3.	TCP/20941/A P/01936/01 Parish/Name: Sandown Registration Date: 23/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Change of use from staff accommodation for the Ocean Hotel to a house in multiple occupation 95 Avenue Road, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368DZ

Site and Location

Application was deferred at meeting on 18 February 2002 to allow further consultation between applicants and Social Services. This was due to a late representation reported to Committee which was an objection from Social Services who were unable to support the application for the following reasons:

Concern about lack of supervision, there being no discussion with the Social Services Directorate, not featuring in their planning.

Application relates to substantial detached property in residential area situated on corner of St John’s Crescent and Avenue Road, Sandown. The building is currently vacant and appears in a poor state of repair with overgrown garden.

Relevant History

Established Use Certificate issued in 1992 for the use of land for seasonal staff accommodation for staff employed at the Ocean Hotel, Sandown between April and October every year for a maximum of twenty persons.

Details of Application

Submitted plans shows layout of accommodation as follows:

Ground floor - Lounge, therapy room, dining room, kitchen, toilet.

First floor - Six bedrooms each containing wash basins.

Second floor - Bedroom with washbasin, bathroom and shower cubicles.

External alterations consist mostly of repairs, bricking up of opening at ground floor on north elevation and a new window on the southern elevation at first floor. The premises will have six regular occupants utilising six of the seven bedrooms. The seventh bedroom will be used for a residential support person.

Covering letter accompanying application and details of Charity have been submitted. Letter says Mothers Against Drugs Defacto (MADD) is committed to providing shared accommodation for recovering addicts in a safe environment, whilst at the same time providing full support in the form of advice, therapy or further education. The properties under the management of MADD are not treatment centres or hostels. There is no time limit on the duration of stay by house members and the houses are self managed with the house members reporting weekly to the Scheme Manager through the Team Leader. Each house member will, in turn, take on the role of Team Leader on a weekly basis. This is an important aspect of living in the house since this encourages members to take responsibility for themselves and other house members.

All house members must sign a contract covering basic house rules. Members have to demonstrate a continuing commitment to their recovery programme by attending regular meetings and following organised recovery programmes.

The letter also states that MADD are acutely aware of the sensitivity of proposals within the community. The Mother Against Drugs Defacto contract includes conditions of residency to abstain from taking all mood-altering chemicals, not to enter into illegal activity. Contract involves taking part in random drug tests and also states any house member who uses will be immediately discharged.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Relevant Planning Policy is H11 Houses in Multiple Occupation (HM0s) states that “planning applications for houses in multiple occupation will only be approved where:

a there is no significant loss of amenity to adjoining occupiers or adverse impact on the character of the area;

b an acceptable and accessible amenity area can be provided;

c public transport is easily accessible

An HMO can be defined as a dwelling containing more than six people, not related, living as a communal household, and sharing living, dining, kitchen and toilet facilities. HMOs provide a valuable supply of housing at low cost for people who are often with low income. Their retention may be acceptable if minimum standards, including fire and environmental health can be met, ie the property is capable of meeting requirements involving sound insulation, means of escape and fire regulation.”

Main planning considerations are suitability or otherwise of property for this purpose, effect any such use would have on amenities or environment of residents in area, acceptable amenity area and easily accessible public transport.

Representations

Sandown Town Council object on grounds Sandown already has two such establishments, another would be severe strain on overstretched resources of Police, Social Services, Medical Centre. The Town Council also state they have received many letters of objection from residents with young families in vicinity with concerns for their children.

Highway Engineer makes no comment.

Environmental Health Section have no adverse comment but advise consult housing/fire safety regarding means of escape, fire detection and refuse. Also request advice to applicant regarding Health and Safety of employment of persons at work.

Environment Agency raise no objection in principle.

Housing Section raise no objection in principle to the intended use. Senior Housing Officer confirms he will write to applicants and send information pack regarding HMOs. However, from reading details, appears this may be shared house and case law has tended to put shared houses outside of Housing Act HMO legislation.

Building Control Officer confirms building work alterations will be covered by Building Control Legislation but improvement of means of escape may not depending on use and level of care provided.

Since deferment, Social Services Head of Operations commented as follows:

"I have now had the opportunity to talk to Mrs Kilgariff from Mothers Against Drugs Defacto and she has been able to reassure me on most of the points raised. Mrs Kilgariff has assured me that the unit will be staffed 24 hours a day with a resident warden and that she will be looking to accommodate Island residents. She has outlined her protocols with residents and although I have not seen the written details, these seem to be sufficiently robust to reassure me that the hostel would be effectively managed. I therefore have no objections to this application being considered."

