05/11/2025 Planning Sub-Committee

Thank you for watching the live stream.

You can access the agenda and meeting papers to help you follow the discussions. https://hackney.moderngov.co.uk/mgCalendarMonthView.aspx?XXR=0&M=10&DD=2025&ACT=Go

This is a meeting held in public, it is not a public meeting.

This live stream is being monitored by our technical support team. If there is a problem with the stream and we need to end it, a new live stream will commence on this same YouTube channel.

Tell us about your experience. This will help us to improve. Fill out the feedback form: https://forms.gle/nnW5t7P422ZcC1y48

>> HTH Room 104 – Council Chambers: Good evening everyone and welcome to Hackney Council’s planning subcommittee Meeting my name is Councilor, Jessica Webb, and I will be chairing this. evening’s meeting, this meeting will be recorded and is being live streamed on YouTube and is also being transcribed council is taking part in voting. This evening are present here in the Council Chamber. of the public who have joined us in the chamber. of the press for anyone joining the meeting remotely by a Google meet. There is a chat function. However please only use this to raise it related issues as chair of the subcommittee. I will not be monitoring it, and it does not form part of the minutes of this meeting. Meeting participants are reminded to turn off their mobile phones. I’ll put it on silent. Also, Please note any persistent disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave the meeting. In the event of an Internet outage, we will return the meeting and then come back and continue once resolved. I’ll now turn to my fellow planning subcommittee members and ask them to please introduce themselves, starting from the front. Thank you. Cancel. Any route for Victoria Ward? Councilor. Michael Desmond. Hackney Downs. Ward. Cancel, Sheila Susurunga High Central Road. Council. Claire Potter Bramford Ward. Councilor Ali Salat King’s parkour. Thank you very much. There’s a sentence. This evening will note that. There are various council offices present at this meeting this evening Council offices Here, we have our legal officer Courtney Blackwood. Swadley Blue Development, manager in for some manager, John sang, our governance services, Gareth Sykes and Jessica People Jessica. Yes. But I’m just gonna, okay. some of you joining other this evening would have contacted the governance officer in advance of this meeting to register to speak in objection or in support of the applications on this evening’s agenda. Before we continue, I will briefly outline how this meeting, will proceed. We will hear the planning applications summarized, by the planning officer. We will then hear representations from objectors followed by the representations From those speaking in support of the applications members of the planning subcommittee will then be free to ask questions of the planning officer objectives, all the applicant or supporters of the application in my role as chair of this planning subcommittee, I will ensure that committee members have everything that they need to make a decision that objectives and applicants have the opportunity to set out their case and that the meeting runs properly, I will not be taking any contributions from the floor. You must have given notice to the Months officer before the meeting to register to speak the deadline for registering to speak was 4pm yesterday and the list is closed subcommittee members are not representing their awards or their political parties members will make decisions on the basis of site visits that they’ve made, what we have read in the published application report. And of course what we hear this evening. We must make any decision on an application in accordance with the Council’s, development plan, including the Council’s, local plan, and the London Plan unless relevant material planning considerations indicate otherwise, Subcommittee members are reminded not to take into account or discuss non-material planning matters. When taking a decision members should not have allowed themselves to pre-judge. Any application. Prior to this meeting. Similarly, if a member has any interests relating to an application on the meeting agenda, they must consider whether that interest ought to be disclosed and where appropriate they must withdraw from the meeting while the application is discussed and voted. When we have finished our deliberations on a planning application, I will read out the recommendation as set out in the published application report and then members will vote on the recommendation by raising their hands. So that the government’s officer can record When the decision is made, that is normally the end of matter for the subcommittee. The applicant may appeal our decision and objectives may seek legal address, I can advise you to seek legal advice in either case, We will now continue with the published meeting agenda. And we’ll begin with apologies for absence. Chair. I’m not aware of any apologies for absence beyond cancer Levy. Who’s got dispensation? But I do notice on my screen, the Council of Samitar has joined us. virtually or remotely and just with the public record and any committee members who are accessing this meeting remotely. They are reminded, they are not count as being present for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972. And they may not vote in any items under consideration, but at the discretion of the chair, they may however contribute to discussion and participate in a non decision-making capacity. So I’m looking across the room. I don’t see Counselor Garcia present. Or closer look great divert either. So I’m not in contact with them by them, Okay, that’ll be noted. Thank you very much. the gender item number two declarations of interest, the members of anything to declare. Nope. chair. Just for the public record. Obviously, one of the objectives this evening speaking is your fellow hackney Ward councilor. Councilman Margaret Gordon, so just for the public record. Okay. Generating Item, three to consider any proposal with subcommittee, by the council’s, monitoring officer and none have Been received. It’s correct. Yeah. Thank you. The gender item four minutes of the previous meeting. or committee members happy with the accuracy of The minutes of our last meeting. Oh no. Cancel the potter, sorry, I’m really sorry. I just realized I should have said something in the day, the declarations of interest, I think we’ve probably all received an email from one of the objectives and I’m sorry, I forgot to forward it on. You Gareth. That’s fine. I think we all have as somebody forwarded it on them, to Gareth. Yes. Yes. Somebody could and yeah, great. Okay. Sorry to disturbed. No no, it’s fine. Thank you. I’m gonna sign these minutes. They’re good. Are they Agreed Committee? Because that’s what we were. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, let’s move to a gender item five, which is Nine Clifton Road. Hackney and I will let the officer lead us. We’ve got Laurence not cruel. Okay? Laurence the floor is yours. Everyone ready? Okay. thank you. Thank you, chair. Good evening, everyone. so this application relates to Nine Clifton Road and the proposal relates to the conversion of a small. HMO, six bedroom into a large age mode of seven bedrooms. Is the site location plan for the site which is located on the northern side of Clifton Road. The site is not located within a conservation area or has any designated heritage assets on the site. Here’s some aerial views of the property. In question, it’s located on a residential street, a traditional residential street within Hackney. Here’s some site photos of the front of the building showing. the front where refuse could be stored and also showing on the left hand side, where a recent application for immense art roof was A subsequently been built out. There was a previous application at the site which was reviewed by the Council and this was for The conversion of the property when it was a single family dwelling house to seven bedroom HMO. This went to appeal but was dismissed on the grounds that it had not been demonstrated that proposed rent levels would be suitable for people with low incomes and it would fail to encourage sustainable modes of transport with regard to parking provision, in order to overcome those reasons for refusal. The this application would be subject to a sexual 106 agreement. To ensure that the additional bedrooms with the additional bedroom as part of the proposal would be subject to low, rent levels and also restricted from obtaining on street car parking permits. is important to know as part of that appeal decision the Council were awarded costs partially against them. in relation to the refusal of the application, on the principle of the change of use because it hadn’t the authority hadn’t reasonably demonstrated that admitted development rights had been taken into consideration in the planning balance and position and And here is just a snippet of the comments that were provided by the appeal. inspector, who understood that? It was resulting in a loss of family housing, but given permit development rights and this change could happen either way and it needs to be given sufficient way in the assessment. and the difference between the previous application and the current application is now that the property has been converted into a HMO, but a small HMO so it would no longer result in the loss of a single family dwelling house. Here are the existing proposal that well, just to propose elevations of the front and rear. The side elevation. So these extensions were previously, granted permission have been built out. here is the existing floor plans on the ground and first floor, the the changes proposed would relate to the communal area. at the rear of the ground floor element. It has a bedroom and kitchen in the loft space. So here the proposed ground floor plans where the communal area at the back. would effectively be subdivided via partition wall to create a additional bedroom facing out onto the light. Well, And the loft plans wouldn’t change. so, to summarize the proposal provide provisional additional HMO, accommodation of good quality and sustainable location. The increase in the number of occupiers would not materially compromise residential immunity more. So than the lawful use of the site as a small HMO and the additional occupancy would be subject to rent cap and parking permit. restriction, as part of a Section, 106 agreement, overcoming the previous reasons refusal, Thank you. We’ll have the object, isn’t it next now as we’ve got councilor Gordon Councilor Gordon brings five minutes to speak and say. This back here, you’ve got five minutes as well. Yeah. Stephanie’s going first. Yep. Great. And we’ve got a traffic lights and I’ll give you a shoutout. But when you’ve got one minute left. Yeah. So when you’re ready, thank you. Okay, thank you. Good evening, chairs. Counselor and officers, my name is Tiffany back here. And I leave at 11 Clifton Road. Directly next door to nine Clifton Road. I want to make it clear at the start. I’m not opposed to providing homes for people in Hackney, but I’m asking you today to refuse the proposal before you, for the following reasons. Firstly, the quality of accommodation the proposed layouts, quizzes, seven separate household into what used to be a three-bedroom family house, all the rooms are small, there is no sufficient sound insulation in between the room. which consequently brings very little intimacy to residents and has led to conflict one of which was a criminal incident in which the police were involved. The report said that the front door by itself is not a planning issue, but it’s very old and thin and slimes all day and all night it, remained broken for two weeks. One of the residents told me that his room felt like a prison cell. The kitchen was filthy and it was very hot in the summer. Another resident with complex mental, health issues, use these bedroom as a toilet for months to me This does not qualify. I had quality accommodation, even if all the minimum legal required planning, requirements are in place. Secondly, the impact on neighbors amenity. From the beginning, the management of the small HMO has been a very low standard. I understand that the local planning authority cannot be prejudiced against development proposals on the premise that anti-social behavior may not or may occur. However, the management track record in this instance and with only five occupants as already being very poor Vulnerable individuals. Where housed together was? Absolutely no consideration towards the level of needs. One person, had complex needs with addictions a second was an asylum seeker with no English at all. Another was an 18 year old man with ASD. And lastly was a man, his wife and two very young children. we have we all have a duty of care towards vulnerable people, but this particular setting only makes existing problem was the landlord has not taken any responsibility for the well-being of those living in the property, the situation meant that I alongside with the police in emergency services Supervised the building, this doesn’t make any one. Feel safe, the resident myself as a single mother, who’s a runner old child all the way their neighborhood. Although, I’m aware that failure to complain with any licensed condition. May result in fine and lots of license. It’s a long process and considering all events so far, I have reasons to expect that the regulation will not be enforced. Furthermore way storage and refuse management as always been a concern which I logged to with a council. Thirdly, highways and parking pressure. Understand that every tenant can have a bike, there is no space at the front of the house to store seven bikes. So instead, the bikes will have to be stored in the garden. To get to the garden from the front door, the bikes will need to be pushed down and now a whole way through a fire door and into the living area, they will then have to navigate around sofas and chairs before going through the kitchen and dining area. This is highly unpractical, even with fewer occupants in the building. There is already any bike stored in the corridor which is a fire hazard. Hackney local’s plan seek to create balance and sustainable communities. There around 600 large HMO, adding another one. Even if it means only one more occupier risk, undermining, the mixed community character that the policies designed to protect and also creates a domino effect. To conclude this proposal, which creates substandard, living condition intensify, and social activity, in a way that harm’s neighbors and unbalanced, the local community because of all that has happened in the last six months. I have serious concern. That the owners of the property will not provide caring adequate and professional supervision and management. Prevention is key to avoid serious social and criminal issues. For our respectfully, urge, you to refuse this application. Thank you for listening this evening. Thank you, Tommy. councilor Gordon, ready for your five minutes and if you could turn off your microphone, thank you. Thank you very much. chair and members of the committee. I’m here as a long-standingly Bridge Road councilor to support residents, objecting to this application. It’s no coincidence that there are two very similar applications concerning the conversion of family homes into large, HMOs being considered here tonight. and these properties are in a very short distance, from each other. In the same area of Lee Bridge as ward councilors, we’ve had to support residents with significant number of issues, arising out of anti-social behavior, noise, Waste, disposal and Stephanie’s describe, you can serious criminality arising for men’s suitably developed to manage HMOs in this area of the ward. This had a significant negative community of impact on residents quality of life in a way. Thank you very much, chair and members of the committee. I’m here as a Long-standingly, Bridge Award counselor, to support residents, objecting to this application. Is no coincidence that there are two very similar applications concerning the conversion of family homes into large, HMOs being considered here tonight. And these properties are in very short distance from each other in the same area of Lee Bridge. As ward councilors, we’ve had to support residents with significant number of issues. Arising out of anti-social behavior noise, waste, disposal. and Stephanie’s described, you can serious criminality arising from unsuitably developed to manage HMOs in this area of the ward. This had a significant negative cunitive impact on residence quality of life in a way that is Stephanie said, impacting community, cohesion. And I’m very concerned