Agenda item

The Area Lead South presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He confirmed there were no further updates to the report and that all issues for concern were addressed within the agenda report. 

He referred to the key considerations including what impact the proposal would have on the character of the use of land and on the neighbouring land and uses due to the potential nature of Hostel proposed.  He also raised concern regarding the impact on the listed building.

The Area Lead South concluded that the application does not specify what type of hostel is to be provided and that several attempts had been made to clarify the proposal.  Attempts to assess the impact of the development on the interior of the Listed Building by entering the building had been declined.

He considered that the application still provided lack of sufficient information to allow the development to be correctly assessed and as a result fails to meet the requirements of Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  His recommendation was therefore to refuse the application for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         The existing extension to the proposed property remains incomplete, however if this application was approved it would most likely be completed. Clarified that planning permission has previously been granted for this extension.

·         The applicant has declined access to the interior of the property and therefore the impacts that may be brought about by the hostel use cannot be fully assessed, including those required by Building Regulations such as fire protection/escapes. 

·         Confirmed application lacked clarity regarding the type of hostel proposed.

Robin Bryer, the Agent addressed the committee.  He said that the proposed building had never been used as a children’s nursery and that the applicant had not deliberately sought to frustrate officers by declining access to the house, but merely it was private home which the owners preferred officers not to enter.  He confirmed that at the present time the applicant was not looking for Listed Building consent and if planning permission be granted could hasten completion of the existing extension.  He felt it was an excellent position within the town as located near to the college and hospital and within walking distant to town centre.  He referred to the present adjacent hostel and therefore felt use had already been established.  He concluded the applicants were keen to complete the outstanding work on the extension and that this proposal would be an ideal solution to an interesting building.

Councillor Alan Smith, Ward member voiced his concern over the location of the hostel.   Not knowing the exact use of the hostel he was wary of its location so close to young people walking to the nearby school, college and hospital. 

Councillor John Clark, Ward member referred to the clear indication of the requirements of the NPPF and the failure of the applicant to meet these needs.  He therefore agreed with the officer’s recommendation and would not support the application.

Councillor Wes Read, Ward member agreed there was a lack of information provided and also voiced concern regarding the parking issues and access of the site and the impact on the local area.

During members’ discussion, several points were raised including the following:

·         Considered a good location for a hostel but clarity is needed as to what type of hostel is proposed.

·         Duty of care to safeguard the local area and vulnerable people using the school, college etc.  At present the lack of information leaves officers unable to undergo an assessment and clear justification to allow this change of use. 

·         Disappointed the applicant and agent had not taken the opportunity to address the issues raised in order to support the application.

·         Sought clarification on the legal definition of a hostel and the possibility to condition the type of use of the hostel.

In response to members’ comments the Area Lead South and Development Manager advised that:

·         Several attempts have been made to encourage further discussions, however these have not been forthcoming. 

·         Clarified not excluding the possible use as a hostel but that more evidence was required in order to go forward with the application.

·         It was possible to condition for certain categories, for example student accommodation.

The Senior Legal Executive advised members of the legal definition of a hostel.  She read out the following statement from wording taken from para 61 and 62 Circular 03/2005.

‘There is no definition of “hostel” within planning law.  A hostel usually provides overnight or short-term accommodation which may be supervised, where people (including sometimes the homeless) can usually stay free or cheaply. Hostels may provide board, although some may provide facilities for self-catering.  The element of supervision should not be relied upon as a determining factor but as a factor to take into account.

Occasionally, hostels are used to provide longer-term accommodation, although it should be stressed that a hostel is not a residential care home this would fall under a different use class.

The question of whether a premise is a hostel or another use is a matter of judgement to be determined on the fact and degree of the case.  Case Law in 1985 argued that the presence and use of some of the features below combined were sufficient to distinguish the use of premises as a hostel (Panayi v Secretary of State for the Environment and Hackney LBC)

·         The presence of dormitories and /or communal or shared facilities

·         The use of the premises in accommodating specific categories of people eg the young, or homeless

·         Whether the premises are serviced and /or supervised

·         Whether payment is made by the local authority

·         Whether payment is on a nightly basis

·         Whether the residents are transient in the sense that they are “placed” in the accommodation whilst awaiting accommodation elsewhere

·         The requirements of fire or safety certificates indicating the type of usage

·         The display of such notices or other indicators which may indicate the type of usage, eg fire certificates, public fire notices of use for staff and guests.

As said above it is a matter of fact and degree on the application details as provided.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused as per the officer’s recommendation for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That application 15/01630/COU be refused for the following reasons:

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The application lacks sufficient information regarding its use to allow the development to be robustly assessed, in particular how it would influence the character of the use of the land under consideration and how that would impact on neighbouring land and uses. In addition the LPA has been denied access to the site to properly assess the proposal. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (March 2015).

02.       The application does not provide the required 'clear and convincing justification' to allow this change of use application to be assessed with regards to its impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, in this case a Grade 2 listed building, as such the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (in particular para. 132) and policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (March 2015).

Informatives:

01.       In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

-           offering a pre-application advice service, and

-           as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

In this case, the applicant/agent did not take the opportunity to enter into pre-application discussions. During the course of the application the agent was asked to provide more information to help justify the application but failed to do so. Access to the application site was also denied.