Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens the agent. Mr Bevens stated that some members may recall a similar proposal for this site back in August 2021 and following refusal last time, it was suggested to them that reducing the overall numbers of occupants in the scheme would be supported in an amended application.

He stated that the proposal is a 40% reduction in numbers of persons than the previously refused scheme and a 64% reduction from where the scheme started back in mid-2020.

Mr Bevens explained that the previous owner of the Classic restaurant had accommodation for up to 9 guests in the main building and this excluded rooms, which the current proposal looks to convert into additional accommodation and then latterly they used their private annex as B&B accommodation sleeping up to 4 adults and this coupled with the restaurant business at its peak would have seen numerous vehicles coming and going throughout the day. He made the point that there are no objections from statutory consultees and refuse collection will be undertaken privately.

Mr Bevens made reference to the reasons for refusal, referring to LP15 stating that it is widely acknowledged and accepted by the Council that in previous similar applications that there are no adopted parking standards for HMO’s, and it is reasonable to conclude that car ownership would be lower amongst the residents of such properties than for more conventional means of residential occupation. He stated that the proximity of the site to the centre of Manea, cycle provision and the proximity of the railway station which would be a 20-minute walk would also contribute toward encouraging lower car ownership amongst its occupants.

Mr Bevens referred to recently approved decisions namely F/YR20/1047/F which was approval of a 6-bed house to a HMO for 9 persons and F/YR20/1131/F which was approval of a 7-bed hostel to a HMO for 7 persons both of which were approved by the Council with less parking than required namely 4 spaces and 2 spaces, respectively. He explained that he has identified an area of cycle storage and with the local bus service and the train station, in his view, it is reasonable to expect occupants to use sustainable transport methods wherever possible.

Mr Bevens stated that when looking at Policy LP2 and LP16, this requires amongst other things that development proposals provide high levels of residential amenity and Policy LP16 requires development proposals to demonstrate that they do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses with the guideline for non-flat development being one third of the plot area. He explained that the existing building was in use as a restaurant and B&B for over 50 years and whilst not a conventional residential use had the potential to accommodate up to 9 guests in the main building and with the removal of the existing shed and tidying up of the site and improved onsite parking and cycle provision, the amenity of the site is improved.

Mr Bevens pointed out that the retained out-building has enclosed space on the ground floor which could be used as an amenity value to the HMO and there is there is approximately 102 m² of outdoor amenity space excluding the outbuilding and retained garden to the 2-bed house. He stated that the overall footprint of Classic’s restaurant is 220 m² and the parking, bin store and access equates to 170 m² so the proposal is just below the guideline of a third of the plot if the potential amenity of the out-building on the ground floor is not included.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that he does not see this proposal as overdevelopment and there has been a reduction in the occupancy by 40%. He feels that the other approved schemes in the district have acknowledged that parking will be lower in HMO’s and highways have raised no objections to the scheme, with there being sufficient room to enter and exit the site in forward gear and spaces can be enlarged without impact on cycle storage or amenity.

Mr Bevens pointed out that concerns regarding anti-social behaviour are noted, however, whilst these cannot all be substantiated as coming from the property, they are not fundamentally a planning matter and any such impacts that arise are a result of individuals rather than the nature of the accommodation provided, with there being other controls in place to monitor and act against unacceptable behaviour of this nature. He advised that the applicant installed last year a camera system throughout the building which covers the courtyard and access and has it monitored 24/7.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the scheme is a sustainable proposal for the building and trying to provide HMO’s in out of town/village locations is unsustainable and would not meet other Local Plan and National Planning Policies. He expressed the view that the proposal will support local shops, businesses and facilities and the benefits outweigh the harm.

Mr Bevens stated that he would ask members to consider the efforts that the applicant has gone to in reducing the overall numbers, improvements to be made to longevity of the building and the rear amenity of the site and approve the application for much needed temporary accommodation in the district which Fenland lacks.