A Petition objecting to proposal has been received containing 64 signatures. Twenty eight individual letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

1. Too many similar establishments in area.

2. Inappropriate location, due to residential character of area, impact on local residents, particularly given proximity of school in locality, number of elderly residents and disabled residents.

3. Increased parking problem.

4. Incomplete description and advertisement of proposal.

5. Effect on tourist trade in seaside resort.

6. Increase in Resources of Police, Medical Centre and Social Services.

7. Increased crime and antisocial behaviour, noise, nuisance, litter.

8. Lack of supervision and lowering of house values.

9. Building itself in poor state.

10. Not providing local need and nature of occupants.

Since the matter was deferred, a further thirteen letters of objection have been received. Objections relate to matters already summarised above.

Applicant submitted letter following deferment expressing view that occupancy or management operation of premises not relevant to application under consideration and was concerned at deferment of application.

Applicant has been advised that matters relating to use of premises and any amenities of occupants of the premises and amenities of occupants of neighbouring premises would be material planning considerations in the determination of the application.

Further letter received from applicant dated 27 March 2002 confirming residential 24 hour support will be available at this property.

Letter from applicant advising that they have contacted Councillors Jarman and Humby with a view to clarifying the apparent misapprehensions of members of the public who have raised concerns regarding the proposal:

"Councillor Jarman indicated that she would pass on our telephone number to the organiser of the group of objectors who were active in the demonstration outside 8 Gordon Road recently. To date no-one has contacted our organisation despite our offer to meet the group and discuss any of their concerns. I can only assume the concerns of the objecting members of the public do not extend sufficiently to discuss the factual matters of our application and their objections are based purely on rumour and prejudice. I trust that Members of the Planning Committee agree with our view that rumour and prejudice are not reasonable grounds for an objection. I would be obliged if this letter indicating our position on this matter is attached to our submission."

Since deferment, the applicant has verbally confirmed that they have no responsibility for people who break the treatment rules who would then presumably go back to another treatment, or previous accommodation or seek new accommodation. The applicant further explains that out of approximately thirty people that have been treated, only three have opted to leave the scheme having by their own admission broken the contract and that people who would occupy the house would all have a commitment to recovery.

Evaluation

This application seeks to change a building to six occupants and the manager from that used previously for staff accommodation for up to twenty people. The level of activity has therefore been established.

Applications of this nature contribute to the full range of normal housing provision and whilst such proposals inevitably attract local concern, it is important to bear in mind that the identity of occupants or type of person to be accommodated by reference to age or other characteristics is not itself land use planning consideration.

The main consideration to determine this application is whether it complies with Policy H11 (Houses in Multiple Occupation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

With regard to effect on use of amenities of other residents, in land use terms this residential use itself is appropriately located in residential area. The property is detached, in a town location, close to the town centre, accessible to public transport and has a garden area. This assessment needs to be made based on whether the level of proposed usage is appropriate and whether it would result in any undue disturbance or cause detrimental change to the residential character and amenity of area as a whole which would justify withholding permission.

In terms of intensity of use, given property’s previous use for up to twenty people, it is considered no reasonable planning objection can be raised in terms of overdevelopment of site as there is a reduction in intensity. Also, given detached nature of property, limited external alterations to building, proposals are unlikely to have undue adverse effect on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers. Alterations to building should improve visual appearance.

Parking concerns have been unsubstantiated by Highway Engineer comments.

It is considered advertisement procedure has been accurately adhered to.

Whilst concerns expressed by residents are appreciated, it is difficult to objectively assess such comments in relation to whether perceived problems referred to would occur and the Local Planning Authority would find it difficult to sustain any such objections because of lack of evidence. It should also be noted that when such matters do fall to be considered by Inspectorate at appeal, it is common for such objections to be rejected on basis that they are subjective comments which lack evidential detail or are matters which are not planning considerations. Public concern and fear are matters which are capable of constituting material planning considerations and accordingly should be given appropriate weight in decision making process.

Applicant has now confirmed residential 24 hour support to premises which can be covered by planning condition to the satisfaction of Social Services.

In conclusion, it is inevitable and understandable such use will attract local concern. In assessing that concern however, it is important relevant planning considerations are taken into account in deciding whether this premises is suitable for proposed use.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I do not consider there is sufficient reason to substantiate a refusal of planning permission and outweigh the primacy of the IW Unitary Development Plan Policy H11 and recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The premises hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a person is in residence providing residential supervisory support. Details of such supervision to be provided and means of recording the attendance shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Any such agreement will then be implemented and maintained permanently thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of the premises and nearby residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.