that this situation is going to continue in escalate It’s only down to the tenacity and determination of residents here tonight. these applications have been brought to the planning subcommittee for full public consideration. I’d ask you to listen very very carefully and take into account everything that’s being said. Clifton Road is a residential street in the heart of Clapton off Chatsworth Road and part of the Street Borders Homerton Hospital section of the street were number. Nine is situated, consists of late, Victorian hat, terrorist houses, the areas one of single family, dwellings and rest and residential conversions as well as properties that are used by the health service. As has been outlined an application for planning permission for a certain bedroom HMO’s previously, been refused development. Refused on three grounds, namely that resulted in under supply family dwellings, lack of detail and rent levels. and on the basis that would promote the use of non-sustainable modes of transport those objections in my opinion, still stand. Regularizing this application, would reward the behaviors and landlord in proceeding without planning permission. Well, good quality houses and multi occupation are right in important. Part of fact, these development plan. This is not what this application. If you’ve gone to tonight will provide the development proposal does not meet the criteria listed in LP 22. In particular, the first criteria stipulates a conversion does not exist the loss of existing housing suitable for family. Use the most recent lawful use of this property, was a single dwelling previous application for conversion was refused. It cannot be right substantially, similar application, should now be granted after the works of ready, being done and granted granting. This tonight will give a green light Whether developers. Moreover, I would Met the apparent reasoning in paragraph, 6.3.3. That is the property can be lawfully. Converted to a six bed, HMO, without a change. And with without any change of use to consideration is not needed to all the criteria set out in LP22. And I I consider that reasoning to be seriously flawed in terms of loss of, amenity, as this is a retrospective application as compelling evidence the existence of this change of Hughes significant impact. The loss of amenity, no evidence has been submitted on rent levels. I submit that, despite the proposing formative. This is also reason for submission, for refusing the application. Relation to the fifth criteria in Lp22, was this rightly requires high standards for accommodation at this time. In terms of space standards management requirements facilities in refuge arrangements, focusing on management requirements. You’ve heard the account by Stephanie of her experiences. It’s very difficult to have confidence the management, the property, license or unlicensed, will provide the safety and security, that tenants, or the neighbors deserve. Access and transport to the site, as you’ve also heard does not provide adequate cycle parking for seven bedroom property and their transport needs. for all these reasons, as well as the reasons that Stephanie so eloquently set out. I’d ask you to refuse the application. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we’ll go to the agent for the applicant. Josh Meyers, you have 10 minutes, so the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening councilors. Thank you for allowing me. The opportunities, address the committee, This evening, my name is Josh Myers of E8 Harm planning and we act on behalf of the applicant. This application seeks permission for the change of use of the property from a six bedroom, HMO in class C4, use to a Seven-bedroom HMO in sui generis use. I’ll set out in the committee report and confirmed by the council’s planning officer. The proposal has been fully assessed against Hug. 22 Objections were received, including one from the Hackney Society and explain how each of the key concerns has been addressed and why this model meets all policy requirements. Members will call the sites recent planning history, as detailed by the planning officer, This were two applications followed by a recent appeal. The appeal was the bill was dismissed for two reasons. Only lack of secured affordable rent levels and no legal agreement, to secure car, for occupation. There were no concerns about design and layout or immunity since. Then, all of those issues have been resolved. First a science Section, 106 agreement will be conditions, securing the rent of the additional room and local housing allowance levels. During the affordability for low-income occupiers. Also the same sexual monistics will secure a car free obligation preventing the occupants from obtaining and on street parking permit. accordingly, none of the previous reasons for refusal now, apply and officers now recommend approval. The officer concludes in his reports. The proposed change of use from a small, HMO to a large, HMO is acceptable in policy terms and would provide high quality accommodation for future occupiers in accordance with policy LP. 22 of the local plan. The site lies and a highly sustainable location. 5 rating, within a short walk of Hackney Central, Major Town Center and Chatsworth Road, local shopping center giving, excellent access to jobs and public transport. the HMO provides seven, high quality ensuite, bedrooms each exceeding hacked, his minimum space and licensing standards, or when those providing adequate and ventilation the layout includes two fully equipped kitchens, one of the ground floor, which includes dining facilities and one in the law while the ground floor communal area has been reduced from 35 square, meters to 18 square meters, to form the additional room. It’s still significantly exceeds the council’s. Minimum kitchen dining requirements of 11.5 square meters and officers confirm the arrangement remains out, the courts for seven occupiers Hug. the property would meet their requirements for a license for seven households and nine persons. And they raise no objection. We acknowledge the new potential, the proposal causes no significant harm to neighboring immunity including overshadowing loss of light outlook overlooking or noise because there were no external, alterations the proposal results in no loss of immunity, beyond existing circumstances, the officer report confirms The proposal would result in Anjuharm, would sorry, the proposal would not result in Anjuharm to neighboring. Occupies in terms of overlooking, outlook, daylight or sunlight, adding One, extra bedroom, represents a negligible increase in potential noise or activity and the property remains subject to the councils. HMO, licensing controls, which manage occupancy, behavior and standards. Quantum consultation. Refuse arrangements. Have been upgraded in direct response. The waste management teams, comments the front garden now accommodates for 180 liter world bins, plus additional space food waste and right recycling sacks, It’s fully meets the council’s refuge storage standards and has been confirmed acceptable by waste management. In addition, Secure cycle, parking will be provided in accordance with policy, lp42. The officer recommends that this can be secured by a condition. I’d like to acknowledge the 22 objectives received including one from the Hackney Society. Many comments raised, Relate to matters outside the scope of planning policy such as the appearance of the front door, feels about crime or anti-social behavior or suggestions. That tenants may have complex personal circumstances while we understand and sympathize with these concerns such matters are governed through licensing and management, not the planning system. We also recognize that there have been some historic complaints associated with the existing HMO. However, this application is not about whether the HMO should exists the tool. It’s already, does lawfully and with an active license, it’s simply about whether one additional bedroom can be permitted within that lawful use I mean regards to that question officers are clear the change results in no external alterations, no additional loss of immunity to neighbors. No parking Impacts due to the concrete agreements and improved management and compliance through licensing and legal controls. so while we acknowledge residents frustrations planning, assessments must focus on policy impact on that basis, the proposal is fully compliant to summarize the property already lawfully operates as a six-bedroom HMO with a licensed, granted in March 2024, This proposal introduces, one bedroom. Only a very modest intensification within the same building envelope. The previous reasons for refusal family, housing loss rent, affordability and car. Free status are all resolved through the lawful back and the conditions Section 106 agreement. The skin provides good quality ensuite rooms at the communal and refuse base. And complies with all relevant hug. policies, chairs, and members This proposal simply makes efficient use of existing housing as one affordable bedspace, and has no material adverse impacts on the community or neighbors. I therefore respectfully invite the Committee to Support Officers recommendation and grant planning permission. I’ll be happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Okay, we’re going to move over to the committee’s questions. I saw a councilor potiphers. Thank you chair. I just want to come to the applicant and so got two questions for you. So I appreciate what you said about the appeal and obviously the case, the cancer case, work Hardly Officer, also laid out this quite clear in the documentation. But it kind of troubles me slightly that you know how one room one household that’s gonna have a rank cap and the rest are going to be charged higher rate. That seems to be most contouring, some policies of ours in terms of equity. So I just wanted whether you would be able to comment on that and how that is going to work with those residents. Particularly we’ve all already. Heard from, you know, the residents in that street that you’ve already got a conflict of interest in the way that some residents have engaged with the with each other. It doesn’t seem like it’s going to be a good setup and the same in terms of the, you know the car and free aspect just for that particular household. The other question I wanted to ask is Why is this retrospective you obviously have applied for planning. You’ve had it Hughes before. Why have you carried out work? I might be told he’s not material but I do think it gives us an idea of the way that you know you might approach and things, obviously had it refused before. So I go ahead with the works to get that seventh bedroom. We’ve already heard from residents that the management that they are concerned about the management, so I’d like to hear more reassurance from you as an applicant of how you’re going to manage and address these things given You know you props don’t appear to approach things in a transparent way so far. I appreciate the concerns about the proposition shamo and the ways. It’s been suggested that to the planning that that application has the applications have gone forward. I most point out that the applicant is simply making use of a of a planning policy within Hackney Council planning. Policy guidance that it is permitted to development for a household to be converted, into an HMO, up to six bedrooms, the councils can have issues and questions on that policy, but that policy in is in existence and has been utilized in this development. This proposal is really, just focusing on this one additional bedroom. The HMO, the six bedroom, current HMO is not Technically, it’s not at all addressed in this application. We are just, we’re just dealing with this one additional bedroom, obviously. the HMO is registered HMO and as, as a registered HMO, it will have to very clearly and strictly comply with all policy. and that policy. The HMO guidance is there to ensure the HMOs are serving functionally. However, this application is only to be to be of to be viewed as a change of use from an existing six bedroom. HMO to a seven agent bedroom HMO and that’s why the the section on a sixes are only legally and only able to be focused on that one position. Could ask a follow-on to officers. A principle in terms of one of the rooms having a rank cap and the other’s not. And in terms of one of the rooms, yeah, the same room having been cut free. How does this line in with our, you know, with our council policies. It doesn’t seem to create a good circumstance to me for those residents living together. And yeah, I appreciate that. That it’s a bit of an issue in terms of equity there. I suppose in reality the people that are living in the property wouldn’t necessarily know how much each individual person is paying rent wise, So I’m not sure how that would actually arise as an issue, but from a planning policy perspective, we have to consider the lawful fallback position of what’s already there. So, it would be unreasonable to impose, restrictions and conditions on existing development, and we can as the agents already said that we can only focus on what actually requires planning permission in this instance, it’s just the increase from six bedrooms to seven bedrooms. So that one additional room is the only element that we can capture reasonably. in terms of restricting on street car, parking permits being applied for and and cap the rest. It would be potentially Imposing restrictions on existing occupiers, which is, which is not generally considered reasonable. Even if there is a, if it does end up in a certain level of inequality, in terms of rents between existing between the occupiers throughout the unit, and also it’s it’s up. For the existing occupiers, it’s up for the landlord to determine what those rents are generally. And so, in theory, they could charge. Rent on the different kind of sizes of rooms or on different. grounds, they can probably charge rent. So, I wouldn’t imagine that. There would be just a blanket rent for all the occupies within that building. So it’d be difficult to kind of raise the argument of inequality between the different rooms and different occupiers and but yeah, input landing policy terms. It’s it’s not something that we can consider. Answer. Now, cross next. Thank you. So my main slightly a follow-up to cancel products questions. So, on the enforcement, Spectacular. So, he said, there’s a change of use to a seven bedroom HMO enforcement case, currently open the property. So, is that because The change to a seven bedroom HMOs already occurred. Or you believe it’s a cardio code. and that is, as far as aware that the enforcement investigation is open because that has what the complaint that has been received is in relation to and not because it’s actually been carried out. Maybe the age might be able to clarify, but yeah, we’re we’re assessing effectively the lawful position of the six bedroom HMO to just HMO. So and that is the element that requires permission. So the enforcement investigation, if this application would be refused, and it was found that it was operating as a seven bedroom, HMO without planning then enforcement action can Right. So is it operating as a seven-bedroom hmr? Sorry, so is it operating this? No, as far as I’m aware, there’s been building the site to implement the lawful extensions, which have been accepted approved and also, to begin the process of changing it to a six bedroom HMO, which again is a lawful lawful change of use. I don’t, I don’t believe that seven, major, the seventh bedroom has been added yet, this will be subject to approval on the committee. Okay, thank you. And sorry I had another question. So this this point about the kind of four-back position and the planning inspector and the lawful and permit development, attendance was six bedroom HMO. And if we approve this application on that basis, then we’re are, we effectively conceding any property in Hackney can be turned into a six-bedroom permitted development. So we should automatically therefore in perpetuity Grant seven bedroom HMOs because that fallback position is actually not a residential dwelling that fallback position is a six bedroom HMO and does that set a dangerous precedent? I mean, we have to review any application that comes to us on the case. By Case in theory, as there are no restrictions across hackney by a wide in terms of permitted development rights to change from a single family dwelling house to a HMO and that could reasonably be used as an argument to to back up the the justification in in the principle of a change of use. Yeah, across the borough. Kansas City. Thank you. It’s just a quick question to the officers. where you are saying that going from six to seven bedrooms, this would