PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

Transcription

1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION Author: Peter Lawrence (Development Control Manager). Background: At the Council meeting on 14 December 2004, Councillor Bartlett moved the following motion, which was seconded by Councillor Edwards: 1. That the Council notes: (a) (b) the widespread concern about the increasing number of planning applications for houses in multiple occupation (HIMO); and that many of these applications are currently dealt with under the delegated powers of Council Officers. 2. That the Council requests the Development Control Committee to alter this practice so that all such applications are brought before the Committee. 3. That, given that many surrounding homes are affected by HIMO permissions, all monies raised so far from the buy out of covenants on the properties, be re-invested in the area from which it came for the benefit of the wider community. Councillor I Henderson moved the following amendment, which was seconded by Councillor Barry: 1 That in paragraph 2 the words alter this practice be deleted and replaced by consider whether this practice should be altered. 2. That paragraph 3 be deleted. The following procedural motion was moved by Councillor K Wilson and seconded by Councillor Long: That the motion and amendment be referred to the Development Control Committee for consideration. On being put to the vote, the procedural motion was declared carried by acclamation. It was therefore resolved that the motion and amendment be referred to the Development Control Committee for consideration. (Councillor Gillingham declared a prejudicial interest in this matter and left the meeting taking no part in the voting thereon).

2 The Development Control Committee first considered this matter at the meeting on 12 January 2005 when a briefing note was circulated to Committee Members. The Committee resolved to defer consideration to enable a full report on the issues raised to be drafted. Main Issues: How are applications relating to houses in multiple occupation (HIMOs) dealt with under the current officer delegation scheme? Should all such applications in future be referred to the Committee for a decision? Planning Policy: The following Council planning policies are relevant to the determination of HIMO applications: Adopted Borough of Milton Keynes Local Plan: PH8 Subdivision of Dwellings, and Houses in Multiple Occupation (HIMOs). DC1 - Impact of Development Proposals on Locality. DC2 - Impact of Development Proposals on Site. Milton Keynes Local Plan Second Deposit Version 2002: H10 - Subdivision of Dwellings and Houses in Multiple Occupation (HIMOs). D1 - Impact of Development Proposals on Locality. Policy PH8 of the Adopted Local Plan states that proposals for the subdivision of dwellings within settlements will normally be granted provided four criteria are met. These are: i) The provision of adequate sound insulation. ii) Car parking provision to meet the Council s standards. iii) Adequate outdoor or yard space is available for bin storage and a drying area. iv) Not more than 1 in 4 HIMOs should be permitted in a row of otherwise single household dwellings. In the Second Deposit Version of the New Local Plan 2002, Policy H10 replacing Policy PH8 retains similar criteria to the first three criteria in policy PH8, as set out above, but changes the final criteria to the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable concentration of flats or houses in multiple occupation. There were no objections received to this policy and because of the relatively advanced stage reached by the New Local Plan it is this Policy (H.10), which must now be afforded greater weight in the determination of HIMO planning applications than policy PH8 in the Adopted Local Plan.

3 Considerations: Two appendices are attached to this report. Appendix A is a short briefing note on the housing aspects of HIMOs prepared by Pam Wharfe, the Council s Head of Housing Strategy and Needs. Appendix B is a copy of the report prepared by Officers, originally for the 1 February 2004 Development Control Committee, which explains in some detail the approach to the regularisation of unauthorised HIMOs being taken by Planning Officers in conjunction with the Council s Private Sector Housing Unit. Section 4 of this appendix concerns a realistic protocol for firmer control and in paragraph 4.6 refers to the necessity to introduce a presumption that retrospective planning permission be granted unless significant concentration problems can be demonstrated in a particular case. This was regarded as necessary to be able to move forward and deliver the advantages of the Regulation Scheme. It is recognised that this may introduce an element of first come first served into the handling of significant numbers of these applications. However, without reaching a satisfactory catch-up position the Council would be in a difficult position to adequately assess future applications for new HIMOs. The present scheme of delegation to Officers in respect of planning matters places the following limitations on delegated authority that are relevant to HIMO applications: 1. No delegated decision shall be made where the development in the opinion of the delegated Officer is likely to be of a controversial nature, taking into account such factors as the scale and nature of the proposed development, the history and sensitivity of the site and the likely level of public interest. 2. No delegated decision shall be made which is materially in conflict with any of the Council s approved planning policies. 3. No delegated decision on a planning application shall be made until a minimum 28 days has expired from the date of registration of the application. 4. No delegated decision on a planning application shall be made if a written request or to the Development Control Manager is received within 28 days of registration from a Council Member stating that in his or her opinion the application should be submitted to the Development Control Committee for determination. 5. An application shall not be approved under the scheme of delegation if there is an unresolved planning objection in writing from a Town, Neighbourhood or Parish Council received within 28 days of registration of the application. 6. If objections are received from more than 2 properties to a nonhouseholder development (which includes HIMO applications) Ward Members will be advised and given 14 days in which to decide

