Committee Date:
30/04/2015
Application Number:
Accepted:
07/01/2015
Application Type:
Target Date:
04/03/2015
Ward:
Stockland Green
2014/09400/PA
Full Planning
13 & 15 Gravelly Hill North, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 6BT
Retention of the change of use from two dwellinghouses (C3) to two
houses in multiple occupation (Sui Generis)
Applicant:
Agent:
Mr S. Singh
35 Firth Park Crescent, Halesowen, West Midlands, B62 9PG
Bharya & Co
76 Poplar Avenue, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B17 8ES
Recommendation
Determine
1.1.
On the 2nd April your Committee deferred this application, following the receipt of
further information in relation to comments made by West Midlands Police, minded
to refuse. The reasons for refusal were crime/fear of crime and the impact upon the
character of the area due to a concentration of HMO / institutional uses in the area.
1.2.
In accordance with this resolution, the following reasons for refusal are provided for
Members’ consideration:
a) The proposed development would adversely affect the character, amenity and
community cohesion of the area due to an increase in crime/fear of crime
contrary to paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 8.25 of the Birmingham Unitary
Development Plan 2005, and to the provisions of the Specific Needs Residential
Uses (1992) SPG and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
b) The change of use to two 8 no. bedroom HMO accommodation would have an
adverse impact on the residential character of this area due to the existing
concentration of non-family dwelling houses. As such the proposal would be
contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 5.19 A-C of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and
to the provisions of the Specific Needs Residential Uses (1992) SPG and the
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
PREVIOUS REPORT BACK
1.3.
On the 5th March 2015 your Committee deferred this application pending the receipt
of further information from West Midlands Police.
1.4.
“They confirm that there are currently 1641 houses in multiple occupation within
Birmingham, of these there are 75 within the postcode area of this proposed
development (Stockland Green). The neighbouring postcode, Erdington, has 62.
1.5.
They state that the grounds for the objection to this proposal are that there is an
over intensification of HMO’s within the area and the cumulative effect of this will
Page 1 of 9
have an increased effect on levels of crime and anti-social behaviour, the fear of
crime and calls to service from the police.
1.6.
It has become evident to the police that HMO’s have provided accommodation for a
transient local population that has undermined community stability and cohesion.
Residents tend to stay in the ward for approximately 6 months, leading to a lack of
engagement, pride and ownership.
1.7.
A recent survey of three HMO’s within the area, conducted in December 2014,
revealed the following information:
-There were 64 people in residence.
-20 of these had no previous arrest record within the West Midlands.
-18 had more than 15 arrests.
-16 had less than 5 arrests
1.8.
This example shows that more than a quarter of the residents were, from a
neighbourhood policing point of view, repeat offenders and of high risk. The survey
also revealed that of the 64 people, when arrested, 27 had issues relating to drugs,
alcohol or mental health.
1.9.
The above problem is in addition to large companies operating within the Stockland
Green area including Oxhill Housing, Trident Reach, Horizon Housing and Prospect
Housing. Plus other Housing Associations.
1.10.
Further to this, the local police are in demand to police 8 children’s homes within the
ward (including Child Sexual Exploitation issues).
1.11.
Problems with street nuisances, drinking and anti-social behaviour – offenders are
regularly residents of local HMO’s.
1.12.
Stockland Green has been designated as a burglary and robbery hotspot – from
April 2013- 2014 there 187 domestic burglaries in Stockland Green Ward. This was
18% of the burglaries (and the highest) reported within the whole of Birmingham
North. In the same period there were 59 personal robberies – 22% of the whole of
Birmingham North and again the highest.
1.13.
Finally, the police added that, whilst their original response to the application did not
identify any call outs, there have been 20 calls to service from this address since
September 2009. Of these 20, half were related to either arrests by the UK Border
Agency, missing persons reports or self-harm/threat of suicide. The remaining 10
over this 5 ½ year period relate to incidents of disorder – residents fighting with a
total of 3 assaults over this time period.”
1.14.
In response to the above I reiterate that whilst I note that there are other institutional
uses within this area, the evidence provided would not provide the basis for a
defensible reason for refusal. Crucially, the data relating to the offenses relates to
three properties offering accommodation for people with specific needs (YMCA, a
property housing vulnerable adults including with mental health issues and a young
offender’s property). The application property does not provide tailored
accommodation in this manner.
1.15.
The retention of this HMO use would not intrinsically present crime or fear of crime
concerns that is backed up by sufficient evidence of actual harm arising (i.e. circa 2
Page 2 of 9
police callouts for disorder per year). Therefore I do not consider that the scheme
would materially impact upon community cohesion
1.16.
I reiterate that, with no physical alterations to the properties a total of 12 bedrooms
as C4 HMO uses could be provided at the application site should the applicant use
Permitted Development rights. I do not consider there to be a material difference
between the proposed scheme of 16 residents and a C4 use with a total of 12
residents in terms of crime or fear of crime grounds that would reasonably sustain a
refusal of consent.