involve the subdivision of ground floor coming to living space to create an additional bedroom. How can we be assured that or can we be assured that the actual communal living space criteria is not compromised by doing this and what would be the materials that you’re using for the subdivision for the actual physical subdivision? And in terms of ensuring that the communion area is not used, we would be granting permission on the basis of the approved plans, and the permission would be governed by the approved plans, which would show, which has demarcated the communal area in the bedroom. So if they were to, then use that as something other than a communal area, then they would be reach of condition and enforcement action could be taken. And in terms of the materials used it would whether or not it would need to comply with building regulations. I’m not sure all it. It’s a new partition wall. It’s not something that impacts the external appearance of the building. So it’s not something that in planning terms would be a material consideration and maybe The agent can. highlight what those materials might be, but it’s not something that we can can really comment on. Thank you. I just think all who is occupying that room now, whether there was a noise issue or a privacy issue, just going down that I know that’s not particular to for you, but maybe you could mention if someone is living in that space is a privacy issue because you’re close to communal area. Is there an issue with noise? I mean it’s not necessarily material condition would be nice to hear. hear what you have to say about that. I appreciate your question. Building regulations to require all separating bedrooms from communal spaces to be sufficiently acoustically insulated. So the applicant obviously has every mean every intentions to follow the regulations in which case, the virgin should be acoustically insulated, Thanks. Yeah, this is a question for officers. I’m just trying to and make sense of Well, it’s a combination of points but the one, the primary point is around the precedent value of This application this evening. in combination of the point that we heard from the inspector around another fallback being the switch to a six person is gonna to happen anyway, so you measure the impact on immunity against, A six person, HMO and not the family home. And I know that precedent. Isn’t a material planning consideration per se is not something we should take into account in ruling in making the decision on this But I would be interested to know with that point in mind. How is the plan in process or other processes at the council’s? Disposal use to ensure community balance which is mandated under the London Plan and the local plans. If we’re limited purely, in the case of Hmr application, large Hmr applications to consider in the immediate application before us. Which limit which seems to be restricting us from taking into account any consideration of community balance. You know, how do we avoid and over concentration of HMOs in an area if we can only take into account, this particular application and if that’s not the planning process, what is it? How is that? Which is set out in the plan achieved in practice. and so basically yeah, as you know, there was of the planning inspectors decision which is a material consideration in terms of this application and also the fact that the site circumstances have changed in this particular application where the property has been converted into HMO. So the consideration of the loss of a single family dwelling, is kind of no longer present because it’s no longer a single family dwelling. And in terms of the impact that this has by a wide, obviously, where we’re implementing the the development plan and on all material considerations. And it could happen across the borough. And as I say, as I say, the, the same could probably put to any dwelling within the borough and there is I know some other virus have put in article for directions to have blanket restrictions on the conversion of property, a single family dwellings, since a small HMOs, but that’s not the case currently in in Hackney. And, and yeah, we’re all we can do as a local authority and it’s the development plan as it’s currently adopted. You want to come back on that one? That’s listen. Then we’ll go to Counselor Potter. Thank you. I’m always just wondering whether we could bring the resident in, it would want to speak to what we’ve heard so far. Is that okay? Is that committee chair? Well. Not really, it’s what I’m gonna say because it’s not someone that we’ve got got listed for for this. Okay, item, and it’s not. public meeting. But if you know the point that you said, then please do Try and summarize them. Well, do you know what it is? I’m talking to the people that are registered. Okay. Look Okay. Adam’s been established. That’s right. Any property could could be converted to HMO for one day. It’s not lawful via the passage of time. It’s lawful because of the legislation and which allows them to they can change from HMO, back to a single family, dwelling, and vice versa. As many times, something one, and for, as long as they won, that’s that’s legislation. It’s not bound by time. It was nice, it comes with today. Sorry, I’m Pressing this a little bit more. So so we saying, then in the case of any household, any house that is capable of becoming a large HMO. Should be for the purposes of this comparison and these considerations around lots of immunity should just be taken as a six-person. HMO, doesn’t that doesn’t doesn’t that render the question of considering the loss of family homes, redundant? Yes, lightly. But as I say in is on a case-by-case basis, we would have to consider it. as I’ve highlighted in this situation. The previous appeal decision. Although it’s dismissed the council were awarded costs partially against us on that basis. So if we work going to refuse the principle across the borough, in a similar fashion, then we’d be at risk of having cost, awarded against us every single time. Can I follow up on that, please? Just need to remember. And there’s that the fallback position and the concerns of precedent solely released to the land use principle. So there are further considerations that need to be made including standard accommodation, suitability of the proposed, accommodation, and of course matters, outside of planning’s, control, such as HMO. Licensing. That would then dictate, whether whether the property would be suitable for HMO, use or not. That’s important. so I think it’s just to follow one really and say as part the free reasons given for rejection previously, one of them was about, you know, family home. So, I, I don’t quite get it. Why that was down there, if that’s not something that could be applied. Did you expenses? Yes. So we as a local authority refused on those three grounds that went to appeal, As part of the appeal, decision only two of those grounds were effectively upheld. The one that was not upheld, was the principle of the change of use. So that would no longer be considered as a reasonable ground to refuse the application and that was on the basis that previously, it was a house turning into a HMO Now, it’s a small HMO turning into a large HMO. So that reason for a few soul diminished even further. So, So sorry, Joe just one. Very tiny question. So just to remind me and I’m sorry, I’d probably tell this before you’ve obviously this meeting even so small to large, basically, small is up to six and large is seven, and above rooms. Is that correct? Yes, it’s to do with the occupancy levels, rather than the actual number of room. So, it’s six people and up to six. People was a small HMO. Any more than six people And is considered a large HMO. that’s, So just to follow up on that. So, up to six people as a small HMO, which is what it can be. Turned into without, without us having a consider it. And so this, I think it says this is would be nine people. So we’re effectively adding three additional people. In terms of occupants, is that correct? That’s potentially the case for the purposes of HMO licensing. But what the planning application is applying for is for seven personal seven years. So so would have to effectively comply with the same. That yeah, that’s fine. So yeah, sorry, I had a couple of other questions as well, so one of them was around the the quality of accommodation. So obviously, you know it says in the report that the bedrooms and all of the rooms meet minimums minimum standards and but that’s subdivision of that kind of ground. floor, kind of communal space to create the seventh bedroom just significantly reduce that communal space in the property. And obviously there is a I think that is also a book for minimum minimum size. There is a second kitchen on the second floor but I think it’s also noted that that has quite a low headroom. And so my question is kind of really are we, you know, we’re really achieving kind of high quality accommodation as as we you know, require by lp22 with this application or is it really just you know, meeting minimum standards to kind of mackle my maximize occupancy on the site. And yeah, I suppose the whether or not it’s high quality, accommodation is a matter of judgment. We consider it to be of Sufficient level of quality accommodation for the purposes of assessing the proposal we have liaised with our licensing colleagues who have said that they would grant a license on the basis of of what is shown. So in terms of the policy grounds to refuse it on the standard accommodation, I believe would be quite difficult. And just yes. So just a question on the rent campaign. So, you know, the previous application the the rent cap or the rent levels, and the parking was part of the reason why it’s rejected. this under Section 106, proposes a rank cap for the additional bedroom. and I’ve not seen that in an application has come to us before. I don’t think. Can you explain how that works? And I’ll be monitored and enforced in practice. You know, How would the Council know that their landlord is charging, kind of lha levels of rent for this room and And yeah, so you covered the other point. So yeah, so that’s my question. How will we know? And how is that gonna be enforced? >> HTH Room 104 – Coul Chambers: also be, a monitoring process as part of that. So, I don’t know the exact wording of what the clauses would be at this stage, but we would ask effectively ask for evidence when they commence the development and rent out the development that that they are charging rates in. In association with the local housing allowance, which is calculated on benefits for particular areas and is liable to change over time, so it’s quite flexible. But also, helps ensure that that rents would remain low over time and and not just at the time of determining the application. So yeah, there would be adequately worded clause within the Section 106, to make sure that they are legally obliged to provide evidence that Cancer select. First This is a follow-on to that point is is that obligation indefinite? Or is it? Yeah, okay, that’s helpful. Thank you. And then add another question. If that’s okay. Yeah. difficulties that She and others other neighbors have experienced around on the social behavior noise, waste, disposal potential, criminal activities. And again, it’s about how far we can take this into account in our decision. And I know that we’ve been guarded, that focus should be on land, use and desires, design, considerations, and so on, but the management of a HMO to as far as I’m aware if that can lead to harm off the sword described by the objector, it becomes a relevant planning consideration that we are able to take into account. So, I’d like confirmation from officers, that that’s the case and then also just your and whether in considering, and making the recommendations that you’ve made on this application, How far you’ve explored those concerns complaints? what’s been done about them? Have you taken them into account in making this decision and would welcome comments from the representative of the applicant, as well, in relation to that. and the management record of The landlord. And in terms of the issues that have happened historically at the property, it’s difficult for us to prejudice future development on. What’s happened in the past and in effect, anti-social behavior, can arise at any property, regardless, if it’s a HMO or a house. And obviously, in this instance and we have obviously read the objections and heard the testimonies from from the neighboring residents of the issues that have happened before, and as far as I’m aware, they’re no longer residing at the property. And so whether or not that is a basis of that general, HMO management being required as part of the HMO license, or whether or not, it’s just something else has changed in that, that whole time period. Or if it’s because extensions are taking place and people have had to move out, I’m not sure. But from our perspective, it’s difficult to with 100% certainty. Say that HMO is going to result in anti-social behavior anymore. So than any other type of residential accommod, And we just can’t prejudice against it, proposals on those grounds and yeah, and there are things in place in terms of the HMO, licensing regime that allows or allows the local authority to to take action when these things do arise. So, and yeah, the appropriate things are would be in place to help prevent that from taking place in the future if it were to start. I just want to say that, you know, we were the community myself and neighbors, the ones who were supervised when all the problems happened. So imagine if I hadn’t called the police this morning to say that one of the resident was not going to be stabbed, what would have happened to the guy who had also mental health issues, maybe you would be dead. Imagine if I didn’t phone over and over the police or the ambulance to say that Mikey was in danger. I could have said, Well, you know what, I don’t care. It is not my problem, the planning permission said, It’s all okay, there’s the insulation is amazing. If I even if I spend 2,500 pounds insulating, the world over my bedrooms and yet I’m sleeping in the living room. but you know, imagine if I didn’t care imaginary, if I said, this is the way this is the way it is. I’m afraid. There’s nothing I can do about it. Maybe maybe Mikey would have been dead and you know, there’s been so many people at this door. There’s been somebody coming from the Board of Islington. Changing the locks with bulletproof jacket, one morning in front of my daughter and I said, What’s going on? No, I’ve got to change the locks. and then the day after it was someone else who came to fix the door because it was broken for two weeks. I’ve never seen you sir at the property. Not once also my walls are damaged by the work the building work, you know? I mean And then now it’s like where you want to make it bigger then yeah just make it bigger and you know because that’s the way it is. No, no. We all have a duty of care for our community. I don’t mind supervising from time to time if I have to but I need to be in touch with you. I need you to be reactive. I need to. I find the borrow this LinkedIn because most of them came from the board office LinkedIn. I met all the social workers, I give them water. I see, but sorry, repeating, thank you. which is, you know, and you’ve made it very clear. So anything you want to talk about in terms of management of you, so just myself, I’m the planning agent for the application. I’m not involved in the day today, running with all of the HMO. That’s, that’s my job. That’s unfortunately. Okay, I I put these, I put it someplace with your position and I admire your courage in dealing and dealing with the issues that arise, however, from a the planning, the planning perspective, This exists as an HMO, and this application is just as that one extra bedroom and we’ve, you know, with established that there is sufficient room and sufficient accommodation, space on the side to accommodate that extra bedroom. Is not let me. Stop chair. My questions are to the officers. It does seem quite odd that as we move from a small HMO to a large HMO that we can reduce the communal living area as drastically as we are doing by this. What? Obviously, I’m assuming we must be within the space guidelines for a large HMO, and but I just wonder if those are adequate because if we’re going to have nine people living in this house, it does seem to me that we’re looking at a very small area. I am very concerned about the bicycles coming through that area. I can imagine it being a fire risk because I can imagine that quite often the bicycles may. Well, not even get as far as the as the outside space in the garden. 