Members asked Mr Bevens the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Bevens whether the bus service was still operating that he had referred to? Mr Bevens stated that the last time he had checked there were four trips a day operating through the village. Councillor Mrs French asked whether there are any occupants residing in the property currently and Lee Bevens responded that it is being used currently as a bed and breakfast business.

·       Councillor Marks stated that there are three parking spaces allocated in the proposal, however, he has received numerous complaints over the last few years concerning parking issues and the fact that the proposal is for a HMO, which could mean that there could be up to 11 vehicles requiring car parking facilities and he asked Mr Bevens where he proposes those extra vehicles will be able to park? Mr Bevens stated that it is a pertinent point which has been raised throughout the application and he expressed the view that the only place he can see the vehicles being able to park would be on Station Road. He referred to the presentation screen which showed Station Road and pointed out that there is plenty of on street parking which is not allocated to specific properties and the very nature of HMO’s is that that there is less parking provided and although he cannot confirm it he believes that persons who reside in a HMO undertake a great deal of car sharing as the occupants tend to work in the same locations.

·       Councillor Marks asked whether it is the intention of the shed at the rear of the premises to remain as a shed or is it the intention to submit a further application to change that into further accommodation? Mr Bevens stated that it is his understanding that since he started working with officers on an application in 2020 there was the intention to convert the shed into residential use and that it why the numbers were 30 overall, however, that element has now been dismissed and there is no intention to convert that into additional residential accommodation.

·       Councillor Marks asked whether Mr Bevens could confirm how many persons are occupying the premises at the current time and Mr Bevens responded that he was not aware.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that Mr Bevens had explained that there is to be a reduction of 40% from what had previously been proposed, however, he asked what the reduction was in terms of people residing there currently as he can see no difference and he questioned why you would submit an application for a HMO when it is already in place? Mr Bevens stated that the applicant to is trying to apply using the correct channels and to change the use from what it is at the moment as the ground floor of the building is actually classed as a restaurant and it is the first floor which is actually bed and breakfast accommodation .He made the point that the application is for a change of use so that the ground floor can be changed to accommodate seasonal and temporary workers. Councillor Murphy questioned whether at the current time there are any persons who are sleeping on the ground floor? Mr Bevens stated that he cannot confirm that fact and that they are seasonal workers, they come and go, adding that he has had it confirmed that at the current time there is nobody residing there.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he recalls the application previously and at that time it was for agricultural use and the committee were told at the time that it should be a HMO, which is why he presumes the application has been submitted in its current form. He expressed the opinion that there are people living there who are agricultural workers and this type of accommodation is needed for seasonal and agricultural workers and the local agricultural industry needs to be supported. He added that HMO properties can be monitored and regulated by the Council to ensure that everything is in order and to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those residents living there. Councillor Benney asked Mr Bevens to clarify that if the application is approved, will his clients operate the HMO as a reputable business in line with legislation and policy? Mr Bevens stated that it is the intention of the applicant to invest a significant amount of time upgrading the parts of the building and making it fit for purpose. He added that the applicants are more than happy to work with the Council and they have already met with the Fire Officer who has stated that the premises are able to accommodate 30 persons with the fire system that is in there as a means of escape, however, the proposal is only for 11.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to the officer’s report at point 3.1 where it states that intensive residential occupation of the building has already taken place which resulted in the Council’s Private Sector Housing Team and the Fire Service visiting the site hence the retrospective nature of the application; with the precise situation currently being unclear and unauthorised. He asked Mr Bevens whether he had anything further he could add to that information? Mr Bevens stated that he can confirm that the premises has permission in its current format to be operated as a bed and breakfast accommodation, but he cannot say how many persons are able to use it as bed and breakfast accommodation overall only on the previous history when there were nine rooms in the accommodation.

