Agenda item

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0328, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that noted revised plans from the applicant, an additional representation from Northamptonshire Police and the officers response.

Councillor Stone as Ward Councillor, commented that she believed that the proposal was an over intensification of the use of the premises and that it ultimately would not comply with the CAAP. She noted that there were 50 registered voters already in Hazelwood Road showing that there was already a significant mix of residential and commercial uses in the street. Councillor Stone stated that she agreed with the views of the Town Centre Conservation Committee. She had concerns that although the accommodation was intended to be high end not all the bedrooms had ensuite facilities; she believed that the right balance was needed and understood that there was an existing planning permission for 10 units that seemed more appropriate. She queried how occupation of the property would be managed and asked that the Committee defer consideration of it. In answer to questions, Councillor Stone confirmed that she believed that the existing planning permission for 10 units was acceptable as it encompassed more ensuites and better refuse management; that residents would be able to lease car parking spaces at St John’s or elsewhere; and that it seemed odd that ensuites were not to be provided to all the bedrooms.    

Dr Rawcliffe, a partner of the applicants, commented that they had been looking for properties where they could make an improvement to an area. They had been impressed by the building from the outside despite it being run down internally. They had spoken to a number of people and had decided that there was a need for quality accommodation for young professionals; the location was close to the General Hospital. As she and her partners lived in Manchester a management company would look after the premises on a day to day basis including cleaning it and dealing with refuse. In answer to questions Dr Rawcliffe commented that they had been able to increase the number of ensuites following the recently discovery of a second soil pipe and receipt of a cost estimate for doing so; the refuse store would be at the rear of the site as required by the previous planning permission or otherwise as the Council wanted it; that their relationship with a particular management company had been developing since September 2011 and they felt comfortable that they would be able to manage the premises properly; rents would be decided by the market; taking the property back into commercial use had been considered but the shortage of accommodation had been identified. 

Mr Dooley, the agent, noted that the report recommended approval of the application and that the applicant had consulted with the planners who had given the scheme their support. The property had been empty for some time and repairs had been carried out in conjunction with Building Control. He noted that the existing planning permission could lead up to 20 occupiers as opposed to this scheme; apartments were not viable and there was no commercial demand. Mr Dooley commented that the management company would inspect the premises and maintain standards. In terms of a HMO licence the room sizes complied with the required standards. The bin and cycle stores would be conditioned; there was scope for a cycle store in the basement. He hoped the Committee would approve the application. In answer to questions Mr Dooley commented that the Fire Officer and Building Control were happy with the fire exit arrangements; and that consideration was being given to providing each bedroom with its own ensuite facilities.

The Head of Planning commented that the previous planning permission for 10 apartments had now expired and in answer to questions commented that the existing lawful use of the property was as a HIMO with five residents; confirmed the number of proposed bedrooms with ensuite facilities as 10; that the Committee’s consideration should be focussed on the use of the premises for 15 bedsits; internal space standards and layout were matters controlled by Private Sector Housing under non planning legislation; and that the management plan proposed in condition 5 would not guarantee that tenants would be well behaved.  

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Lynch proposed and Councillor Hibbert seconded “That the recommendation to approve the application as amended by the revised plans referred to in the Addendum be agreed”.

Upon the casting vote of the Chair the motion was lost.

Councillor Hallam proposed and Councillor Meredith seconded “That consideration of the application be deferred so as to allow the Head of Planning to negotiate with the applicants to see if they could overcome the concerns raised by the Committee in respect of density, an increase in the number of ensuites to be provided and detailed proposals for bin and cycle storage.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried. 

RESOLVED:        That consideration of the application be deferred so as to allow the Head of Planning to negotiate with the applicants to see if they could overcome the concerns raised by the Committee in respect of density, an increase in the number of ensuites to be provided and detailed proposals for bin and cycle storage.