13. It says, in terms of outlook and daylight, each of the bedrooms will be served by good sized windows which would provide an adequate outlet look free from any material sense of enclosure and would receive adequate daylight. I wonder how we’ve assessed that because as I see these plans, we’ve got a window which doesn’t look particularly large which is looking out into a well. And which has no real outlook. It’s also since the roof has gone up. It’s the South facing bit of it is three story. So we’re looking at something which is really very restricted in terms of daylight for this new bedroom and I suppose I’m particularly concerned given what I’ve heard about the mental health of some of the occupants that the amount of daylight that this room is going to actually provide is, is really tiny. And yes, I mean the the bedroom in question there is an existing window there and it does form part the existing on the accommodation and obviously that would be changing to be a bedroom. But future occupies of that bedroom would all so have the ability to use the communal spaces, so they wouldn’t be solely with on, just outlooking, daylight from that window, and it would be they’d have free movement from between the rest of the communal areas. So, in the round, it’s it’s considered to be satisfactory. Really. I mean, what would be unsatisfactory? And these circumstances seems to me that if that satisfactory, we’ve really got to look at these these regulations because it’s just not and yeah, I mean it is a matter of judgment at the end of the day and are as I say are licensing. Colleagues have also reviewed it in relation to their The weight of assessing these matters and they consider it to be acceptable as well. So, and yeah. It’s in terms of just the assessment is in the rats I say in the round it’s it’s considered to be acceptable and also It’s important to know that I suppose that this wasn’t raised as an issue as part of the previous appeal decision in terms of the standard of accommodation. Councilor Potter. Mind was just following up. Cad in terms of the management. So this is for Josh, I know you say you’re the agent and you’re here just to talk about specific things and you obviously haven’t been briefed about talking about the management side of things and obviously that’s something that we’re always very. concerned about. We’re always very concerned about this is good knowledge for you. So I suppose we just wanted to take the message back that it would have been really useful for us to so, you know, the management system that’s in place. I know that licensing are going to, you know, the licensing side of things will actually deal with that. It’s also used for the residents. So they’re here to know how they’re able to contact and often. We do ask these questions and planning even if we’re told, they’re not material. So I just wanted to point that out, but please in the future, make sure that you’re simply cases that you have that in information. And can you pass that back on to the owner? You know that the residents need a very clear direct line of communication? Council Desmond. We’re talking about one more room. The obviously is creating a great deal of controversy. What I wanted to know from you because you’ve spoken very eloquently. I just wish we had such eloquence going from the counselors in some of the meetings, we have to attend, but no matter, I shouldn’t there in the minutes. have you actually complained because it’s very sad what you’ve had to you know, put up with and I’m very sympathetic to people who are vulnerable people. What mental health I was gonna say, Arsenal support has gone up that synthetic being the other side of the coin with North London, but have you actually complained to the licensing authority about these very unfortunate and unpleasant scenes that you yourself have had to intervene in because these are things that A should take the license and if they refuse a license, even of a small HMO, it is a very different television. Have you actually complained to the licensing, which is under the private sector housing part of the environmental services. Thank you for for the compliments. I am kind of all new to the process. I’ve been very kindly helped by Eva who is here and Margaret and I wrote loads of letters to all different departments mainly to I started with Jonathan Ben Bridge and then yes I tried I think most departments I could sort of reach out in a way that I but it’s a learning process. I also contacted Islington because I knew some of the residents where from Eastington at first they said that had nothing to do with them. They, it wasn’t on the list. Then I phoned back and they said that, yes, the resident Hughes were with them. I spoke to the social workers because also, I was a concerned for myself, but also, for the people, the residents, I call, I talked to the police. I had to be a witness in a court case, because one of the to stop, One of the, the residents. So I spoke to the police, I spoke to my witness officer, you know. So yes. I mean it’s working process and I am all open to learn and to, to send lots of letters, but it’s also as you probably know, right. I’m consuming. I also spoke to my my, to the school because my daughter is adopted so she’s available child. I want I wanted to flag it with this school as well because I wanted basically everybody to know that there was All of this happening next door. So yeah, I think you know. Yeah and I will. yeah, we’ll reach the license but I think from what I learned to change your license to challenge your license, it’s actually a huge room. I went to a state agents as well. I asked them how to challenge licenses and they say you have to record noise. You have to make pictures, you have to do, you know, it’s a long process. And, and I was busy trying to You know, sleep through the night, while the resident was screaming all night long or fully in the police or, you know, and I ordered the beans, Yeah, the beans, you know, the three beans and I told all the tenants how to recycle Because there was, there was gonna be everywhere. I took and I asked everybody I showed them how to use the green bags, little blue bean, you know, and, and I one more being so Yes, yeah. And thank you. We can certainly help with guiding you and pointing you in the right direction as to which authorities to contact. Get in touch with you after this, if relevant. what HMO licensing can do is take the behavior of Managements and how the property operates into account when considering their license unlike planning. So we’ll be happy to point you in the direction if you need further advice from the HMO licensing team. Cancel it. I just like to put it on record, really that I think that HMOs like this are Designed primarily in the current market to be targeted at our most vulnerable residents, often people who are being housed in emergency circumstances. and I do think that, I really do think that this bedroom is inadequate. For people who are in a vulnerable living situation and I can’t see any way that we should be giving permission to this as a large HMO. When one of those rooms is I think not fit for habitation from the vulnerable people. I think it would be wrong. Any other questions? Okay, I’ve got a couple of points. I think it is a really key. concern for us, as the planning committee that our policy, which is to stop HMOs if It is at the expense of a family house, right? That’s our policy. and yet it seems to have been said that that counts for nothing and there’s a wheeze that because of the law, the law says is absolutely legal. a house can be turned into an HMO for six people under permitted development now That’s a fact. And we’ve got a policy and I think our policy is a fact and they stand side by side. I think I absolutely understand our planners and they have to look at what happened at the appeal. And the guidance. And what I would say is that, If you go and see other appeals, you’ll get a different opinion. Because it’ll be a different judge with a different view and it will be argued differently. This is not the law. This is nobody’s statement. All right, so let’s take that into considerables, how I feel that this is in direct breach and I think it’s A bit disingenuous. You’ve got to look at the whole purpose of the policy and the law. Yeah. And this clearly has been a house that was for a family occupation that has been turned into an HMO. So we are tweaking around the differences of adding an additional bedroom. and I’ve got to say, I am really underwhelmed with these plans and I think these plans are in breach of our policy, because there is no amenity space. There isn’t any They’ve put a bedroom in the immunity space. They have a kitchen. I don’t know how 7/9, and I get this one at the top floor, seven, nine, people. If you’ve got two people, at least a minimum of seven people, using that kitchen size, which made me the minimum requirement but I’m not sure when they said the minimum requirement, they thought that all the people there would have to eat In that room, sit down and eat in there. As well as that would be. The kitchen is not an immunity space. If you look at the plants as it was, That looks like a. Communal living a living space. There is no living space in this house. It’s been taken away. And for those two reasons one, I would like it reconsidered that our policy needs to be defended and this is the removal of a family home. and that there is no immunity space. Which is against our policy, which says that provide rooms and communal spaces. Of a high quality and adequate size. Ending and immunity Space. That is not here. And I think it’s against our policy. Right. Animal comments. So, putting this to the vote. The Recommendation Summary. Is that we got planning commission subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. Those in favor, please show Those against. That. Governments, take a note. 5, including myself. If abstentions. Go to something. That’s Susivongo. What you doing. Are you explaining? Which were you voting? Okay. Right. Should I do the vote again? Yeah. The recommendation. Is the recommendation is to grant them. Grant planning permission. As recommended as that out, as we both subject to the conditions and the completion of a Section 106, legal agreement, those in Favor. There are none. I’ve moved to those against the recommendation. so, Yes, let’s say that’s against. My apologies. So that’s six. Yeah, abstentions one. now, I understand that there’s a certain Procedural aspect now. In that, we have to make a recommendation. In the alternative correct. And one member of the panel would need to put forward a second motion but We reject. Well. Correctly. We have to just go by inadequate. Amenity space. I think that is as the church indicated. with such additional number. No, it is only one room to live without any living room. I think is unacceptable. Six is still pushing it but that’s under permitted development. So I think inadequate immunity space Is it? On those grounds. I’m tempted. It’s it, we have nothing to lose him how to Desmond in the terms of the challenge, which is that we have a policy that says we, you know, HMOs are not limited if it takes away a family drowning, You know what would be okay? If they hadn’t great amenity space, or you thought the quantity of living in there was was just a bubble because because there is no immunity space in this at all. I think it that is Completely policy council around check. And I just point out that the officer did point out with regard to the window and the the light coming in that. the resident in that bedroom would be able to get the light that they needed to presumably get their necessary, vitamin D by using the communal space, but you know if there is no communal space or it’s so negligible that it’s it’s barely there then it seems to me that makes that objection about the size of the window material planning condition as well. It comes into the high quality, I mean, the size may be there, but the quality of Okay. stick that together as an alternative that we so council in our cross you were putting words that you wish to move out. The. Yeah. fabulous, that is A rejection on the grounds of? Yeah, the breach of policy. The adequacy. yep, that they are not a They’re not communal spaces of high quality, or academ. we can put forward a Some wording with respect to the reason for refusal. So on that basis would require one of the councilors to put forward a second motion. Yeah, too. So that I did by I’m going to cancel Potter just because I saw you first. Do you need time to? We need time, but you have to go back to the vote again to. support that technology alternative. Yes. So I mean, do you want to work on the words and then come back and then read them. We wouldn’t need to do that. Thank you. So this is like a five minute break while you If you take the vote first and if that’s confident well on the recommendation, on the restoration, like when you’ve amended emotion and then we support the amended emotions. So we actually are supporting the alternative which is that we reject this on the grounds and the precise wording will be drawn up once we have confirmed the vote that we have. Declined. This application. Yeah, so those in favor of proposing an alternative which is a just a clarify with policy. I was understood that the officers were draft the alternative motion first By leaving the room, then come back. And then ask the counselors to vote. I think that’s what happened. We’re happy to do that as well. If that is the crowd order, based on the past President, okay? So, what I’m reading here which the legal officer has and you have John, which case I’m wrong, and we’ll go away and I think we should try and stick to what we’ve got here. So is that I just stay here? Or should we take them? So we take a five minute break. Okay, wanted to close the window as well. Sorry, other windows as well. Okay. You know what? Let’s have a five minute break. Yep. Can we just stop it and break? Okay. Monsieur we’re gonna take a five minute break, where we just agree on the motion, the alternative wording for the motion. Okay? So I don’t want to throw up our skin screen on YouTube for the moment. Okay. Thank you, monsur. Okay, who are waiting for? Councilor Gordon coming back. And then when she sits down we’ll reconvene, and monsur, I believe, everybody’s back now in the room so I think we’re ready to Carry on. Thank you. Okay, everyone. Are we ready to? Reconvene, and we’ll have the alternative proposed. Wording from Johnson, No. Yes, I can read out. And so the reason would be by reason of the substandard quality of accommodation proposed, the proposed large HMO would be detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers. The proposed of element would therefore conflict with policies lp2 and lp22 of the Hackney local. That will do with me those in favor. Question please. Sorry. So does that imply where that we think the immunity do not do not need to explain what particular quality of accommodation. because obviously, we were concerned about natural light and we were concerned about immunity do not need to say that in the reason. But you don’t have to be that specific in the reason. You can elaborate on the reason as part of if an appeal comes forward we can elaborate on what was discussed and the reasons why we consider that reason. I think we just want want to be sure that it’s clear that those are our reasons in terms of immunity. I think perhaps the the border umbrella term gives freedom to List, the many aspects we might want to list. And that will be taken by our offices. Yeah. Okay. All right, those in favor of that version, please show counselor. That is unanimous in favor of all the alternative motion. Correct, thank you very much. On into a gender item, six. 12. Brighton, Road. We have a different case officer. Yeah, hi Christopher Pode. Objecting. So we’ve got Counselor Gordon who can be doing? Five minutes? Yes. and in Rothstadt, five minutes, five minutes, five minutes. Yeah. and she’ll imposin. Yes. Hello from Eid planning, you’ll have 10 minutes. Okay, so with the officers first to give the Will give the presentation, please, thank you. Thank you. Chair evening councilors. Current application at 12 Blurton Road for the use of the property as a nine-bedroom, large HMO, with a man’s hard reef. reef extension, and the provision of refuse and cycles storage facilities. So, the first slide to show you the site subjects are current application as in by the red line. The site relates for two story above lower ground for level property located along the southern side of Blurton Road. So this slide to show you an aerial view image of the site and the wider row of terrace properties of which 12 bloating road forms parts. As can be seen from the aerial view image that property, 16 and 28 simile have benefited from mansard reef extensions. The site isn’t situated in the conversation area nor is the Building statutory or locally listed. so, So this side just shows, two photographs taken from Blurton Road. The left photograph shows the front elevation of existing property taken from street level. With the visibility of the man side, roof, extension being limited and in the right hand side photo is taken from the western end of Burton Road. Facing eastwards with the parapet wall of mansard, roof extension being more visible. So just touching the planning history for the application sites in March of this year, a similar scheme, was brought to this committee, use the property as a 10-bedroom large HMO, as well as the erection of a man SAUDULARY. Fixed extension. Office recommendation was overturned by members whereby. It was considered that it proposed of element would result in subsonic quality, accommodation, and would be an adequate provision of cycle storage. Subsequently, the application was refused, was the absence of an associated legal agreement, securing resident, obligations, forming the third and four for instance, for refusal Following this decision, an application solely for the eviction of amounts. How do you fixin’ was submitted for consideration of the local planning authority. The place development was considered to be acceptable and was granted in May of this year. This commission is therefore live. Which carries significant weight and the determination of the current application in relation to the man solder if extension only So just touching them proposed, man. So we’ve extension here. We have a proposed elevation and that which was approved under the previous application. Earlier this year just to confirm that the scale and form of the mandatory extension proposed would correspond of that previously approved which was deemed to be acceptable. So moving to the proposed floor plans, the floor plan shows the nine bedroom. HM moment and layout. As a means to address the previous reason for a fusel in relation to quality of accommodation and address members concerns. Proposed obligation, The property has been reduced to nine bedrooms, the Camino and kitchen and dining area provided a loft level. as such not only has a property, been reduced occupancy, but in additional communal area is proposed which provide kitchen and dining facilities for occupiers of the upper floors. each of the remaining bedrooms would have an acceptable internal headroom level of outlook and receive an acceptable level of natural daylight daylight. Each bedroom would also be served by an ensuite shower room. This slider shows you some blow-up plans of the proposed, communal kitchen Designing areas. The left image being at ground floor level with the right hand hand side. Image being at loft level. The proposed layouts show, sufficient provision of sinks and draining boards cookers and hobs, cupboard storage and seating. Property licensing have been consultant appraisal and considered a place kitchen facilities, in both instances to the acceptable. turning to the proposed refuse recycling storage areas, Left hand side of it shows proposed plan as well. As the right hand side image showing a photograph of the existing arrangements of bin storage for properties along Blurton Road. As can be seen on from the photograph into currently presented onto the footway on days for collection with bins, otherwise thought in access ways or within the light wells, where steps need to be navigated. proposed in storage arrangement, mean bins would be off the footway minimizing obstruction. Furthermore, the bin storage would be secure by condition to ensure that there is sufficient thing capacity for the property and it’s kept free from obstruction other than for its intended use. As such, it’s considered a proposed development, would present opportunity to improve the existing situation of refuse and recycling storage. Turning to the proposed cycle parking storage and access arrangements. When concerns raised by members, the posed cycle store, whilst still remains people stored to the rear of the property wheeling ramps have been installed to the front and wrist sets of steps to improve accessibility This offering is considered to be acceptable given the constraints to the site and would constantly positively towards objectives promoting sustainable motor transport. Again, precise details to the cycle store would be signaled by condition to ensure adequate provision and into ensure the store is kept free from obstruction other than for its intended purpose. That concludes my presentation recommendation is to approve the proposed development subject, to recommended conditions and the completion of illegal agreements. the obligation assault would relate to securing current event levels in line with local, housing allowance and securing the development of car parking Free the additional bedrooms. Thank you. Five minutes. Yeah. Well, hello. Okay. hi again. I’m Eva Rothschild resident of Blurton Rhodes. Speaking on behalf of my neighborhood to object to this as you know, a previous application for a 10-room HMO. On this site was unanimously rejected, although the applicant has kindly added a second kitchen, this does not address the fundamental reasons. The scheme remains unacceptable. The property is currently occupied by six people, plus a baby. This is okay. moving to nine, adults, represents a 50% increase in occupancy, inevitably generating far higher levels of comings and goings noise, refuse and family home. Or even the small HMO, This crosses into a different use class. We generous which both the London Plan and Hackney’s, local plan, seek to carefully control policies. LP one, two, one, four and three. Three along with London Plan Hate 9 and D6, aim to protect residential amenity and maintain a balanced housing. Mix Our street already has too many large HMOs which calls significant issues. There were two armed raids on our street, in September, in properties, which are actually licensed. This proposal would intense fine noise, refuse and disturbance and undermined the character of the street, the cumulative effect of more such conversions in such proximity will steadily erode the areas housing diversity, especially significant when family homes are already in short supply and school roles are falling. Point two transport, refuse and quality of accommodation access to the proposed cycle store is only through the kitchen and up and down two sets of stairs, the applicant has suggested thin wheeling ramps, but these do not make the arrangement compliance London, Planty, Five and Hackney lp42 require cycle parking to be step-free safe and convenient transport officers have said that details of the cycle store are to be secured by condition. However this compliance is not actually possible Been storage is proposed on a raised platform at the front light. Well, waste officers have already stated. This was obscured the basement window and have a negative effect on the room in front of it. The bins will seriously. Degrade the living conditions in that room and goes against lp22 Also planners have clearly said that they will reject any gate for the store. And so bins would be exposed and over spill onto the street. In addition to this, the small attic room is not fit for purpose. The sealing is too low. And it’s a newly built room and contrary to lp22. Can anyone hear me? Due to the low ceiling on the overheating risks. Point three. And this is really important in relation to the Last Judgment, which is the flawed established C4 assumption, which we must challenge. planners appeared to treat the properties recent, small HMO use as fully established and are now assessing the change as only three additional occupants. And applying reduced standards for cycling parking unaffordable. Rent and ignoring the C3 dwelling has family home loss, this is both shocking and incorrect, the lawful use of the property remains C3, The recent news C4 has been in place for only six months, for sure of the 10 years required as I understand it for lawful status and I’ve circulated the document in relation to this until then it should carry, no statutory weight and must be challenged the full impacts including the loss of family housing cycle, parking and immunity must be assessed for the entire nine person. HMO, Point four at the full back position. and this relates to grade three, the applicant may argue there is a fallback to six person. HMO, This is misleading, the general permitted, development, order Class L, protects properties, capable of providing a single dwelling. It allows temporary changes between C4 and small C and C3 dwelling has and small C4 precisely to retain family. Housing, flexibility to disregard This creates a very dangerous precedent for the borough. Granting permanence. We generous status would remove this protection. The small HMO is not established. It carries minimal weight and cannot justify such a fallback position. This proposal fails on amenity design transport and accommodation quality and result in the first loss of a family home. It should refused. I hope you could hear me. Thank you. Thank you, chair. And members of committee, I’m here to speak again on this application as a long-standing leighbridge ward councilor, It’s not an exaggeration to say that the, you know, the circumstances that have been described tonight and other issues arising out of ill, planned ill, considered, and suitable, conversions of family homes in this particular area of the ward to HMOs have, you know, being a significant part to myself my colleagues and recent casework in terms of supporting residents and tenants, it’s not a satisfactory situation for anybody and, you know, our remain concerned about the, you know, the cohesion of the community in this area with these developments being allowed to continue. This application should for all the reasons. So eloquently stated by either be refused. I disagree. This application is materially different from the last application for this. Same property that was considered by this committee. in particular this application. As I understand, it provides no immunity space for the nine people that are being, you know, asked to live in this property. Latin Road is a residential street in the heart of Clapton, containing a mixture of privately owned private, rented and social housing, including supported accommodation, venerable residents, I would really like to draw your attention to fact, the architecture and Blurton Road is unusual. These are not the, you know, the standard Victorian terraces the there are tall narrow houses with small rooms and dug out basements, which is accessible by steep steps. Particularly draw your attention to the fact that the properties don’t have front gardens and our situated on narrow strip pavement. The blessing road to houses our intended as family homes. And, you know, provide very suitable accommodations for one or two households. The rooms are narrow and the common parts are small. These, you know, this conversion even that there’s been reduced by one does not provide suitable Accommodation for nine people. The property is creating a large HMO, The lack of front gardens attached. These properties means, it’s limited space. For residents to store their wheelie bins and I remain and convinced by the proposals for waste. And the this, you know, in our experience has been considerable problems, Really, as ward councilors with rubbish bags. Quickly attracting fly tippy and creating an environmental hazard. That’s a quite significant, you know, issue in this part of the, of the ward complaints in complaints around, this have been a significant part of our casework and causes expense to the counseling clearing up. And you know, as I’ve said before and I think we all agree, high quality, HMO accommodation, rightly forms part of the hack. This development plan but unfortunately, this application is not seeking to provide that provide, this this is you know in inadequate application and should be turned down. It doesn’t provide the high quality accommodation that tenants a lot of them vulnerable to serve. I do so interferes with the amenity and community surrounding them. And granting. This application will be significantly, disruptive to the quality of life. For residents. In the street, I’m particularly concerned about the kitchen facilities, and the common parts, though, I accept there has been additional kitchen facilities. The there is no, as I understand it from an application. There is no comic Conway or area and there’ll be inadequate space for residents to know, to gather together and in enjoy the humanities of the kitchen, so that I would submit that is against LP 22. Um, it’s as yeah, the kitchen will continue to be a hazardous whether there for Lp22. clearly states that proposals for new HMOs will only be supportive. They do not resolve to the loss of existing housing stocks suitable, family, accommodation through Security’s route. That is. What’s exactly is what has happened here. And that is what, you know, as a chair has pointed out that is what are planning policy appears to be permitting that developers can create a small HMO and then you know, and and then easily convert that to a large HMO and that is the type of you know unsuitable. Chip development that he would be, you know, continuing to permit if you grant this application. it provides substantial accommodation and is creating a manageable situation in relation to waste as well as not to fulfilling the transport and requirements. And I’d ask the committee to refuse this application and for the reason stated and we particularly relying on the very met eloquent points made by either. Thank you, I thank you timed. Right. You can good evening, sir. Thank you for waiting off, again. You got 10 minutes. Yeah, they go. Yeah, I’m not so used to the echoing of the whole so And for some good evening members and thanks for allowing me to speak. I think tonight’s date about the student Houses of Parliament. With tonight’s date and fifth of November. But it’s similar. Yeah, the so now given that this application has got the history, I think it’s important to address a little bit of background of this application of the previous. that the previous reviews is a material consideration in any new application, and the courts of the clinic decisions have to be consistent. Meaning that one cannot add new reasons of refusal to a later application. so, So to start on that note that this the property is relatively large three-story house. Plus a manta roof, which includes additional to Flows got three rooms. The variety nice sized rooms with another two in the mental roof. That’s totally 11 rooms in the house. This application follows the previous application which was recommended for pool to the committee, but it was subsequently refused by committee. Given to the count application seeks to address those these reviews, it’s important to have a look what those were is it jumping on and off? No. Okay, so before eases of refusal two of those related to the lack of a sexual or six agreement, which obviously does not have to be addressed. Now, these are not no sexual sex agreement is drafted when something goes to refusal. It’s only once it goes to approving. It’s agreed that the sexual agreement will be agreed and will address all those remaining points. So the only two reasons for to address now. the two reasons. First two reasons, one of them was substanded quality of accommodation and the other one was inadequate provision of cycles storage. Those were the two reasons. I listened to the recording of the previous meeting. I wasn’t there and the concerns were mainly about the size of the community kitchen, if it can serve 10 people, at that point because the kitchen was more than one floor away from some of the bedrooms. A dining area was required within the kitchen. There was 10 occupants and the council held that given the dining area and the size of the kitchen. And the fact that bites bikes have to go through that room would make the kitchen quite small and tight. those were the reasons said in the minutes of last meeting, and I’ve had recording of it. And the other reason, the refusal was about the cycle storage heaven to pass through the house. The current application. Now seeks to address. Those. Reasons of refusal now. the synth submission of this application. It’s important. A few points to note since a mission of this application demands are The roof has been granted by separate planning application. therefore, at the time of the submission was included in the description as of now, it’s not relevant to the Decision. Because it’s been granted already, and I’ve seen confirmation from Peter Ratman, who’s the head of enforcement? Who said that reinforcement case in relation to that man’s roof has been closed. And no action will be taken given that. It’s now completely lawful. That’s in terms of the massive hoof in terms of the use. it’s important to note that since the previous application, the property has been changed to a six zoom HMO. It is already in use since July as a six-room. HMO. And the question here, the permission the application here is to add another three additional rooms The six of HMO is a material consideration, which I’ll get onto that a little bit later. I can just point out. Just as if members might be want to hear. Number one, it has been held in many kit planning decisions that the adding from a six whom HMO to a seventh. Through major mode is not a material change of use. It’s a different change, use class from a C4 to a suit generous. Meaning it goes out of Hughes class into generals but it’s main. Well, not be a material. Change of Use and the Act to Sections. 