1.17.
I therefore continue to raise no objection on crime / fear of crime grounds and
recommend approval as per the original report below.
Original Report
2.
Proposal
2.1.
This application proposes the retention of the conversion of two dwelling houses to 2
no. eight bedroom houses in multiple of occupation. The properties have been in
HMO use since 2008 with a total of 6 and 5 occupants in each property at that time.
Since then additional bedrooms have been created to provide for a maximum of 8
people at 15 Gravelly Hill North and 7 at no 13. This application proposes the
conversion of an existing ground floor office to bring no 13 up to a total of 8
bedrooms.
2.2.
These dwellings consist of three storey properties, one detached, one semidetached. Since the application’s submission, floor plans of greater accuracy have
been provided that show that the layouts of the two units are similar in that they
show a single bedroom with communal facilities at ground floor, four bedrooms with
shared bathrooms at first floor and a further three bedrooms and a shared shower
room within the roof space.
2.3.
The properties benefit from a shared front car park marked out for nine vehicles with
a single vehicular access directly onto Gravelly Hill North.
2.4.
No external physical alterations are proposed except that an amended plan shows
an additional window to bedroom 7 in no.13 due to concerns about the lack of an
outlook from this room.
Layout Plan (13)
Layout Plan (15)
3.
Site & Surroundings
3.1.
The application site comprises of two former dwellings with a shared frontage area
fenced off from its neighbours. Generally levels rise away from Gravelly Hill North.
The properties have undergone renovation works and are currently occupied. Both
have a history of commercial/institutional uses including a clinic at no. 13 and with
both properties appearing to be a guest house until the early 1990’s.
3.2.
Whilst unclear on site, many of the nearby properties appear from their planning
history to be subdivided into flats including numbers 17 and 19.
Site Location
Page 3 of 9
Streetview
4.
Planning History
No. 13 Gravelly Hill North
4.1.
27.05.2002 – 2002/01673/PA – Approval - Change of use from clinic to one dwelling
No. 15 Gravelly Hill North
4.2.
16.05.1996 – 1995/04665/PA – Approval – Retention of use as private dwelling
house
No’s 13 & 15 Gravelly Hill North
4.3.
21.06.1996 – 1996/01735/PA – Approval – Retention of wrought iron gates and
alterations to wall
5.
Consultation/PP Responses
5.1.
Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions requiring vehicle
parking and circulation details, cycle storage details and a car parking management
plan.
5.2.
West Midlands Police – Object to this application on the basis of the cumulative
effect of HMO’s in this area which will have an increased effect on levels of crime
and anti-social behaviour, the fear of crime and calls to service from the police. They
add that HMO’s provide accommodation for a more transient population that has
undermined community stability and cohesion. Figures for burglaries in 2013/2014
for the Ward are quoted as being the highest for the Birmingham North Area and
note that a disproportionate number of residents from HMO’s in this area are, from a
West Midlands Police perspective, repeat offenders and of high risk.
5.3.
Neighbouring occupiers, Ward Members and Residents’ Associations were
consulted with one objection from Councillor Mick Finnegan who has requested that
this application is determined by Planning Committee and raises the following
concerns:
•
•
•
Loss of larger family houses
Lack of parking on a red route
Antisocial behaviour
6.
Policy Context
6.1.
Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; the submission draft Birmingham
Development Plan 2014; Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG; Places for Living
SPG; Car Parking Guidelines SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework
2012.
7.
Planning Considerations
Policy Context
Page 4 of 9
7.1.
The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development and seeks
to secure high quality homes and good design in new developments.
7.2.
Policies 3.8 and 3.10 of the adopted UDP 2005 seek to protect and enhance what is
good in the City’s environment and advises that proposals, which would have an
adverse impact on the environment, will be resisted.
7.3.
Policy 5.19A of the adopted UDP 2005 advises that the loss to other uses (through
conversion or redevelopment) of housing which is in good condition, or could be
restored to good condition at reasonable cost, will normally be resisted. Such loss
of residential accommodation will only be permitted if there are good planning
justifications or an identified social need for the proposed use. Policy 5.19B advises
that some residential areas contain properties which have been converted into
“institutional” uses such as hotels, hostels, day nurseries or nursing homes,
subdivided into flats, or are in multiple occupation. Although these are normally
appropriate in residential areas, concentrations of such uses can have an adverse
effect upon the essential residential character of a particular street or area.
7.4.
Policy 8.24 of the adopted UDP 2005 advises that when determining applications for
houses in multiple paying occupation the effect of the proposal on the amenities of
the surrounding area, and on adjoining premises; the size and character of the
property; the floor space standards of the accommodation; and the facilities
available for car parking should be assessed.
