Three houses in multiple occupation at 29 - 31 Avenue Road, Grantham

The site and surroundings

The site was an office building formed from three terraced houses, with rear parking, residential neighbours and commercial uses nearby.

“The application site is an office building on Avenue Road in the town of Grantham. The building comprises of originally three terraced houses no.29, no.30 and no.31 Avenue Road. The office building contains; storerooms on the lower ground floor; reception, offices, wc, kitchens and storerooms on the ground floor; offices, wc, and kitchens on the first floor; and offices, wc and kitchens on the second floor.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered office use, a vehicular access, and changes from residential use to offices.

“Reference Proposal Decision SK.1203/88 Change of use 1 st and 2 nd floors to office Approved 09/08/88 SK.998/82(14187) Change of use 1 st and 2 nd floor from residential to office Approved 02/09/81 SK.1422/77(14188) Construction of vehicular access Approved 21/02/78 SK.12/75(14190) Change of use residential to offices Approved 27/02/75”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and environmental protection raised no objections, while the town council neither supported nor objected and a county councillor objected.

“Representations Received Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) 5.1 No objections. Comments: ‘The site is located in a central urban area where services and facilities are within a reasonable distance to be accessed via sustainable travel options such as walking, cycling and public transport. Future residents of the development will not be reliant on the private car and therefore parking is not essential for this proposal.”

“Our reviewed comment is as follows: We are aware that Councillors have commented individually on this matter to raise objections and we trust the planning officer's expertise in coming to a decision on this application’. SKDC Environmental Protection 5.6 No objections, subject to planning conditions for Construction Work and deliveries. County Councillor Paul Martin 5.7 Objection.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Two objections raised concerns about access rights, overcrowding, parking, congestion, pedestrians, services, noise, nuisance, antisocial behaviour and crime.

“This application has been advertised in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, and 2 letters of representation were received. The letters were objections, and this has been summarised below:”

“Application site includes land owned by no.28 Avenue Road, and there are access rights for no.28 Avenue Road to use the parking area • Overcrowded HMOs which will exacerbate parking issues / congestion on Avenue Road • High number of pedestrians use Avenue Road • Concerns about essential services e.g. waste collection, water supply, sewage, healthcare, public transport, emergency services • Noise and nuisance • Anti-social behaviour and crime concerns…”

Officer report

Who spoke

District ward councillors, a county councillor and the applicant’s representative addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members debated HMO concentration, 34 residents, parking, highway safety, amenity, employment loss, planning policy and the possible residential fallback.

“- Loss of employment premises (Policy E6 and NPPF paragraphs 82 and 121). - Over intensification, poor standard of residential amenity (DE1, H4 and NPPF paragraph 130F). - Harm to neighbourhood amenity (Policies DE1, EN4 and NPPF paragraph 185). - Inadequate parking and highway safety concerns (Policy ID2 and NPPF paragraph 111). - Spatial strategy (Policies SP1, SP2, SP3).”

“The Legal Advisor clarified that in all aspects of Planning, there would need to be demonstrable and quantifiable evidence to refuse an application. The Committee were reminded that Highways had not considered the application to be harmful, however, Members did not have the evidence to any harm in refusing the application on parking and highway safety.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The refusal motion was proposed, seconded and agreed.

“It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to REFUSE the application for the following reason:”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the combined HMOs would intensify residential, vehicle and pedestrian activity, harm neighbours and the area, and lacked sufficient transport evidence.

“The cumulative effect of the proposed 3 houses of multiple occupation together would result in a material intensification of residential activity and vehicular and pedestrian movements, which would cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents, and the character and appearance of the area, and there is insufficient site specific transport evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would provide sufficient off-street parking to mitigate these impacts,…”

Minutes