55 says, a change of use is only development if it’s a material change of use one point. Another point. which, I I want to add is so you have lost my line of thought. Yeah. In the sixth major Mo. There’s no obligation for any developer to allow each and every room of the house to be used. If he can does a six room HMO, he takes six rooms of those, he lets them as an HMO and the other rooms he can keep locked. vacant meaning that not every time you add an additional occupant, it means that you’re taking away from Area, which could potentially be used by other tenants, except in the case, maybe was discussed, before, where there’s an existing communal area, which would be cut in half, that might be different. But this is not the case. In our case, in our case, there are 11 rooms, six of them are let Three of them are not. So that’s another point to consider. I am now move on to the merits of the case. there is an existing HMO there, which is A sixth room, HMO application for another additional three, tenants policy supports the way that in existing HMO, it is Worthwhile to use that space to provide the maximum provision of HMO use. Where there’s in any event, not a loss of residential or family dwelling, I will address that soon. So that’s one thing in support. I’m not aware of any formal in contrast to the previous. I mean, I’ve got a bit of a difficulty because very similar to previous case and I’ve seen the outcome but in contrast there’s no known complaint behavioral complaints and relevant to this house not at all. There might have been issues about the bin storage on the road, which will come to that later but there’s no behavioral concerns being raised at all. Has been a mention of arm dates along the road. There’s nothing to do with this problem. and the older homes comply with HMO standards, and it’s important to point out that policy LP 22, specifically refers to the HMO standards. It’s not a separate piece of policy, which is being used policy. Every 22 refers to it. And and so It’s a highly sustainable area as the officers pointed out. It’s a computer rating of fool, car parking will be addressed for Section 106. To cycle storage. As the officer said, you have to consider the context and the constraints of the site. And it’s important to note the property now is in use as a six room HMO, without any control and cycle provision. There’s nothing pushing the developer to create a ramp for the cycle to take through the house for him to do any cycle storage in the rear absolute, no controls for him to do that. However, this planning applic Is an opportunity for the Council to enhance the living conditions by imposing conditions on waste, and on cycle storage, which will only enhance the development rather than leave it in the current state, where there’s no control and cycle away storage. And there was mentioned about the bay window. First of all, this is a small front garden which in any event will be affected, any window would be affected by bins. If they are still there, in fact, if you look at the previous pictures, most of the bins are along the pavement and we are here providing and enhancement of creating a platform and having them off the payment pavement. There’s no need for medical gate in front of those bins and the bay windows got two windows which open And will pop outlook. It will not be affected at all. Now. If the members don’t mind I’ve seen, there was a struggle before. How does policy work the two policies? On the one hand, the protection of loss of residential or family dwellings on the other hand before that position of an HMO, It was a struggle about it here. If the members are happy, I could address that. Now, the point is like this, if you give me permission to address that point, I can, otherwise I would wait to be questioned on it. So it’s either you give information to address that and it might go over the 10 minutes or I don’t address that and address it when I’m questioned. so, I’m asking, To do the members want me to address the point that members started before, how the two policies work together, or should I wait to address that when being questioned about it? Things. Okay, because I think there’s an important error of law existing in the room and as Chris said, before the subject to cost applications, which Might well arise. If this point is not explained probably Thanks for very much. and just say, Okay, that’s time. Thank you very much. Okay, okay. moved to questions from the committee. Council, assisting them at least. Thank you. chair. I just wanted to ask officers in respect of the London Plan, D4. Delivering, good design. Can you tell me why, or how a good design is in respect of these bathrooms that they are very small and should be at least two square meters. And this doesn’t seem to me to be a good design. And is it the two square meter bathrooms for the three rooms or do all the rooms just have these very small bathrooms, some respect of relevant planning policy, and property licensing. Could you just explain a little bit more about these very small, two square meter bathrooms, which don’t seem to fit the criteria of a good design. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I should have said that start my presentation but yeah, within the addendum, we have had comments from property licensing saying that the shower cubic who, oh, sorry, the shower key because should be two square meters. Before full-sized hand was full size, wash hand basins, as I’ve commented below. Of course, this relates to property licensing, standards and not strictly the planning policy requirement as such a planning policy in relation to good design. Each the proposed bedrooms would exceed the minimum and minimum internal space standards and that respect, it’s a the room systems could accommodate the largest A trays has such a proposal would still provide high quality, accommodation and good design. That would would there be compromised and respect of getting a property license? I mean, the office themselves, the property licensing officer said, as sufficient room, within each bedroom to accommodate larger site larger size shower trays, in order to obtain a property licensing that hasn’t been done, No, but that’s it’s outside of planning control. I’d cancel now cross next And yes, I just my so I remember this application coming last time and Obviously we all united me vote against it last time, the recent sell out, I think a lot of the concerns I have. Are very similar to the concentrated by the last application. So, I’ll try and focus on some new ones here, my questions around the retrospective development element of this in the present, in that set. So I think as a reporter has no discussion, last time shows the applicant seem to commence works on the property before, you know, applying for Plan Commission. Some of those were then refused plan and permission enforcement action was taken. You know, this, this is clearly have happened here and The mansard roof, those question about the kind of height of the roof last time I think about whether that grid and you know, appropriate immunity space. That’s not mentioned in this report but I know the mansard roof has been granted plan permission now and that is the apartment here of the of the applicant and you know, doing things to this property. You know, not asking permission and sort of seeking forgiveness and doing it retrospectively, which concerns me. And I’m just worried. You know, if you know what kind of precedent does this set in terms of? you know, allowing people to sort of take this approach and, you know, take a retrospective of the person, he’s not planning applications if we refuse this application, give it the work has already been done and I think, you know as you said you know, A six bedroom. HMO doesn’t mean there’s going to be more immunity space just means that the rooms are gonna be locked up because the rooms are already there And you know if we were to refuse this application, what enforcement action would be taken and what would the likely out? It’s kind of requesting after that long spiel. Yes. I mean if So, it’s important action were to be taken. If the property was not quite as by nine persons. Yeah. Does this set? My general question is, you know, does this set kind of precedence, really? About, you know, allowing people to sort of improving retrospective and applications in this way. And if we were to refuse it, what enforcement action would be taking and what would actually outcome that? Be sure this work has been done as my point. Yeah. I mean, it wouldn’t serve as a president of. So of course, the applications before us to regularize and lawful works and each application is be treated in the same merits of course. As both the recommendation, the schemas deemed to comply with Redmond policies and local plan, and a development plan as a whole and therefore is before us as a recommendation, for approval, should be refused. The property would be required to speak occupied by six persons and operates a small HMO. And of course if that wasn’t to be the case and unfortunately would be taken and it’s occupancy. Just so just on the on the point as well. They’re also came on the last application around the kind of the fallback position. Being This is a six-bed on HMO, not a not a family dwelling and the objector politics of completely forgotten your name and cited, some planning or saying that actually it needs to be, you know, in existence for 10 years to be recognized as such and I just wonder if you comment on that because that’s obviously different to what you were told in the previous application. In terms of whether something, you know, becomes an HMO or a single family dwelling and how quickly that process can change between the two, of course, I think the 10 year has come from the immunity from enforcement action being taken. So, if there’s an unlawful change of use from a property, that’s safe from a small, HO to a large HMO, by planning commission is required. I thought change because has been undertaken and operates for over 10 years and that becomes immune from enforcement action. But in terms of use for C3 family dwelling. It’s a small HMO that can be established like Laurence and my colleague, the day the commencing has no requirement. That happens. Been undertaking for a certain period of time to then be lawfully operating a small HMO And it’s okay, disgusted, the objective, you don’t know that. Sorry, yes. Sorry obviously I’m not a planner, but I have done a lot of research on this. And I just feel that the Spirit, and the Law of of the local plan and the sort of London plan or being completely exploited. This is just a Trojan horse essentially, and you know up until the builders arrived you know prior to any planning have been granted. I mean it was refused repeatedly. The mansard was put up and taken down again because it didn’t comply. It’s like everyone’s just riding roughshod over the actual spirit and I think if we allowed this to happen, then the whole, the whole local plan is a nonsense. And yes, of course you could operate this as a six bedroom HMO and just leave. Three rooms locked. I mean, six people in the house is I don’t have a problem with it, although I do have a problem with the fact that one room is now occupied by a family with a baby, Because that’s substandard. Accommodation. For those people, I have also had to sort out the fire alarms going off for two elderly residents quite recently, and I think contrary to your suggestion, there’s been no, sort of issues. There’s actually been enforcement by refugees, I think, on a number of occasions, and and I think the immunity of the lower ground floor room, will massively be infringed by this bin platform and also actually, so, will my ground floor room. Also, in your plans, the window of the current kitchen is shown incorrectly. It’s actually a single opening window, which is opening the entire time although we requested that it should only be able to be open at a higher level and the lights are on the entire time, it totally overlooks. My kitchen. So I’ve had to put Tracing paper up on my window. And you know, a six bedroom. HMO is fine. A nine-bedroom HMO is a materially different consideration and the council should be looking at the mix of properties in the area and not allowing this to happen. And just while I’m at it, may I just say the licensing is a nonsense. We have a house across the road that has a license. There was an armed raid, there. The other week, there was even one on our road and by Newland, there was an armed rate for drugs. There One of the houses squatted, and can I say on the property? You’re referring to the door entry system has been buzzing. Now, for three weeks, I have complained about this. Nothing has happened. I have no faith in the management of this property. The regard for planning law has been Shocking and up until a year ago, it was a family house and as I understand it, Mr. Poe is still classed as a c-3 dwelling. it says that at the beginning of the report, And it was established in the last meeting. Thank you. Continue microphone off. Even. Cancel. And I’ve got a couple of questions. So first of all, just picking upon this space of the bedrooms. So, I appreciate resetting that there’s more room to expand their shower cubicles, but given there’s no living room space. Can you just comment on the sufficiency of the space of those bedrooms given? I know, we’ve got an extra kitchen and it’s a kitchen diner, but it’s not, you know, an area to live in. Such. So what what would your thoughts be on the bedroom space given? There’s no living room area which seems ever more important when you’ve got household with a baby in one of the bedrooms and I suppose the other comment I would just ask Come to you sir. Obviously Eva’s talked about the management, it’s not gone quite a smoothly as you perhaps of presented. So I wonder what management arrangement you have in terms of kind of supervision and kind of Oversight of the tenants but also the arrangement for local presidents to communicate. I think Eva said three weeks she tried to communicate. Is that right? Eva I have communicated with the owner. I’ve been unable to communicate with the management company and the reason I have the owner’s number is because I met him when I was talking to him about them, starting to work without the planning permission. He only answers my calls. If I withhold the number Right. Okay, so we we need some clarity on the management arrangement. It doesn’t seem adequate. If you could talk about the space standards given the snow living room area, Yes, of course. So I mean obviously the provision of additional kitchen, I’m dining area with seating. As I previously, says, previously stated would provide or neat little requirements of London Plan Policy. Lp22 inviting high quality communion spaces. Just, there is no specific requirement for a living area to people provided. But as I’ve mentioned, both kitchens would be an appropriate size and form in terms of their layout, both being kind of rectangle, rectangular and footprint to provide sufficient space for the size of a table and know what could call us to navigate. The scheme has been considered or reviewed by our property licensing team who deems to scheme to be acceptable in terms of providing sufficient or adequate provision of Communal spaces and of course, this is a betterments. The previous scheme that was proposed. So just just picking up on something that was said earlier, so this is for nine bedroom, 9 person, HMO and currently you said What? There’s a couple in a baby living at the property. So that’s, you know, that’s two people. Three people in a room at the moment in the property, the the space standard for the different bedrooms set out here, there are two rooms that you