Agenda item

Application 23/00226/FUL - 57a Stainburn Close

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee approves the planning application, subject to the conditions as set out in section 9 of the report.




The Committee considered an application for the change of use from 4-bedroom house Use Class C3 (residential) to a 4-bedroom House of Multiple Occupation (HMO), Use Class C4 at 57a Stainburn Close.


Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee


The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Udall.


Report/Background/Late papers


The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the site itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.


The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to a correction to the map highlighting the existing HMO properties within the 100m radius of 57a Stainburn Avenue, being 41 and 55 Stainburn Close.  The map highlighted at paragraph 7.8  on page 61 of the report was incorrect.


Officer Presentation


The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation.


The Committee’s attention was drawn to paragraph 7.2 of the report which related to the principle of development.


The Service Manager – Development Management stated that the concerns raised by Councillor Udall had been answered and these were highlighted in paragraphs 3.3-3.8 of the report.


Public Representations


There had been no one registered to speak on the application.  However, Councillor Udall addressed the Committee as local Ward Member then left the room during the discussion and determination of the item.


Key Points of Debate


·         The local Ward Member, in addition to his issues raised within the report, was concerned that only providing two spaces for a 4-bedroom HMO would cause parking problems for the very narrow and very often congested highway.  He believed that the residents will each have a car which will result in an overflow onto the highway.


·         It was noted that in this instance parking issues are not an adequate reason to refuse an application and the County Council Highways representative confirmed that there is already a shortfall of car parking spaces, and the conversion would not change that, hence the reason of no objection with conditions as set out in section 9 of the report.  If an objection was made it is unlikely to be sustained at an appeal.


·         As a point of clarification, the Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that the room sizes met the standards set by the City Council Housing Team.


·         The comments of the City Council’s Refuse Team were referred to who had stated that larger bins would be required for the proposal which would need to be located at the rear of the property and brought to the front on collection day via the side pathway.  Some Committee Members had raised concerns over whether the bins would be left on the street.  The Service Manager – Development Management stated that if we wished control over the provision of how they are managed then a Refuse Management Plan was suggested which could be added as a condition to put measures in place to cover this aspect if Members agreed. 


·         Reference was made to the cycle storage at the rear of the property and how it was to be accessed.  The Service Manager – Development Management drew the Committee’s attention to the layout plan on page 52 of the report, which identified that the access path to the left-hand side of the property, there is a gate to the area where the cycle and bin store is located.  It was confirmed that the pathway was sufficiently wide enough to move bins and cycles.


·         It was noted that the shared path was outside the red line on the layout plan and the Service Manager – Development Management suggested an amendment to condition 5 relating to access be added if Members agreed. 


The Service Manager – Development Management summarised the suggested additional/amended conditions as follows:


·         Cycle parking – and ‘access’ to be added (amended condition 5)

·         Refuse Management Plan (additional condition)


A proposal to approve the application was made and this was seconded.There being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each Member of the Committee who was eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal to approve was agreed as follows, subject to the amendment of condition 5 and the additional condition as above.


For - 6

Against - 1

Abstentions - 0


RESOLVED: That the Committee


1.      grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report, the amendment to condition 5 and an additional condition relating to a refuse management plan; and


2.      delegate authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, subject to consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, to confirm the final wording of the above conditions and issue the Decision Notice.


For voting purposes, it was noted that Councillor Allcott left the Committee meeting during the consideration and voting of this item.


For voting purposes, it was noted that Councillor Udall returned to the Committee meeting for the next item.




Supporting documents: