Agenda item

Proposal: S73 Minor material amendment for variation of condition 1 (approved plans) of the S73 planning permission HGY/2017/1008  in order to substitute the drawing numbers  and variation of condition 6 (Student accommodation) of the original permission HGY/2013/0155 to allow Co-living (as well as student accommodation) for a temporary period of 3 years.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for a S73 Minor material amendment for variation of condition 1 (approved plans) of the S73 planning permission HGY/2017/1008  in order to substitute the drawing numbers and variation of condition 6 (Student accommodation) of the original permission HGY/2013/0155 to allow Co-living (as well as student accommodation) for a temporary period of 3 years.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The management plan for the building would be amended to allow all residents of the building to access all of the amenities.

-           The amount of blue badge bays would remain the same (3).

-           The London Plan policy states that tenancies can be no less than three months, however the applicant had indicated that the tenancies would be for a minimum of six months.

-           There would be an onsite manager to deal with any issues or queries from residents.

-           There was not much guidance in the way of size standards.  The Care Quality Commission standards for care homes was 12m² and the average student accommodation was 13m².  These rooms were bigger at 16m².  All residents would have access to all communal spaces in the building.

-           Non-students would be required to pay Council Tax – how this was levied was outside of planning considerations.

Councillor Gordon addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  The applicant was requesting a change of use which changed the business plan from the original one of student accommodation.  This could not be considered as a material planning consideration.  Councillor Gordon felt  approving this application would establish standards for co-living and felt that it would be better for the Council to take the opportunity to create a policy to provide better standards.  The standards on the application should not be adopted for key workers.

Councillor Carroll spoke in objection to the application.  He advised of previous approaches by the applicants to Ward Councillors in respect of providing co-living, which were not considered to be an appropriate use of the building by Ward Councillors.  Councillor Carroll felt that to grant temporary permission would only lead to an application for permanent permission in the future.  The student accommodation sector was still viable.  The letter provided in the addendum gave a vague promise of commitment to leasing rooms and the Committee should not make a decision based on this.

Councillor Brabazon spoke in objection to the application.  A key issue was that, due to the lack of policy, to approve this application would set a precedent for future applications.  Councillor Brabazon referred the Committee to a similar application in Wandsworth which was rejected as it was considered to fall short of acceptable standards, based on room sizes of 16-24m². 

Dean Hermitage advised that it was not the role of the Committee to take into account private business interests of applicants.  The Committee needed to consider the local area and the impact of any application.

Rob Krzyszowski advised that a decision must be made in accordance with adopted plans.  The new London Plan had not been formally adopted but was a significant material consideration as it contain a policy on co-living.  Guidance had not yet been produced on spaces standards, but to approve this application would not set a precedent for any future applications or the new Local Plan.

Matt Humphreys, Planning Advisor to the applicant, addressed the Committee.  The application sought temporary flexible permission to use the building for student accommodation and co-living.  The building was brand new and until March 2020 had seen 90% occupancy.  In the last six months, occupancy had averaged 20-25%, due to many universities switching to online learning, and many students remaining at home.  This application would provide an opportunity for people in housing need.  Co-living was supported by the draft London Plan policy H16, which was expected to be adopted within the coming months.

The applicant had been in discussion with North Middlesex hospital who had indicated an immediate requirement for 15 rooms.  A draft management plan had been submitted to control occupancy and ensure responsible and respectful behaviour from residents.  To reject the application would result in a brand new, high quality building standing idle.

Mr Humphreys responded to questions from the Committee:

-            The hospital had indicated that they would like students and professional staff to live in one building rather than being spread out over the borough.

-            It was likely that the applicants had explored rent reductions for students, however there was a reduced demand from this sector.

Dean Hermitage advised that the recommendation was to grant the application subject to the legal agreements and conditions as set out in the report.

Councillor Adamou moved to reject the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Mitchell on the grounds that the room sizes were too small, the amount of communal space was not satisfactory and the ratio of rooms to shared kitchen / living areas was too high.

Following a vote, with eight in favour of rejection and one against it was

RESOLVED that the application be rejected.