know, meet the double bedroom requirements. Is there a larger requirement for what? Essentially, three person you know which what would that be like a few as a studio and and given that, you know, we previously discussed how you can’t impose new conditions on existing residents Howard, how would that being a family essentially living one of the rooms at the moment of the property? Y on on this application. You know, I mean, in terms of the occupancy of the bedrooms that would be controlled by licensing and themselves would need to be aware. There’s a child sharing a bedroom and for the purpose of planning application, the schemas for my bedroom wine person and it seems to be assessed on that basis. So the occupancy would essentially be open dependent on licensing. That’s granted licenses granted Any other questions? Cancel around. Might seem a small thing, but if I look at the upstairs kitchen, I can’t see how anybody could sit in one of those dining spaces with the mansard roof. Unless they’re a child. Yes, so I mean following the amendments to meet the man sad with extension to ensure it provides how to accommodation both as a residential extension and the purpose of HTML application. The height of chambers image above would be at one point nine meters rise into 2.14 meters. The majority of the man, sadly extension. Internal hope. May I ask another question about the bathroom. Sorry what I’m not clear about is that the bathrooms are set out at the moment, we’ve got square meterage, which is below the two square meters, isn’t it? so, when we talk about the that they could be extended we talking about significant building works to not walls down and extend them and would that be required before they could be properly licensed. I mean. the age might be the best has respond, but I understand that it’s partition was that needs to be removed and made larger. Yes. Of course, the floor plans are indicative. And could be subject to amendments to ensure they meet the President licensing, Standards. Yes. Talking about some significant. Worker case. I mean, I’d be the case for any property that’s recurring the license for a large HMO. Yeah. So We would approve the planning knowing that they’re going to have to change this to fit the licensing. Something that’s the first time that we’ve Wrote two horses in terms of. Approval. And then they have to go and sort their house out with licensing, you know? That not that does not necessarily affect our decision on the planning application. But they will probably have to go and sort it out. Yes. Don’t think you’re okay. It’s likely took, you know, that’s correct. Councilor. just had one point to respond to one of Counselor and all across this questions regarding retrospective applications and enforcement as well. The processes and procedures are not hackly specific and it’s sent out in legislation and Applications are not a lawful or prevented. However, We do warn against them and they can be very costly. Should any subsequent application? Be refused. So that’s where important kicks in. If enforcement actually is taken and we require say a structure to be taken down that would be the onus would be on the developer to rectifier. so, It just on that. So the mansard roof results, the given planning permission retrospectively, presumably that was applied for during enforcement action, which is why the enforcement action was stopped. given the height of that floor is, is there a difference in the required height for what is kind of, you know, communal immunity space like a kitchen dining room area. This is a bedroom because I can see an argument their bedroom. You wouldn’t need as much headroom because, you know, lying down as a primary use for that room. Where is something like a kitchen where you are standing up moving around? There’s multiple people in there. It is a communal space. If there’s any difference in the kind of height requirements and for that and does this, If this mansard was part of this application, would that meet the required height for a space of that kind? So two separate processes. Really the mansard was granted under its own separate application for the purpose. It was granted for at the time. So if you were to review the accommodation status now it need to be suitable for HM. HMO licensing purposes. And so my question was obviously was Yeah. Like you say it was granted for its purpose of the time. Now, this application is to put a kitchen space in there. Is there a difference in kind of required height for a space like a kitchen? And there is for a bedroom. No, there says an objection or it’s contrary to the Planning permission, no enforcement action. Would. Against the existing report. Okay, thank you. Council is a deck. Thanks. Yeah, I just want to just a question about the waste management. Situation where it? Where the nine person? HMO usage to be permitted. I just know in the paragraph or one of the paragraphs described in this, in the in the report we’ve got, There’s recognition from officers that the platform space would be limited and we’ve seen the picture that you Graphic that you shared earlier. There is room for five bins but there’s very limited space to maneuver. Especially when you factor in the recycling bags will, presumably also be stored in that space alongside the food Caddy. It just looks with it, just looks like it to be extremely crowded. Assuming that always is taken to this platform, The second and another observation made offices, the placement of the platform is not ideal. And in my view, it looks very likely to affect the immunity of the basement room. In a way, which whether or not on the technicality of the recommendation is, is You know, it’s the threshold for being unacceptable. It’s certainly very undesirable that you would place those bins there to and the impact it would have on residents living in that basement room but possibly also On neighbors. And then I just note that this paragraph and I’m looking at page 32 the report, Refers to your assessment of the waste management management plan being in the context of the HMO being for a maximum of nine people. Not nine runes and we’re being told that the planning process has no sayo. Whether you know, has no say on whether it could turn to 12 15 18 based on family usage and so on and that’s with the license and process. So we’re potentially been what we are being asked to Consider that the analysis you’ve given on the wasteful on how waste will be appropriately money managed. But with no guarantee whatsoever for our purposes that it will remain at nine people and will not go beyond that, you know, it’s quite conceivable that it would go to say 15, 12, people, whatever. How does that impact your consideration of the waste management issues and and just to say, as counselors, we This is a really important issue and a really significant concern for residents. and it’s a problem in this area. My ward is just down the road from here and I live in the area as well. And This is something that needs to be addressed properly and this seems like a good opportunity to to make sure that we’re doing that. And then last point on this, second question, I guess is, how can you use the conditionality attached to any approval to make sure that we see a desirable outcome here? And this doesn’t go the way that some residents fear. It might thank you. You know, I mean in some of the occupation of the property it is described as the nine bedroom, one person HMO. So, I mean, we can’t all speculate a real worst case scenario and the application has been assessed on as a nine-person HR in terms of ways provision refuse provision, social parking. Like I said, in terms, that chalk, patient itself that we dealt with property licensing, but of course application before us is for online bedroom person, HMO and these people considered that on that basis. That was the first point. So what’s your second point? was on conditions, and What conditions could be attached to the recommendation? I know there are some and how do you think they will help to ensure that this problem would be appropriately? Managed? So, I mean, yeah, I mean obviously you can even force against the conditions recommended which is from waste management strategy. We have requested or we would request details of strategy being provided which details responsibilities for both the landlord and the managing agent, as well as those of tenants and relation, to managing wasting recycling, Of course, it’s not these aren’t being avoided by. We can take enforcement against that Such as the kind of informal storage of bins or refuse on the footwear. but, but that enforcement action, what would that The potential consequences under that enforcement action would be what would they be? Could you explain interest? Presumably, they wouldn’t on taking them from what you said. They wouldn’t have any bearing on the ability to continue using the building as a nine bedroom HMO, or could that be a consequence of the ability to do that stripped away. If this isn’t appropriately managed Sure, I mean, my colleagues might know better, maybe the case that, of course, they’re not abide and what their conditions were planning permission, the licensing, get involved to evoke the license of that occupation properties a large HMO. I know, last time we were concerned about bikes being taken through and this that hasn’t been addressed at all in here, really? And the other thing, I don’t quite get me head round because it was a, The previous proposal was for 10 bed, HMO, where there was requirement for 10 12, cycle spaces. We now with one room less we end up with just requirement for three. How does that make sense? Can you explain that? Yeah, of course. So Apologies, if they think I’m clear. And when the report but essentially given the fact we’re talking about a small HMO, which are obviously has a occupation by six occupiers okay, require under policy, the three additional bedrooms to provide cycle parking which wasn’t addressed previously. So under the current application with any secure, in terms of policy, compliant EPICYCLE parking three parking spaces, Understand concerns, previously, in terms of cycle parking was about maybe fire safety of the informal parking of bikes of in corridors. Etc. Of course under the current application. We all talk about an actual provision of a cycling store. Well, occupies can store their bikes and securely and safely outside of the property. Bearing in my neck, currently occupies could. Store, their bikes have been corridors in the property or equally taken through the kitchen and ready to the rear garden by having no secure storage for their bike. So of course given the constraints to the site. They can’t store it to the front property. Sorry, so you’re saying before they were able to stall them in the property. now they’re not, I’m a bit unclear, but still don’t stop. I mean, own somebody saying that now, it’s because it’s gone from a family dwelling to six beds. We can only ask about the additional three, but it still does not make sense to me That we seem to have lost out on cycle parking. and, you know, I would have thought the applicant having agreed to more cycle storage before to go to a lower number, That doesn’t seem to me in good spirit to what, you know, we aim for hearing Hackney. And can you just talk me through? Why you think going through the house has been addressed? Because that doesn’t seem to be addressed to me. Sure. I mean so, I think that’s discussed under the previous application back in March, of course, we’re discussing about the property being used as a small family dwelling. So of course in terms of turning the property into a large HMO, they were required quite cycle. Part with each occupiers, of course since that date. The property has been lawfully converted to a small HMO for six occupies or six persons. So therefore, we’re securing a three additional cycle parking spaces for the three additional bedrooms. Just, in terms of the Acceptability of taking the cycles through the property. Of course we do need to kind of attach weight to the fact that existing site circumstances don’t make ideal to store bikes the front of the property and therefore realistically people are probably taking their bikes through the property to the rear guards and to store bikes, if not storing them inside of the property itself for safety and security reasons, given the fact, there’s no safe store. Under the current application. Of course, it doesn’t address that issue of taking the bikes through the property, but it does mean as a safe. and secure store for each the bikes for each of the occupiers because bearing in mind. Well, there’s any not there’s a policy requirements, provide free parking, spaces. The applicant is still providing 10 cycle, parking spaces, which each bedrooms, and possibly a visitor. Applicant is still providing 10 cycle, parking spaces. Yeah. So the image on the slide just shows, attendance cycle, parking space, To. Be my bad. Animal. Yes. Can we bring Eva back in Shirley? Oh sorry. Thank you. I’d like to point out as a resident of the neighboring house that the corridor, in the house, the hallway is only 70 centimeters wide. And we will cycle in my house. It’s extremely difficult to maneuver bikes in and out of the house. There’s two sets of stairs. The wheeling ramp makes no difference at all. because obviously, the person still has to Woke up the stairs, so that’s negligible. There’s a really clear policy about this the cycling issue. >l Chambers: change the conditions that are laid down in the local plan about cycling. It’s just not suitable. And I think the C3 to see four issue. Which is what came up before and you’re going to be seeing more and more of this. And I think that the counselors should have the courage to test this on all of these cases. Or this is how these meetings are going to go in the future. And also the ruling that the inspector took the last time on the case before, as your chair said, was only one ruling. I’ve also read other ones where The ability to move between C3 and C4 is to be protected. So that say, I wanted to rent my house out to a few people for six months, I could do that and then it could become a normal house again. and if we don’t act to do this now, Well, we’re going to see a massive change in our borough. and I think that the committee should have the courage to challenge this essential kind of Exploitative use of a loophole. I was just gonna ask if we can hear from the representative of the applicant. On the two points that he’s sought to speak to. Yeah, I wouldn’t like you to vent venture into procedural, and fairness by allowing the objective and unlimited amount to talk, and not giving me any chance at all. I’ve been laying my hands about 10 times. You somehow not noticed it. okay, yeah, I I don’t Encourage. You know, come back you’ve had 10 minutes and to be honest, that is 50% more 100%. It’s doubling the time. Yeah. The object, they had five minutes and I get a permission for 10 minutes and object has had 15 So far. This is procedural unfairness, it should be stopped right now. That’s what I can tell you. This is proper procedure unfairness where there’s a council objecting the agent gets 10 minutes. Not the objective three times five minutes in the agent. Nothing more. That is procedural unfairness and it should be noted right here. And now I’m ready to say what I’ve got to say. Okay. You’ve been asked to present. I know, but I raise my hands ten times. You some are not noticed it, you can apologize for that. You’ve noticed the object’s hand three times and not notice mine, can I, that’s what I say. Okay. So I apologize because I didn’t notice your. That’s why it was for good reason. No questions directed to me because I know that answers. That’s why and nobody wants to end up an appeal. And as Chris said before with the cost application, there’s no one wants this. But this is where it’s heading. Let me, can I give you the answers for the basic questions that people have answered asked? Can I do that? Asked to apply. Thanks so much. Thanks very much. Yeah. Okay. I want to say a few. I’ve got a few points to see. Point number one, The objective has said that one of whom has got a couple and a baby. This is a blatant lie. Just for the members to know. It’s a blatant lie and should not be taken at face value. There are six occupants in the house. No more any additional occupant would be subject to enforcement action, and that is enforcement enforcement team. A very good at that, the six occupants. There’s no enforcement matter. Now open If this is refused, nothing will be enforced. There’s nothing to enforce the six occupants, and that’s it. Point number two, we received an addendum 20 minutes before the committee meeting tonight from the licensing