a residential road which is part of a wider area predominantly residential area. The road is tree lined with other dwellings on this road being semi detached houses with small gardens to the front. 2.2. Site location 3. Planning History 3.1. Nil. 4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. Surrounding occupiers, local councillors, local MP as well as local community groups notified and site notice displayed- 2 letters of objection received from the same resident with the names and addresses of 12 other residents listed (some with signatures). The objections can be summarised as follows:- * they state they strenuously object to the scheme and wish to speak at planning committee if the application is presented in front of the committee; * the road is split roughly 50/50 between HMO/Multi-Let and family owned homes, * many family homes have gone through significant investment and redevelopment in recent years, family owned homes have strong friendships and regularly support each other, * the council has brought back a number of empty houses on the road in the past to family occupation and made significant investment in the road, * fear the community will begin to disappear, * already too many HMO/Multi let properties on Hallewell Road, * no off street parking capacity to accommodate potential parking demand, * the development of 138 dwellings approved on Rotton Park Road adjacent Hallewell Road should be converted to HMO’s instead, * HMO/Multi Let properties have led to health and safety issues through the unmanaged wheelie and recycling bins associated with such properties, question how it will be ensured that wheelie bins will be returned to the rear gardens for storage as stated by applicant, * conversion will affect property values on the road, * crime/disturbance have been an issue on the road which the Police have had to attend to particularly in relation to HMO’s on the road and, incidents of vandalism including that of a neighbouring premises by a resident of one of the HMO’s have occurred in the past (which lead to a family to sell and move out of the area) Page 2 of 7 * and finally as the property has already been converted and is fully let without first obtaining permission this gives little confidence how the landlord will respect the property, its neighbours and the community particularly as property. 4.2. Transportation Development- No objection subject to securing cycle storage. 4.3. Regulatory Services- No objection. 4.4. West Midlands Police- The proposal could result in strangers living in close proximity and sharing basic amenities can be a recipe for discord and offer opportunity for crime and disorder, required to conform with approved document Q (security) of the Building Regulations 2010, request that if the application is approved the works including doors for each residential room are undertaken to the standard for external doors in Secured by Design ‘Homes 2016’ guide, recommend a suitable CCTV system is installed, concerns about parking impact of proposal. 5. Policy Context 5.1. UDP (2005); Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Specific Needs Residential Uses (SPG) and the NPPF. 6. Planning Considerations 6.1. Policy background- Adopted SPG Specific Needs Residential Uses states in part 1.2 “It is recognised that dwellings intended for occupation by a single household, and houses in multiple paying occupation, have a role to play in meeting the housing needs of certain groups in society in addition to types of residential premises such as hostels and care homes which are developed with the needs of specific groups in mind”. This guidance (also contained within the adopted UDP) highlights the important role that HMO’s can play in meeting the City’s residential needs. Members are also reminded that the Draft Birmingham Development Plan currently subject to a holding direction by the Secretary of State and the NPPF seek to increase the provision of residential accommodation particularly in existing urban settings whilst having regard to all other relevant material planning factors. I therefore consider the principle of the proposed use is acceptable in this location and a more detailed assessment of it is carried out below in line with the assessment criteria set out in adopted SPG Specific Needs Residential Uses as well consideration being given to crime and fear of crime and objectors comments (where not covered by earlier assessment). 6.2. Effect on residential amenity- Regulatory Services raise no objection. I concur with this view. The application property shares a party wall with an adjoining house in single family use as the application property is semi detached. Communal areas are restricted to the ground floor of the property, with a staircase and corridor separating the majority of first floor bedrooms from the party wall. I consider the level of noise and potential disturbance generated by up to 8 people would not be significantly greater than single family use. Therefore, no adverse impact from direct noise transmission is expected. I also note that the application site is set within a residential setting and therefore the use is considered a compliant land use. In summary, no adverse noise or disturbance impact identified. Page 3 of 7 6.3. Size and character of the property- I note that the adopted UDP and SPG Specific Needs Residential Uses policy seeks to resist the use of small terraced or small semi detached houses for multi paying occupation. In this case, I do not consider the relatively large size semi detached property application premises conflicts with this general policy guide. 6.4. The floorspace standards of the accommodation- I consider the general layout of the building and bedroom sizes to be acceptable. With respect to the garden area, the external amenity area of the rear garden measures approximately 145 sq.metres which I also consider to be acceptable. 6.5. The facilities available for car parking- Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposal in principle. I concur with this view. Whilst I note that the application premises does not provide for any off site car parking capacity, I do not consider that the use is resulting in any adverse parking or highway safety impact. I acknowledge that the lawful use as a large dwelling would create parking demand on street and do not consider that the HMO use is significantly increasing that demand. The property has relatively good access to public transport and local facilities and is also within walking distance of Dudley Road local centre. This is expected to reduce the need for residents to travel by car. In summary, no adverse parking or highway impact identified. 6.6. The amount of provision in the locality- The City Council has previously identified areas within the City that have been designated as areas of restraint which seek to prevent the further establishment of flats, HMO’S or other institutional uses. The application premises does not fall within an area of restraint. From my officer site visit, it was noted that some other properties in Hallewell Road have been converted to flats. However, I do not consider the use of this property as a HMO in this location would result in a level of cumulative impact which would justify the refusal of consent. 6.7. Crime/fear of crime- West Midlands Police state the proposal could result in strangers living in close proximity and sharing basic amenities which can be a recipe for discord and offer opportunity for crime and disorder.