Agenda item

Report of the Director of Built Environment.

The Committee considered (a) the report of the Director of Corporate Commissioning, which set out the decision of the Cabinet on the above matter and the reason given for call-in; and (b) the report of the Director of Built Environment in relation to this matter.

The decision taken by the Cabinet on 14 February 2013 (Minute No. 111) in relation to this matter was as follows :-

“Decision Made:

 The supplementary planning document be approved subject to the insertion of the following text before table 3 in the document, to provide clarity on where the size standards in the table apply:

“These minimum standards will apply to all self-contained flats whether the development is part of a HMO (Use Classes C4 or Sui Generis HMO) or part of a scheme consisting entirely of self-contained flats (Use Class C3)”.

Reasons for Decision:

To adopt the supplementary planning document for decision making for Planning applications and enforcement purposes.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None.

Cabinet - 28 February 2013

At the above Meeting the following amendment to the minutes was agreed:-

Decision Made:

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2013 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the resolution in Minute No. 111 being amended by the addition of the following text in the supplementary planning document:

“The Council will look favourably upon applications for one bedroom flats where previously they have been discouraged”.

The Chair, Councillor McKinley, reported on the procedure for consideration of the call-in.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer, Mrs. Ruth Harrison, reported on the validity of the call-in and highlighted that the call-in requisition:-

• had been received within the specified call-in period in accordance with Chapter 6, paragraph 37 of the Constitution;
• had been signed by three Members of the Council who weren’t Members of the Cabinet, in accordance with Chapter 6, paragraph 38 (a) of the Constitution; and
• referred to a specific decision made by the Cabinet and provided a reason in accordance with Chapter 6, paragraph 40 of the Constitution.

The Committee considered the comments of Mrs. Amanda Biagetti, Service Manager, Planning Services on the background to this matter and Councillor Maher Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Tourism, addressed the Committee in relation to the decision taken.

Councillor Papworth, on behalf of Councillors Dorgan and McIvor, outlined and amplified the following reason for call-in:-

“The decision contravenes sub-paras (b) and (c) of Para 40 of Chapter 6 of the Council’s Constitution; in other words, that the Cabinet decision is unsound, being based on facts not taken into account, and would lead to very unwise future decisions by the Council. In particular: a. Cabinet was advised that ample consultation had taken place; this is disputed by my constituent, who is the largest provider of HMO’s in Sefton, and who also represents a considerable number of other landlords. He had about 10 minutes in which to read and comment on the SPD. b. The Supplementary Planning Document seeks to impose the same rules on HMO’s as on flats. This seems unwise, as the two regimes are subject to different rules re Building Regulations, Environmental Health, Licensing and Benefits. c. Disabled access to HMO’s is usually impossible, as there are no lifts. d. The conditions about roof-lights and windows in HMO’s are unworkable and wholly unnecessary. e. Whilst noise insulation in a flat is of course desirable, to provide it in an HMO means insulating each room separately, which would be prohibitively costly. f. The document appears to rule out the use of terraces as HMO’s, which seems to limit their development for no good reason. g. The requirement for S.106 funds of over £1,500 per HMO is excessive. Altogether, the SPD appears likely to put the Council at a considerable disadvantage (at precisely the moment when Liverpool is easing its conditions!), by making the development of HMO’s financially unviable, and thus decimating the supply of new affordable housing. My constituent already has a substantial record of successful appeals against Planning decisions, and would far prefer to assist the Council by taking part in genuine consultations before a revised SPD is prepared. "

The Chair of the Committee, Councillor McKinley, invited Mr Latham representative of the public who was in attendance at the meeting to address the Committee.

Mr Latham made representations to the Committee in relation to the matter and emphasised that in his opinion two supplementary planning documents should be produced addressing Housing in Multiple Occupation and Flats individually.  

Mrs. Amanda Biagetti and Councillor Maher responded to the representations made by Councillor Papworth and Mr. Latham.

Councillor Papworth concluded by reiterating the requirement for two individual documents based on the reasons for call in.

Councillor Maher and Mrs. Amanda Biagetti answered questions posed by Members of the Committee.

Members of the Committee observed that the issues raised within the reason for call in were based on opinion and not fact, and that all the issues (a) – (g) had been answered in full. 

RESOLVED: That   

(1)       this Committee is not concerned about the decisions made by the Cabinet  in relation to this matter; and

(2)       the matter be not referred back for further consideration.