saying that there’s a requirement for ensuite to be two square meters. There is, as far as I know, no, such requirements. I responded straight away and I was told that I would get a response by email. I have so far, not see that response. Point number three, The previous application was for 10 rooms with a single communal kitchen. Now it’s come down to nine rooms with a double communique kitchen. That’s not a reduction in occupancy. It’s a double in kitchens. In the minutes of last meeting, one of the members said, we would be happy with the eight room HMO, with a single kitchen. We’ve now got a nine room HMO with a double kitchen. The floor has been lowered since the last refusal as was mentioned on the plans last time and That’s, that’s that point the point, which about management, which have been interestingly directed to the object and not to myself. Management. There is proper management of the property. There’s never been any social behavior problems. The only problems have been is with waste on the street which that will persist. If this application is refused because there’s nothing pushing the developer to sort that out because there’s no controls about that. The objector remote to the managing agent I’ve seen copies of those emails and on the same day, within 24 hours, the cleat was discreet was cleaned. It’s simply another blatant lie. To say that nothing was done about that. I’ve seen the email copies and the thanks. Thank you for working with me so quick on that. I’ve seen those I can share them around. I don’t think he wants that. I’ve got them on file here. And the other important point is about occupancy now and about nine occupants. the Council. Can impose a condition that they may not be more than nine occupants. It’s it’s as the officer said it’s within the description in any event, but if they want to be more secure, they can impose a condition that they may not be more than nine occupants in the house and that’s probably enforceable and that’s a standard condition which I do dozens of these types of applications. This is standard condition, Cycles. What the officer was saying is that really the developers only exposed to supply cycle, parking for three of the occupants because though, those are additional to what’s there now uncontrolled? However, the developer is proposing, 10. So that’s an enhancement. And removing a fire hazard of what’s there. Now, if this application is infused there’ll be six occupants there with no cycle store, at all, the cycles will be if I has there’ll be all over the place. So what we’re saying is that this application is not only enhancing for the free edition of occupants. It’s enhancing the living conditions and the waste conditions and all the other matters for all current six occupants which are currently uncontrolled. I have not addressed the point, which you struggle about the policy contradiction. I can’t do that. If asked Interestingly, nobody asked me although it was a major struggle in the previous case. I can’t address that I’ve won many appeals where committee members were not aware of the law with Section 70. Of the Act says that you should not follow the development plan. If there is a material consideration, the inner material consideration, that’s the current use. The current Hughes is six through Major which happens in one minute as both offices has confirmed and not ten years as the object has confirmed Class. L of the Gpto does not say, it has to be temporary. It can be Permanently changed from six C3 to 64 vice versa. When at whim, there’s no law this has to be temporary. You begin misled by the objective. Both in terms of facts and in terms of law and I urge you to take count of this otherwise, as Jespotes said before will end up with the costs matter, which is nobody wants wants that Thanks, very much. And I’m sorry about my outburst before I was a bit upset about what’s going on. No questions was suddenly directed to me, although they were very asked before Thanks very much. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? That’s awesome. And I, I’m stroking a bit that one of that, one of the primary arguments. Feels to me to be. You know, we’ve done this you’re going to just gonna have to suck it up because I feel like that that’s very much what’s being presented here. You know we talked about the issues around waste only being able to be addressed by the by the developer if we grant planning permission for this. you know, nothing about this application makes me feel like this this developer is trying to build high quality accommodation that we want to see in Hackney This feels like an application is designed to come as many people as they can get away with into this property. You know, it meets them, it meets it meets the the letter of, you know, our planning policy. But I just don’t feel as has been rated and meets the spirit and I and I just don’t like the way that this has been approached. All I would be interested know whether it is possible to add a condition about the occupancy and they’re clearly is a disagreement between the person speaking in favor. And, and the speaking against whether there is a family currently living in there, that concerns me. And if there is a baby living this property that is not what this application is being presented as. So if there’s anything we can do to strength and our controls there, I’d be really interested in hearing that. You want to apply on that one? Yeah. Yes, I mean, of course we can condition. The occupancy of the property to nine persons under the planning applications, as well as licensing. The description development refers to nine persons, but we haven’t recommended a condition as of yet for it to be occupied by nine people. It gets the whole, you know, if everyone else agrees that. Yeah. So, your hand is on. a condition is not yet been recommended, but it can be This is a standard condition about the point about people building, what the intention is obvious. I agree to you. The attention is earning money, but this provides us the council an opportunity to control the use of the whole House. So we have to look at that in that lens, we cannot now it’s not a Panic Planet consideration. Where there’s a good boy or bad boy, the point is it’s it’s not illegal to build without pain permission. It happens all the time unfortunately But we’ve got now an opportunity to control the use of the full house. Not only the additional talents, otherwise a six tenant uncontrolled. Waste cycles, fire. It’s no control, whatever. No playing controller at all. unless there’s some new and point, if the house remains as a sex room, HMO, surely the other conditions, such as safety of the tenants, and the way it’s disposal. And all those issues would have to be controlled by licensing. They should still be an obligation on the landlord. Okay, look this is not a debate. This is not a debate. Yeah. It’s been given to the offices. All right. Okay. All right, I’m going to say something so trying to be consistent here, we are about applying The law and our planning policy, that’s what we do. Yeah. Now our policy says that we are okay with HMOs If they provide a good standard of accommodation. with all the requirements of space standards management, requirements, you can boost that up. Refuse arrangements. We can boost that up. They light in sunlight, I am a bit surprised. I shared the concerns raised in terms of whether Rows of sunshine will actually make it to some of the windows in this, the quality of accommodation, I do feel sorry for whoever’s in Unit 6 because not only they have their own ensuite, but they seem to have showing the wall with someone else’s ensuite toilet as well. And I can’t imagine how pleasant that is and but that aside it’s still comes back to immunity space. There is no immunity space. I am surprised. I mean I do you know there are two kitchens but we are talking At least nine. Yeah. Nine bedrooms. Nine people in. This kitchen. with the option of going to, The loft. And again, the size of the people being able to sit at the table is a question mark. There is no immunity space or the people that live in these. Nine rooms. And that’s what our policy says. We are agreeing to create a house for at least nine bedrooms. but, It doesn’t provide a good standard of accommodation because that is no immunity space. I don’t know how they will possibly Cook. At the same time. And I think it’s in future what we want to see in terms of HMO standards. I’m not taking it. if there’s no more comments or questions for the committee, I will move it to the vote. Can I just say when you say mean to space? Are you going to living room space? So you’re going to kitchen down in space? immunity space? something that isn’t A kitchen. A lunch. Somewhere to sit. That’s not possibly in the kitchen. Where people will be cooking around. You can I ask a question of fear applicant, Sure. Would you be willing to consider? The going down to eight units and having one of those units as a living room. Area. I believe that would be a separate application. adults, we would amend this one because if refused McCloud, could definitely want to take it to appeal. What could do? There’s no requirement to have two communications. This space standards say that one is enough. We could make the spare kitchen, the second kitchen into a lounge room, rather. Somebody has asked before what the height is. I’ve actually been in that room and it’s quite a comfortable room because the way the man’s out is, and the floor was dropped. It’s quite large. You can see on the plan, the heights. So that room could be turned into a lounge if need be because the kitchen is large enough for nature mode and I stress again, LP 22 refers to the HMO standards. There’s no requirement for a launch. I’m sure my client will be happy to provide that. And we must also remember that this one is different to the previous case. It’s got access to the gap. So, there’s a full garden available for the tenants. So that’s, that’s the answer. so this application could be amended by using one of them as a lounge, but otherwise it would require new again application. Castle stuck. Thanks. Yeah, it was just on On your point, which I think you’re inviting us to comment on the articulation of this about having no amenity, and there being no living area. I think, for me, um, The sort of the overarching problem would be that. The standard of accommodation here. Given its intended usage in the intended occupancy, which will be at least nine people. Is in my view substandard, and I think the committee would have come to a number of different considerations that contribute to that overall, my overall conclusion, that it would be substandard one of those Is inadequate communal space? It’s not, you know, I take the point that there’s no requirement for that to be one. But in taking into account. in the round, whether the non-bedroom spaces in this property are appropriate for the number of people that are likely to be dwelling here, including use as a kitchen and use of that kitchen space immunity space to do other things like Sit down and relax and talk to your Others living in the property overall that that’s a big concern inadequacy of those communal spaces. I think The situation with cycling. I’ll take the nuance that officers in the applicant have given to us, but my concern would still be the impacts of having storage for nine, plus people for cycling. And at a time, when we’re hugely encouraging use of cycling as a mode of transport in the borough, coming through the property. Being very difficult to get up that staircase for me that also impacts. I mean, it’s a, the waste management situation. I just find untenable is my is my sense and that the introduction of a platform that has quite significant effect on the enjoyment of the basement room. That seems to me to be problematic. So taking all these things together in the round and not pointing to any specific issue that’s been raised that to me, leads me to finding that this has to be seen as Substandard. And my personal view is that this is a significant intensification of the use of a property that, you know, isn’t reasonably intended to be used in this way and isn’t necessarily what we want to see. So, that’s my sense. That’s my attempt to articulate in a way that goes beyond just saying there is no immunity space. Thank you, nicely articulated. Any other comments? Otherwise, I will move to the vote. to, I just wanted to say that the owner of the house did respond to my requests about moving the rubbish. It was elevate property management who did not respond. So I just wanted to make that clear. It was not Mr. Schwartz he did respond. Okay, thank you for the point of clarity. All right. So the recommendation, sorry grant summary grant Planning Commission subject to conditions and then completion of a legal agreement, those in favor of this application cliche, Those against this application, please show. If I say those abstaining, So Council, this is it, do you wish to make a alternative proposal that this application is rejected on the grounds, as you Stated. And is that seconded? Seconded by Counselor Norcross. Which are like five minutes to. Thank you. I’m Mons here, we are going to take a short break again. Why while the legal officer and planning officers? Consult about alternative motions. Good is throughout the screen, please. Thank you. Carry on a second wound Montia. I believe everybody is now back in the room. So I think we can Continue, thank you. That’s right. We’re gonna continue folks. Okay, hey everybody. Yeah, we just take your seat. Thank you. Okay. Would you mind closing the door? Yeah. Yeah, thank you. John saying If you’ve got the Yes. So similarly again the reason for refusal would read by reason of the inadequate. Substantly quality of accommodation proposed. The proposed lodge house. Multiple occupation would be detrimental to living conditions of future occupies. The proposed development would therefore conflict of qualities lp2 and lp22 of the Happy. Local Plan 2020. Thank you. Recommendation, please show. Thank you very much. Thank you for the reference as you none of us unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, thank you for your quick, turnaround there, the wording that is clear and we will move on. A Generation 7. Delegated decisions? Have you noted? The delegated decisions? Yep. Thank you very much. Um, agenda item eight, any other business. I consider to urgent now I’m not aware of any anything committee. No. Thank you very much. Please note the next meeting. Someone’s in 19th of November. Which is a date change. Um, not really, it’s a meeting change, It was originally proposed as a pre-application meeting, but I think. I think we finished that item now. I can’t take these, I apologies. yep, this isn’t I’m sure you can understand this world’s child. Then that is a matter. and I think we can have a discussion about She said Places that you can take your complaints to. Yeah. But the decision has been made. We can’t review that. I’m just concluding the meeting. and it is 90th and November, but it is A formal planning meeting. Yeah, cancer today. Thanks Jeff. if I may just in relation to the point that the applicant from the previous items rows, just as we sat here and saw the conversation going on, I just want to make clear and have it on record that. extent that the representative of the applicant was frustrated about anecdotes from the current usage of the house and things that may or may not be going on. We didn’t take, I certainly didn’t set the place anyway on individual circumstances that are occurring in the property. Now those who are current anecdotes, they were not informative of our decision, which relate to the reasons that we articulated. So there’s absolutely no basis for any claim from the applicant that Case and that the decision were disproportionately. Waited on irrelevant considerations just to make that clear. I hope that. What we seek to do here is make sure that everyone’s voice is heard. And as I have, repeated, that we apply the law and our policy, so people can say they’re non-material considerations, I hear enough from committee members okay, but I think that these conversations need to be had In a planning committee. But we seek to make our decisions based on planning grounds. Yeah. We understand fully that we are crazy judicial and these are the decisions. Yep. that we agree. Okay, we’re not politicians here. So there we go. I’m very sorry for the disagreement there. Are. You know, we’ve heard the, the arguments we’ve made the decision, which we believe to be based on planning commission, okay? Yeah. Thank you and I will end the meeting there. Thank you very much. Thank you everybody Monsie. If you could stop the live streaming the recording please