7.5.
Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG recognises that dwellings intended for
multiple paying occupations have a role to play in meeting the housing needs of
certain groups in society.
CHARACTER
7.6.
The application site is located within an area of predominantly residential character
containing a number of properties converted to apartments; institutions and purpose
built flats and is not within an Area of Restraint as identified in the adopted UDP.
The previous use of both of these properties for non-residential uses is noted, as is
the use since 2008 as HMOs. Whilst there are non-family dwellings within the
vicinity the application surroundings the application site currently consists of large
properties set back from the road behind a parking area and a residential character
prevails (all be it affected by the busy highway environment of Gravelly Hill North). I
do not consider that the proposals would materially change the character of the
area, however in order to safeguard this character, I recommend a condition
requiring details of refuse storage facilities as large storage areas to the front of
properties could result in an institutional appearance.
7.7.
It should be noted that the properties could have been converted through Permitted
Development rights to six-bedroom HMOs (C4 Use Class) without the need to apply
for planning consent. The application premises are large properties that have 7/8
bedrooms that could easily be occupied by an extended family of 8 persons or more
with a similar impact.
7.8.
I therefore consider that the proposal would have a minimal impact upon character,
and I note that no external alterations or extensions are proposed.
AMENITY
Page 5 of 9
7.9.
The retention of the proposed 8-bed HMOs would not have an adverse impact on
the amenities of adjoining residents given that the properties are large buildings
which have significant boundary treatment to the frontage to separate them from
their neighbours. The level of comings and goings associated with the proposed use
is likely to be consistent with fully occupied family dwellings.
7.10.
Considering the amenity of future occupants, bedroom sizes range from 8.3 sq.m to
24.2 sq.m which I consider adequate, with all meeting the minimum guideline size
for single occupancy from Places For Living. In terms of rear amenity space, the rear
garden provides in excess of 500 sq.m which exceeds the guideline minimum of 30
sq.m per flat set out in Places for Living. Shared communal space is generous with
the majority of the ground floor given over to kitchen, lounge and dining facilities.
7.11.
I therefore consider that the proposed use would not materially harm the residential
amenity of occupiers of dwellings within the vicinity and that the proposal would
provide a suitable standard of accommodation. I therefore raise no amenity-based
objections.
HIGHWAY MATTERS
6.9
Transportation Development raises no objection and I concur with this conclusion.
The guidance in Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG advises that car parking
provision for HMO applications should be treated on its own merits and there is no
specific maximum parking standard for this use set out in the Car Parking Guidelines
SPD. The provision of 9 well marked out and surfaced spaces to the frontage, as
existing, is adequate given the highly accessible location of the site and given the
nature of the proposed use. The access to the car park is an existing arrangement
and I raise no highway safety concerns.
6.10
Transportation Development recommends a condition requiring the provision of cycle
storage, and a condition is attached. I note the request for the parking area to be laid
out and the provision of a Parking Management Plan. I note that the car park is
adequately marked out and surfaced and do not consider such a request reasonable
in this instance.
6.11
I therefore raise no highway safety or free flow objections to the proposals.
CRIME / FEAR OF CRIME
6.12
Both West Midlands Police and Councillor Finnegan have cited the issues of crime
and anti-social behavior as reasons for objection. The NPPF encourages the creation
of healthy communities where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not
undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.
6.13
The Police have provided data to demonstrate that a disproportionate number of
residents from HMOs have a criminal record and the levels of burglaries within the
Stockland Green area. In response I note that there are other institutional uses within
this area, however there is no Area of Restraint in place and the use is acceptable in
principle. Whilst I note the Police’s comments, the evidence provided would not
provide the basis for a defensible reason for refusal. The retention of this HMO use
would not intrinsically present crime or fear of crime concerns and I am not aware of
any records of police call outs to this address during its operation as a HMO from
2008. The scheme would not materially impact upon community cohesion and it
should be noted that a total of 12 bedrooms as C4 HMO uses could be provided
Page 6 of 9
should the applicant use Permitted Development rights. In addition, given the
property’s size, future family occupation is unlikely.
6.14
I therefore raise no objection on crime / fear of crime grounds.
8.
Conclusion
8.1.
The proposed use would represent an acceptable use of these properties and would
add to the wider housing offer in this part of the city. The HMOs are not cramped
and provide spacious and well laid out accommodation. I therefore recommend that
their use as 8 bedroom HMOs is approved subject to conditions.
9.
Recommendation
9.1.
Approval subject to the following conditions:
1
Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage
2
Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details
3
Requires the provision of an amended window to bedroom 7 at no. 13
4
Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans
5
Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)
Case Officer:
Nicholas Jackson
Page 7 of 9
Photo(s)
Figure 1. The Application Properties
Page 8 of 9
Location Plan
This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010
Page 9 of 9