Events described as “bizarre”, “peculiar” and “silly” after borough councillors decide not to decide a planning application

The proposed HMO at 7 Nuthall Circle, Kirk Hallam. Image from Google.

By Eddie Bisknell – Local Democracy Reporting Service

Derbyshire councillors have decided not to decide a planning application in a move branded “bizarre”, “peculiar” and “silly”.

At an Erewash Borough Council meeting last night (Wednesday, March 11th), councillors refused to make a decision on a planning application for a five-bedroom HMO, which did not require planning permission under permitted development rights.

After extensive discussions, including legal and planning advice, openly bemused councillors with self-confessed “headaches” voted in favour of non-determination – not making a decision – on the plans from a Mr Colton for a semi-detached house in Nuthall Circle, Kirk Hallam.

Following the meeting, committee chairman Cllr Harrison Broadhurst said: “It is a novel solution to a silly situation.”

Erewash Mayor, Cllr Harry Atkinson, said: “If you play silly games you get silly prizes”, an indirect reference to a phrase popularised by Taylor Swift.

Council planners, recommending approval, had written in a report ahead of the meeting: “It is a mystery why the applicant submitted a planning application at all.

“Given the fact that all elements of the proposal are permitted development and therefore could be carried out without the need for planning permission, it would be demonstrably unreasonable to refuse the application.”

The application received 33 objection letters due to a lack of existing parking, drainage issues, potential noise and disruption, and the impact on neighbours.

During the meeting, Helen Naylor, who has lived in Nuthall Circle for 30 years, said the homes were built by Stanton (Ironworks) and that the property carried a legal covenant requiring it to be used only for a single-family home.

She said: “This is a wonderful place to live, we don’t have any problems with anti-social behaviour. These HMOs bring crime and drug use. There have been objections from nearly everyone who lives in the street, nobody wants them.

“Everywhere these have been allowed in Erewash, it has been a nightmare. It is obvious this is a foot in the door for a 10-person HMO in the future (by purchasing the adjoining property).

“I know you don’t take house value into account, but nobody is going to want to live there anymore.”

Cllr Simon Mabbott, a Derbyshire county councillor, said: “These HMOs are having a big impact on communities. This is a family home.

“In excess of 100 people have contacted me about this application.

“I think we should be looking for affordable homes instead of ramming people into family homes.”

He urged for the application to at least be deferred for further reports into drainage and the restricted covenant.

Steve Birkinshaw, the council’s head of planning, called the application “peculiar”, saying: “Nothing in this application requires planning permission. Even if the committee refuses permission, it could still happen.

“It would be unreasonable to issue a refusal.”

Boos from the public gallery rang around the chamber after this statement, with one man saying: “You ought to be ashamed of your sen [sic].”

Cllr Atkinson said: “I am not a fan of HMOs, I totally understand the passion of the residents. I do not think HMOs are good for society.

“I think we should abstain and push this application into the future, forcing the issue back onto the applicants.”

Cllr Andrew Prince said: “Everybody here appreciates why this isn’t desirable. I am not against HMOs, but they need to be in the right place.”

Cllr Geoff Stratford said: “It is in the wrong place. We are not in the business of building or allowing the building of prison cells, and we can only express our disappointment by abstaining.”

Mr Birkinshaw said the owner of the covenant is the only one who can enforce its restriction, not the council or neighbours.

Ellie Walters, the council’s legal manager, said abstaining could be treated as non-determination (not making a decision) and would be open to appeal.

Non-determination, she said, would also be open to judicial review.

Cllr Atkinson said councillors ought to vote for non-determination, instead of abstaining.

Ms Walters said this would be a “deemed refusal”, and the applicant could appeal.

She nodded when asked if this could “land us in a bit of legal trouble”.

Mr Birkinshaw said the council would also be liable to pay appeal costs because it would be “unreasonable to refuse permission for something that already has consent”.

Cllr Sam Revill said: “We are powerless in this situation. Nobody wants this to happen, and all we can do is put a good face on it. We can refuse it and cost us and taxpayers thousands of pounds and it can just happen anyway. We are going around in circles. Our hands are tied.”

Cllr Kevin Miller said: “They don’t need to appeal because they can do it anyway.”

Councillors voted nine to three in favour of “non-determination”, with Cllr Broadhurst announcing: “The council will not determine this application.”