Agenda item

To consider the Certificate of Lawfulness for (Existing Use) for the use of the property as 6-bed House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00631/CLEU be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

·         To seek legal advice regarding the evidence submitted in relation to GDPR laws.

·         To investigate whether the property had an HMO licence.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00631/CLEU seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness for (existing use) for the use of the property as a 6-bed House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

The Chair took Item 9 and Item 10 together, but Members voted separately.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that in 2015 the owner converted the house into a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) for up to 6 people. Permitted development rights allowed C3 developments to be converted into HMOs so at the time the owner did not need planning permission.

In 2020 an Article 4 direction was created to cover Stevenage Borough and removed permitted development rights to turn C3 properties into HMOs without planning permission. The applicant was seeking a Lawful Development Certificate to confirm that at the time of the creation of the HMO, planning permission was not required. They have submitted evidence to show they converted the property into an HMO before 2020. The Senior Planning Officer advised that Members could not be shown the evidence as it would breach GDPR laws.

There was a similar application which was taken to appeal, and SBC lost. If the conversion was done before the Article 4 then the Council must issue a lawful development certificate.

The Chair introduced Councillor Sandra Barr, Ward Councillor for St Nicholas, to address the Committee and speak in objection to both Item 9 and Item 10.

Cllr Barr acknowledged this was a formal decision on whether the existing properties proposed uses were lawful. These applications were unlike other planning applications as there were no consultations. A property must have a license to rent out a large HMO which was to 5 or more people who form one or more household and where some or all tenants share one bathroom and kitchen. These properties were once 4-bed homes and now had 7 bedrooms and a property of that size needed a lot of parking spaces in an already overcrowded cul-de-sac. If original planning permission was sought there would have been consultations and the concerns would have been met. She raised concerns of the rise of HMOs in St Nicholas and the shortage of larger, 4-bedroom family homes. She believed there should be further investigation into these properties.

The Chair thanked Cllr Barr for her contribution to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that at the time the property was converted, the owner didn’t need planning permission so there was nothing the Council could do at the time. If they changed from C3 to C4 after 2020 they would need planning permission and it would have to be assessed. In terms of parking the requirement was 0.5 spaces per bedroom, not people. Ripon Road would require 3 spaces and York Road would require 4 spaces. Environmental Health would look at the number of occupants, not planners.

A Member asked why planning law couldn’t be applied retrospectively. It was advised that when the properties were converted there was nothing that could stop it from happening. That’s why the Article 4 was created so we could apply it now but not before.

Members asked questions in terms of the licenses for the properties and why they weren’t investigated before. It was advised that in terms of Item 9 it was unclear whether they had a license as this wasn’t necessary evidence. Item 10 had a license, but these were issued by Environmental Health. When the HMO licenses were first introduced in 2018, they were inundated with applications, but HMOs didn’t need licenses before this. He advised that HMO licenses did not have anything to do with planning.

Members raised concerns around not being able to view the evidence. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) suggested that advice could be sought from the Monitoring Officer regarding this. It was advised that the evidence had been shared with a minimal amount of people and if it went to appeal would only be shown to a single inspector who would make a decision.

A Member asked why the applications had come to Committee and it was advised that both applications were called in by Cllr Barr.

Some Members asked what would happen if they refused and what the costs would be. It was advised that they could appeal, and SBC would lose as SBC had been directed by the planning inspectorate from a previous refusal. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that any appellant could issue costs against SBC.

A Member suggested that when legal applications came to the Committee it would be useful to have a Monitoring Officer present.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00631/CLEU be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

·         To seek legal advice regarding the evidence submitted in relation to GDPR laws.

·         To investigate whether the property had an HMO licence.