Agenda item

Single storey rear and side extension.

The Committee considered the report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for a single storey rear and side extension at 68 Whinney Hill, Durham, DH1 3BD (for copy see file of minutes).

Members had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location.

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

Mr Hayton, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. In delivering a presentation to the Committee, Mr Hayton advised of various parts of the report which he believed to be incorrect, in particular that the application contravened saved policy H9. Members were presented with a map of Whinney Hill which detailed those properties which were occupied by students and those which were not. Of the 104 properties in Whinney Hill, Members were advised that 63 were student accommodation, with a population balance of 57 permanent residents compared to 330 students. Figures were also provided for Hallgarth and Green Lane in order to indicate the increasing numbers of students in those areas.

Mr Hayton advised that 10 former privately occupied properties had been converted to student accommodation, introducing 50 more students to the area. Members were shown photographs of evidencing the environmental impact which students had in the area.

Members were advised that 2 local residents had ended up leaving the area as they could no longer live in such close proximity to high numbers of students.

Mr Hayton called into question the planning system as he highlighted that in the event that the application was refused, the planning officers indicated that the development work could still go ahead.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified for Members that the issue of the property being a HMO was not for consideration, Members were only dealing with the proposed extension. In referring to paragraphs 37 and 38 of the report, Members were advised that permitted development rights applied and as such the application did not contravene policy H9.

Councillor G Holland spoke of the recurring issues with the rising student population across the City and believed the current application, if approved, would create an overload of students in Whinney Hill. Councillor Holland felt that long term stability and balance was needed in the area and if long term residents continued to be driven out of their homes, there would come a day when the city would end up being vacant for 6 months of the year.

Councillor Holland suggested that the application contravened the NPPF Part 50 as well as exceeding the 10% cap on student beds in a postcode area.

The Chairman reiterated that the HMO issue was not for Members consideration.

Councillor Kay queried why the application had been brought before the Committee for consideration if Members were unable to object to the change of use. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Planning Authority had to abide to the law and he referred Members to Paragraph 6 of the report which set out why the application had been brought before Committee.

In referring to the presentation which had been delivered by Mr Hayton, Councillor Conway queried the permitted development rights, in particular why the Committee were prohibited from commenting on the HMO aspects of the application despite there being a clear contravention of policies H9 and H13. The Principal Planning Officer explained permitted development which the government granted consents for.  Members were advised that such rights covered certain changes of use, the most recent being C3 to C4. Members were therefore advised that unless an Article 4 direction was used, then permitted development rights applied. In response to a further query from Councillor Conway, the Solicitor clarified that Article 4 was not a matter for the Committee but that officers could be asked to take on board the concerns of the Committee.

Seconded by Councillor Bleasdale, Councillor Kay moved approval of the application.

Resolved:- That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined within the report.