·       Councillor Marks asked whether it was known how many times the Police have been called to the property following reports of anti-social behaviour over the last three years? Mr Bevens stated that to his knowledge there has only been one incident.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he understands that the premises is properly regulated and the comments of Councillor Benney that the Council does need to support agriculture, but what is to stop people allowing others to sleep in the premises? Mr Bevens responded that there is nothing to stop this, but this would be no different to a residential dwelling, and he cannot see how this can be regulated. Councillor Purser stated the point he was making is that there is a maximum number for Fire and Police regulations, but how can it be regulated to stop residents having their friends stopping there? Mr Bevens reiterated that the Fire Officer has stated with the fire system that is in place under its current use it can accommodate up to 30 people.but the applicant is not looking to house this amount of people and CCTV will be placed within the building.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the point Mr Bevens made with regards to parking requirements of HMO properties. He added that he would agree that within the towns there is not such a requirement for parking, however, in the villages there most certainly is the need for access to a car in order to travel to a workplace and he asked Mr Bevens whether he would agree that the statement he made was slightly misleading? Mr Bevens stated that he would agree that town locations have more services available whereas villages have less, but the site is close to the centre and there are local shops nearby along with the railway. He added that a lot of the persons that stay at the bed and breakfast do car share as they are employed at similar locations. Councillor Sutton stated that in the evening that location appears to be very heavily parked.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Marks asked officers if they can confirm how many persons were on site when the premises were visited by the Council’s Enforcement Team? David Rowen stated that the premises have been visited both by Planning Enforcement Officers as well as Housing Officers, but he could not provide the detail of number of occupants living on site.

·       Councillor Cornwell referred to 3.1 of the officer’s report and asked for clarity where it states that the precise situation is unclear and unauthorised? David Rowen stated that the number of occupants of the premises is not quite clear to the best of his knowledge and in terms of the unauthorised element at the current time there is no planning permission in place for intensive occupation adding that he would disagree with the point made by Mr Bevens with regards to the previous lawful use of the premises is as a restaurant with ancillary Bed and Breakfast facilities, with it being his understanding that at the moment the business is not being used as a normal bed and breakfast establishment and appears to be functioning more as a hostel. Councillor Cornwell made the point that the statement then relates in effect to the assumption that this already a possible HMO, which is why the Council visited the site and as a result of those visits, the application has come back as there is a certain element of regulation required if the premises is to become a HMO which ensures that is better regulated and on that basis, in his view, he think he could support the application. David Rowen stated that there is a licensing regime for HMO properties, and advised members of the committee that they do need to be mindful that they are determining the application on the land use planning considerations of the application and not on the licensing regime. He added that whilst there is an overlap between the two there are also differences as well and if the committee are minded to grant planning permission they need to be satisfied as to whether it would be acceptable as a land use for the number of occupants that are proposed, rather than somehow adequately managed through the licensing regime. Councillor Cornwell stated that, in his view, the two elements go together and should not be separated, and he will consider both things together. David Rowen stated that the committee are determining the application under the Town and Country Planning Act rather than the Licensing of HMO under the Housing Act.

·       Councillor Skoulding made the point that, in his opinion, officers have made the correct recommendation as he feels that it is over development, and it is causing parking issues.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that as Ward Councillor he has considered the application with an open mind, with the Parish Council being against the proposal at the present time and whilst he appreciates that something needs to happen to the building rather than leave it to go derelict. He stated that, in his opinion, there are too many occupants and no guarantees with car parking which is causing issues currently. Councillor Marks added that maybe a HMO could be considered in the future which would be better rather than transient occupiers but he has concerns with the back development and added that it has been three years since the property was purchased and during that time a number of improvements could have been made. He stated that whilst he appreciates that various agencies have been involved to date with the property it is still a bone of contention for the village, and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with the points raised by Councillor Marks and whilst he appreciates the comments that Councillor Benney has made with regards to shortages of agricultural workers, that fact cannot take away the impact that the proposal would have on the village, He added that the previous application has gone to appeal and will be heard in January, however, he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees, and she will be interested to see what happens with the appeal.

·       Nikki Carter stated that a provisional date has been set for the appeal hearing, but nothing is yet confirmed.

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Marks declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Manea Parish Council, but takes no part in planning matters)