Agenda item

Change of use to HMO (Sui Generis).

Councillor Kay left the room and was not present for this item of business.

The Committee considered the report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for a change of use to HMO (Sui Generis) at 51 The Avenue, Durham, DH1 4EB (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer  gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. 

Members were advised that since the publication of the report various late objections had been received, including a letter of objection from the City of Durham Trust.

A summary of those late objections was provided as follows:-

• “Studentification” of the immediate area and because the application was contrary to emerging policy 32 and Local Plan policy H9.
• There had been no taking into account of cumulative impact of student occupation in the wider area in light of other permissions that had been granted.
• A wall had been demolished to create parking spaces.
• Additional burdens would be placed on policing and rubbish collections service.
• 9 people were too many people to live in the property, it would be very crammed in.
• There were inadequate facilities within the property and one bedroom was deemed to be too small.
• It was felt that the Council needed to adopt a policy seeking the restriction of the spread of student property within the city.
• There was an over supply of student housing within the city.
• The application should be refused to show that the council was putting the wider interests of residents above the interests of student landlords.
• Disagreement had been put forward in relation to the applicants statement.
• One objector stated that there was significant objection in the area regarding the site and they were concerned about the impact the works to the front garden had on the character of the area. There was no right to drive across the pavement to access parking spaces on the site.
• One objector wished it to be put on record that not all residents of The Avenue were anti students.

Councillor N Martin, local Member, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that there was much local concern regarding the application site. Councillor Martin highlighted that one room within the property was 9m², which he believed to be below the usual standard.

Members were advised that the property had previously been a family residence for many years, he therefore disputed the reference in paragraph 31 of the report which only suggested that the property may have been a C3 class family residence prior to its sale.

In referring to paragraph 15 of the report, Councillor Martin suggested that Policy 32 was not considered strong enough to support the application.

Councillor Martin suggested that NPPF part 50 should have been considered relevant, which focused on mixes of future trends. He suggested that while the NPPF was quite specific about balanced communities, this was not addressed in the planning application. Members were advised that of the 70 houses in The Avenue, 33 were now student accommodation and he therefore felt that unless a stop was put to further student lets, then the broad and balanced community as stated in the NPPF, would be undermined.

Ms A Evans, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Despite the applicant suggesting that Ms Evans was a lone objector, she confirmed to Members that she was actually one of many.

Ms Evans highlighted that while the report referenced various relevant policies, they all had in common respect for local communities. Ms Evans would therefore have expected that an application for 9 persons to share a property in The Avenue, would have been recommended for refusal.

Members were advised that no. 51 was not the only HMO in The Avenue and as such it was part of a cumulative impact.

Ms Evans advised that the rear of the property had been so neglected that it was now impossible to gain access, as such the refuse bins were being stored at the front of the property. Furthermore the 2 garages at the rear had also been neglected and were therefore not being used for parking.

Ms Evans felt that should the application be approved, the mix of the local community would become unbalanced as the student population would be in the majority. She advised that the application contravened the NPPF parts 7 and 12 as the property was not sustainable as well as contradicting saved policies H9 and H13, as the property would be empty for several months of the year. Members were advised that emerging planning policy recommended a 10% cap on student accommodation in any one postcode area.

Councillor G Holland advised that the applicant had recently applied for retrospective planning permission at the property which was subsequently refused by the Committee. Furthermore he advised that although the Committee had required the applicant to amend the damage he had done to the front of the property that had been disregarded.

Members were advised that the loss of legitimate parking spaces at the site would have incurred a financial loss for the Council and Councillor Holland suggested that should the application be approved, the County’s planning system would be weakened. Balanced communities had to be respected, however Councillor Holland felt the application did not do that.

Councillor Holland advised that the 10% postcode cap on student beds had already been exceeded in the area, he found various poor design features with the application such as one bathroom between 7 residents and he believed the application contravened saved policies H9, H13 and Q9.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• Exterior Wall – Members were advised that since the Committee had required the applicant to repair the front wall back to its original form, the applicant had produced extensive case law which cast some doubt over the situation. However following a thorough investigation, it was now apparent that the Planning Authority had acted accordingly, as such it was intended that an enforcement notice would be served;
• Mixed community – The report indicated that the property was currently a 6 bed HMO and that there would be no significant additional impact by adding 3 more rooms. There was no real difference and this had been considered in the context of the entire street;
• Policy 32 – Members were advised that as Policy 32 was only emerging policy, limited weight should be given to it.

Councillor Bleasdale moved approval of the application.

Seconded by Councillor Holland, Councillor Bell moved refusal of the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved: That the application be Refused on the basis that it contradicted saved policies H9, H12a, H13, Q9, E6, E22 and the NPPF Part 50.

Councillor Kay rejoined the meeting.