Issue - meetings

(22/03120/ELUD) - 96 Imperial Way, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 6JR

Meeting: 03/08/2023 - Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 (Item 24)

24 (22/03120/ELUD) - 96 Imperial Way, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 6JR pdf icon PDF 580 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of Application: Proposed change of use from use class C3 to C4 House of Multiple Occupation. LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE (EXISTING).

 

In response to questions from Councillor Owen, the Legal Advisor confirmed that the relevant date for determining lawfulness was 1 September 2022 and it was for Members to consider whether a material change of use had occurred by this date.

 

An oral representation in support of the application was received at the meeting from the agent.

 

In response to questions the agent confirmed that:

·  The three occupants had moved in in August 2022, before the September deadline.

·  All conditions within contracts were enforced.

·  Any issues were dealt with promptly and efficiently.  A license was in place and landlords could face heavy fines if they were found to breach the terms of the license.

 

A discussion took place in Part 2 of the meeting concerning the additional evidence that had been provided.  Concerns were expressed around inconsistencies within the information provided.

 

The Legal Advisor highlighted that the Sub-Committee needed to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the property was available for use as an HMO on 1 September 2023.

 

Ward Councillor Mark Smith explained that this issue had been stressful for local residents and it was a contentious and emotive issue and residents had reported that the owners and agents had not been responsive to complaints that had been made.  Ultimately, it came down to whether the Sub-Committee was satisfied with the evidence that had been provided.

 

Councillor Ruth McGregor noted that a huge amount of evidence had been supplied and the judgement of Officers was that this was an HMO.  Whilst regrettable the reported issues around anti-social behaviour were nothing to do with the application for a lawful development certificate.  In conclusion, Councillor McGregor confirmed that she was comfortable with the application.

 

Other Members of the Sub-Committee noted that there remained some ambiguity over the timing of when units had been occupied and there appeared to be a lack of precision in the evidence presented.

 

The Chairman moved that the application be refused as the information provided was not sufficiently precise and not sufficiently unambiguous.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Casey.

 

Members, having considered the report, objections and representations RESOLVED that A LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE BE REFUSED on the following grounds -

 

The evidence provided in support of this application is considered to be ambiguous and not sufficiently precise to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities, the use of the premises as a house in multiple occupation was converted under Class L of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) prior to the 1st September 2022 when the Borough wide Article 4 direction came into effect.

 

(Cllr Gabbert requested that her vote against the motion be recorded.)