Agenda item

Councillors Kilbride and M Markham re-entered the room.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report on behalf of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning and elaborated thereon. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum and also highlighted that two further objections had been received. The Committee heard that it was the position of officers that there were no other HIMO properties in the area. This was based upon evidence that the Council holds, which includes records on the granting of planning permissions and licences. However, were it the case that addresses mentioned by objectors were operating as HIMOs, concentration would still be under capacity at 8.9%. It was noted that a number of recent applications that had been refused on parking grounds had been allowed at appeal, showing that the Inspectors gave weight to the location of local amenity and public transport links.

John Bright of Southampton Road addressed the Committee. He stated that in his area on the street, there were 17 HIMO properties out of 50, making the concentration of shared houses more than 30%. He voiced major parking concerns, commenting that people were parking on double-yellow lines, on junctions and double-parking. Foreign residents and students who might not know NBC refuse policies were cited as reasons for the refuse and fly-tipping issues the street suffered with. Mr Bright stated that social cohesion could not happen with the high number of transient residents in the area.

In response to questions, Mr Bright informed the Committee that he had been a resident of Southampton Road for 5 years and the parking and refuse issues had been exacerbated in the last 3. He also stated that he looked at HIMOs in his area of the street, not a 50m radius around the application site.

Jill Harris of Southampton Road addressed the Committee, stating that antisocial behaviour had increased along with the increase in HIMO properties to the point where the Police had been called on numerous occasions. She voiced concerns around refuse, fly tipping and parking, noting that on two occasions, ambulances could not access the street due to the number of cars parked there.

Wes Boswell, the owner of the property, addressed the Committee, stating that he wished to address residents’ two main objections: parking and refuse. He informed the Committee that he had carried out his own parking survey which showed that there were numerous spaces available throughout the day. He also quoted statistics that showed that car ownership was generally low amongst students. He would be providing bicycle storage to the rear of the property along with waste storage, and would be advising any tenants to call him if more than 2 green refuse sacks were to be put out on collection day so he or an associate could remove them, eliminating excess street waste.

In response to questions, Mr Boswell said that he would have no issue implementing a rule prohibiting car users from renting rooms in the property. This was his first HIMO application and had not felt he needed to impose such a rule on the other properties he rented out. He also stated that he and his wife, who both ran the business, had personal relationships with all of their tenants and that it was their practice to give neighbours of their properties his phone number, so they were reachable if any issues arose.

Jacqueline Abbott, a local resident and landlord, addressed the Committee. She had lived in Delapre for 15 years, owned 4 properties in Far Cotton and was a regular attendee at local residents’ association meetings. She stated that the increase in HIMOs was nothing more than supply and demand and that the objectors would do better spending their time scrutinising the existing unlicensed HIMOs in the area.

Responding to questions, Mrs Abbott agreed that overcrowding could happen in a HIMO that wasn’t checked, but noted that her properties were checked regularly.

The Head of Planning clarified that Article 4 only applied to new HIMO applications, not to properties that had already been converted.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out below and for the following reason:

The proposed development is considered acceptable in principle as it would not result in an overconcentration of similar uses within the vicinity of the site, would provide adequate facilities for future occupants and would not be at risk from flooding. Notwithstanding existing parking conditions in the local area, the site is in a sustainable location close to a Local Centre, bus services and amenities and would provide adequate facilities for cycle storage and refuse storage. The proposal thereby complies with Policies H1, H5 and S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, saved Policies E20 and H30 of the Northampton Local Plan, the Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Interim Planning Policy Statement (IPPS) and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.