4 whether, in the light of this, to request that the application be referred to Committee. Decisions on HIMO applications cannot therefore be made by Officers unless all of the above criteria are satisfied. In practice this has meant that up to now the vast majority of HIMO applications have in fact been determined by the Committee rather than by Officers. Councillor Bartlett s original motion to the Council is therefore factually incorrect in stating that many HIMO applications are currently dealt with by Officers. In fact during the three-year period 2002 to 2004 of the 21 HIMO applications that were determined, 19 were Committee decisions and only 2 have been determined by Officers. There have also been a small number of applications involving the proposed conversion of dwelling houses into flats but these are distinct from HIMOs. The very small number of delegated Officer decisions on HIMO planning applications is not surprising when one considers that in order for a HIMO application to be permitted by officers under delegated powers there would have to be: - Little or no objections from local residents. - No material conflict with approved planning policies. - No request from an elected Council Member for committee consideration. - No unresolved objection from the Town or Parish Council. - In the case of more than 2 objections being received from local residents, Ward Members being advised but not requesting Committee consideration. In practice the vast majority of HIMO applications to date have been referred to Committee at the request of a Councillor and/or because of an unresolved Town or Parish Council objection. Most HIMO applications received to date have been recommended for permission because they were considered to comply with the policies referred to earlier in this report. However, as more HIMOs become regularised, especially in the areas where most HIMOs are found such as Fishermead and Conniburrow, the likelihood of applications being recommended for refusal increases. This is because as more HIMOs are permitted the likelihood of the point being reached where there is an unacceptable concentration of flats or HIMOs in a particular area increases. Decisions to refuse HIMO applications are likely in most instances to be in accordance with the wishes of Local Members and Town or Parish Councils so there would be no point in bringing such applications to Committee. Bringing applications to Committee has the following disadvantages over delegated Officer decisions: Greater cost due to the time needed to prepare Committee reports and agendas.

5 (iii) (iv) Adds to the size of the Committee agenda and the length of meetings. Slower decisions because of the impact of Committee cycles and deadlines. This makes it more difficult to meet Government performance targets for the speed at which applications are determined. The Council s performance against these Government targets is a significant factor in determining the amount of Planning Delivery Grant awarded to the Council each year and the Council s C.P.A. rating. The more applications that come to Committee the more difficult it is for the Council to meet its own Best Value Indicator target of achieving at least 90% delegation to officers on planning application decisions. Excluding HIMO applications from the existing scheme of Officer delegation would also set a precedent for excluding other types of application and make the overall operation of the scheme as a whole more complex. Conclusions: The existing scheme of delegation to Officers has ensured that the vast majority of HIMO applications submitted in the last 3 years have been determined by Committee. Whilst HIMOs continue to be controversial in the eyes of elected Council Members and Town and Parish Councils this will continue to be the case, particularly where permission is recommended, for the reasons set out in this report. There would be no benefit in bringing to Committee HIMO applications where the Officer recommendation was in accordance with the wishes of Local Councillors and the Town or Parish Councils, as would be the case for most recommendations of refusal. Recommendation: It is recommended that HIMO applications continue to be dealt with in accordance with the existing scheme of Officer delegation for Development Control matters and that no changes be made to the delegation scheme. If a Councillor wishes to request that an application be referred to Committee for a decision they are asked to make clear if their request only applies if the application is to be recommended for permission (this would allow the application to be refused but not permitted by Officers).