Agenda item

Erection of three terraced 6 bedroom properties for either occupation as houses in multiple occupation use (use class C4) or as family houses (use class C3) with associated alterations (amended description).

The Planning Officer, Susan Hyde, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of three terraced 6 bedroom properties for either occupation as houses in multiple occupation (HMO) use (use Class C4) or as family houses (use Class C3) with associated alterations (amended description) and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer referred Members to elevations, photographs, plans and aerial photographs and explained that the applicant owned the adjacent property to the site, 24 The Avenue.  Members learned that vehicular access was to the rear of the site via a back lane and there would be 2 car parking spaces for the site, deemed acceptable as the site was sustainable, being 0.5 miles from the City Centre. 

It was added that an on-street parking restriction was in place on The Avenue side of the site.

The Planning Officer explained that the site was within the Durham City Conservation Area and that the proposed design was in keeping with the character aspects such as bay windows, stone sills and other architectural features.  It was added that one tree at the rear of the property would be retained and had a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in place, with the remainder being small, self-seeded trees that would be removed.

The Planning Officer noted the proposed layout was for three 6 bedroomed properties and that the windows on the side elevation of 24 The Avenue would be bricked up to allow development.  It was added that the site levels were such that there was a 1 storey drop between the front and rear of the site, the front door was level with the street at The Avenue with a light well via a window below street level.

It was reiterated that the design was in keeping with the area, and that the rear off-shoot was in a traditional manner.  The Planning Officer noted that the basement layout contained all the communal spaces: kitchen; dining room; and lounge, with the first, second and third floor each would comprise 2 bedrooms and a bathroom on each. 

It was noted that the application was for C3 and C4 use, with the current student saturation being 44% within a 100m radius.  The Planning Officer noted that saved Local Plan Policy H9 required that the development would not adversely affect the character of an area and the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation noted 10% saturation before detriment to an area.  Accordingly, Officers could not support approval of C4 use.  It was added that the floor plans were indicative of C4 use and not practical in terms of the other proposed use Class C3, family dwelling. 

The Planning Officer noted there were no objections from statutory consultees, with Spatial Policy noting the 44% concentration of students, above that set out in the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.  The Committee noted there had been 10 letters of objections, including from the Crossgate Community Partnership, the Neville’s Cross Community Association and local Member, Councillor N Martin.  It was added that reasons given by objectors included: that the adjacent property 24 The Avenue was already a 25 bed property; there was already an existing consent for a property two houses further along the street; and that the addition of this number of students to the area would affect the area as they would not have any place indoors to congregate.

The Planning Officer noted that in terms of the principle of development, C3 use would not be facilitated by the proposed layout and it was also considered that C4 use would be detrimental to the area.  It was noted that had the layout been such to create C3 family dwellings, Officers potentially could have supported the application.  However, on the basis of the reasons outlined and contained within the report, Officers’ recommendation was for refusal of the application.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and asked a Local Member for Neville’s Cross, Councillor G Holland to speak in relation to the Application.

Councillor G Holland explained he was pleased to support the recommendation of the officer, noting it almost represented a watershed in planning in Durham City.  He added that the site certainly merited development, but a development that was something other than yet another HMO.  Councillor G Holland noted he felt that we could not condone a building in the guise of a C3 construction that swiftly converted to C4 once our backs were turned. 

Councillor G Holland noted that the Officer concluded within their report that, to quote “the proposed internal layout of the development is considered to be synonymous with a C4 House in Multiple Occupation.”, to which he agreed.

Accordingly, Councillor G Holland asked the Committee to support the Officer’s recommendation and refuse this application.

The Chairman thanked Councillor G Holland and asked Mr R Cornwell, Chairman of the Crossgate Community Partnership (CCP) to speak in relation to the Application.

Mr R Cornwell thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to speak and added that contrary to popular rumour, the CCP did not only come to Planning Committee to oppose Officers’ recommendations, and that they were pleased to support the Council’s Officers and urge the Committee to reject the application.

Mr R Cornwell explained that he knew from other decisions the Committee had made that they were keen to promote family housing in Durham City, this being entirely consistent with the NPPF and the Committee Report mentions Part 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes.  He added that within that part paragraph 50 had at its aim to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities and that the Interim Student Accommodation Policy had been introduced to the same purpose.

Mr R Cornwell noted that the CCP would welcome an application for a C3 use on the site, similar in appearance to the present application.  He added that this would provide much-needed family housing and go some way to redress the imbalance between student-occupied HMOs and family housing.  The CCP therefore welcomed the suggestion from the Case Officer that the applicant amend the proposal to be C3 family house use.  It was added however the response had been to revise the application to be for dual C3 and C4 use.  Mr R Cornwell noted the CCP were not clear as to the purpose of such a status, since any C4 property could be converted to a C3 use as a permitted development without reference to the Planning Authority.  It was explained that the CCP were of a view that this was a way of dressing up the  application in an attempt to make it more acceptable, but with no real change.

It was added that the draft Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) had allocated this site as being suitable for family housing within use Class C3 and while it may carry no weight at present, this plan (DCNP) was being consulted upon starting 17 February, so if the applicant were to decide to appeal, by the time that came to be decided the Neighbourhood Plan policies would have gathered some weight.

Mr R Cornwell noted that objectors had drawn attention to problems caused by anti-social behaviour by residents of 24 The Avenue, which is in the same ownership.  It was added that this did not auger well should another 18 students move in next door, as their landlord seemed to do nothing to encourage responsible behaviour.

Mr R Cornwell noted that there was not a single comment on the planning file in support of the application and the applicant had been offered the opportunity of making a statement in support but had not taken that up.  Mr R Cornwell added that the applicant’s agent suggests that he may consider an appeal and therefore Mr R Cornwell urged the Committee to refuse the application and to give comprehensive and robust reasons for that refusal.

The Chairman thanked Mr R Cornwelland asked Members of the Committee for their comments.

Councillor G Bleasdale noted that she had visited the site on the morning and that she agreed with the comments and recommendation of the Officer and therefore would move the recommendation for refusal.

Councillor D Freeman noted he would second the recommendation and felt the C3 use within the application was disingenuous, given the proposed layout of the property.  He added that policies stated that C4 use would not be acceptable and that he agreed with Councillor G Holland in that this could be a watershed moment in planning for Durham City in terms of student accommodation.

The Chairman noted that it was not a watershed moment, in the context that the Officer’s recommendation was for refusal based upon policy.

Councillor J Lethbridge noted that during the site visit he and a colleague watched Blue tits leaping branch to twig and that when he had been assigned to this Committee he had not realised much time would be spent looking at back streets and that the sobriquet of the Committee could be the “Student Properties in Durham Committee”.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted that when he descended to the rear of the site he noted that it was currently an eyesore, with wine bottles cast down by those nearby.  Councillor J Lethbridge added that he would be concerned if Members went for this on the basis of C3 use, wondering if  C4 use would be eased in somehow, he hoped not.  Councillor J Lethbridge concluded by noting he would like to see families in the area and therefore he too supported the Officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be refused; he was seconded by Councillor A Laing.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.