Fife Planning Review Body
FPRB Reference 106/12
Review Decision Notice
______________________________________________________________
Decision by Fife Planning Review Body (the FPRB)





Site address: 36 Bobby Jones Place, St Andrews
Application for review by Mrs Catherine Davidson against the decision by an
appointed officer of Fife Council
Application 12/01639/FULL for planning permission for Change of use of a flatted
dwelling to an HMO (3 persons)
Application Drawings: FC Ref 12/01639/FULL – 01 Location Plan; FC Ref
12/01639/FULL – 02 Floor Plan
No Site Inspection took place
Date of Decision Notice: 16 January 2013
_________________________________________________________________________
Decision
The FPRB reverses the determination reviewed by them and approves Planning
Permission unconditionally.
1.0
Preliminary
1.1
This Notice constitutes the formal decision notice of the Local Review Body as
required by the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local
Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
1.2
The above application for planning permission was considered by the FPRB at its
meeting on 10 December 2012. The Review Body was attended by Councillor
Riches (Chair), Councillor Mogg, Councillor Shirkie, Councillor Baxter and Councillor
Connor.
2.0
Proposal
2.1
The development involves the change of use of a flatted dwelling to a house in
multiple occupation accommodating 3 persons. It is a first floor flat in a three storey
block of flats whereby 5 other flats share a common entrance door and stairwell. The
flat is in a residential area outwith the town centre Conservation Area. No external
alterations to the fabric of the building are proposed.
-23.0
Reasoning
3.1
The determining issues in this review were the assessment of the proposal against
the Development Plan policy for HMOs, the residential amenity impacts and the road
safety impacts of the proposed use. The FPRB considered the terms of the
Development Plan which comprises the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan
(Approved 2012) and the St Andrews and East Fife Local Plan 2012. The FPRB
were aware that at the time the application was determined the aforementioned
Local Plan was still a draft document. The Review however proceeded on the basis
that the earlier St Andrews Area Local Plan 1996, although referred to in the original
report of handling and the applicant's Notice of Review papers, would not be
applicable at this point in time. The FPRB also considered the advice contained
within Circular 2/2012 Houses in Multiple Occupation: Guidance on Planning Control
and Licensing.
3.2
The FPRB considered that there were no relevant policies within the TAYplan
relating to this type of development.
3.3
Since Adoption of the new Local Plan the policy numbering has changed in some
sections of the document. What was draft Local Plan policy H3 is now H2. The
FPRB were aware that slight changes had been made to the wording of the policy
following the examination and it was that new wording that was considered. This is
the key policy applying to new HMO development and seeks to control the balance
of HMO use of residential properties within communities. It was noted that this
property was outwith the Conservation Area and was not affordable housing in terms
of the Councils policies therefore the development would be assessed under parts
a), b) and c) of policy H2.
3.4
In considering the terms of H2 the FPRB were aware that in terms of the first criteria
a) new HMO’s are only supported if all other properties in the shared entrance and
stairwell are already in HMO use with the benefit of planning permission. It was
established from the review documents that the other flats are not HMOs operating
with a license or planning permission. The FPRB also noted that the applicant
believed other flats in the block were occupied by students and were not
conventional owner occupier properties. The FPRB noted that the application
property had been occupied by students in the recent past but with a maximum
number of 2 residents. This level of occupancy does not constitute an HMO and
does not need planning permission. As there was no previous history of HMO use of
the flats using the shared entrance the FPRB found that this development would not
comply with criterion a). The FPRB however considered the history of the
occupation of this flat by two students, and that other flats within the block were
occupied by students, to be a material consideration. It was considered that an
additional occupant within the flat, thereby triggering the need to register the property
as an HMO, would not significantly alter the character of the flatted block. This in turn
therefore had no significant impact on the mix and balance within the residential
community surrounding this application site. The proposed HMO use therefore may
not comply with the terms of H2 a) but the actual use of the property would not
conflict with the general objective of the policy to maintain a balanced and mixed
community.
3.5
In terms of criterion b) new HMO’s are supported where there is no detrimental
impact on pedestrian or traffic safety arising from car or bicycle parking. There were
no concerns regarding this issue.
-33.6
In terms of criterion c) new HMO’s are supported where there is no detriment to the
established residential amenity or character. The FPRB noted that there were no
objections from other residents in the shared entrance and stair. The FPRB were
aware that the planning assessment should not consider the personal characteristics
of the likely residents that may occupy an HMO. In the circumstances the FPRB
considered the HMO use, would not in itself cause residential amenity concerns and
would therefore comply with criterion c).
3.7
In summary therefore the FPRB considered the change from 2 to 3 residents in the
flat to have no impact on the character of the property and that the proposed HMO
use would not conflict with the objectives of the Local Plan policy on the provision of
HMO properties.
………….………………………………………….
Iain Matheson,
Chief Legal Officer.
-4-
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
Notification to be sent to applicant on determination by the planning authority of an
application following a review conducted under section 43A(8)
Notice Under Regulation 21 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of
Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
1
If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the planning authority to refuse
permission or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed
development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant
may question the validity of that decision by making an application to the Court of
Session. An application to the Court of Session must be made within 6 weeks of the
date of the decision.
2
If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the
owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial
use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use
by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the
owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring
the purchase of the owner of the land’s interest in the land in accordance with Part V
of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland ) Act 1997.
Notice under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended
by Sections 27A and 27B of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006
You are required, prior to the development hereby approved commencing on site, to
submit written notification to Fife Council as Planning Authority (“this Council”) of the
intended date of commencement of the development. The development shall not
commence until this notification has been acknowledged in writing by this Council.
On completion of the development, you are also required to submit written
notification to this Council of this as soon as practicably possible.