Agenda item

Change of use and extension from C3 dwelling to 7 bedroom sui generis student HMO with internal alterations, conversion of loft space, and single storey rear extension.

The Planning Officer, Susan Hyde gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies 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 application was for change of use and extension from C3 dwelling to 7 bedroom sui generis student HMO with internal alterations, conversion of loft space, and single storey rear extension and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Committee noted that the application had been brought to Committee at the request of Local Members, Councillor P Conway and Councillor B Moir for the reasons of the size of the expansion of the property and as two other properties in the street had similar applications agreed recently.

Members noted that there had been no objections raised by statutory or internal consultees; however the City of Durham Trust did note that objecting to this application, being the last house on the street not in student use would be “like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted”.  It was added that Durham Constabulary had noted concerns as regards the impact of HMO in terms of parking and also community cohesion.

The Chairman noted there were no registered Speakers, however, asked if the Local Members, who were Members of the Committee, wished to speak before wider questions and comments on the application.

Councillor B Moir noted he had requested the application be brought to Committee in order to highlight the plight of this side of Durham and the density of students within this postcode area.  Councillor B Moir noted the “last in the street” comments of the City of Durham Trust and asked whether the Local Planning Authority was in the business of creating student ghettos, adding that families would likely wish to move to the area if all the properties were not HMO. 

Councillor B Moir added that there was a large student development at the site of the former Durham Light Infantry Public House and therefore asked what density of students there was in this postcode.  Councillor B Moir noted that if the two sites were separated by an Electoral Division boundary, citing this as a mitigating factor in terms of density would be spurious, adding he felt there was an unacceptable density of student population.

Councillor P Conway noted he agreed with the comments of his fellow Local Member, Councillor B Moir and added that the comments made by Durham Constabulary were very perceptive as he, along with the other Local Members Councillor K Corrigan and Councillor B Moir, had received numerous comments from local residents as regards the issue of displaced parking.  Councillor P Conway added that Paragraph 32 of the report noted insensitive rear extensions to other buildings in the area that implied that over time there was negative impact from those applications.  Councillor P Conway added that there had been no objections from the Highways Section in terms of parking, citing excellent public transport links and close proximity to the city centre, however, there was impact in terms of the displaced parking as previously mentioned, including on nearby purpose built homes for retired people and in terms of emergency vehicles struggling to negotiate the parked cars in this area.  Councillor P Conway noted with the number of bedrooms being proposed in this application and the density of HMO properties at Wynyard Grove and asked whether this was a return to the tenements of 1930s Durham.  Councillor P Conway noted the comments of the City of Durham Trust and highlighted that an Article 4 Direction would hopefully soon be enshrined to enable Members to “close the stable door”.

The Chairman noted the strength of feeling from the Local Members on this matter, however, asked should Members wish to recommend refusal in contrast to the professional Officer’s recommendation that this be made in terms of planning policy.  The Chairman asked if the Planning Officer could respond to the comments and questions from the Local Members. 

The Planning Officer noted that several properties were student properties, however, as they were less than 6 bedrooms, they did not constitute a HMO and should Members be minded to refuse the application, there was a possibility that the application may choose to develop in a similar manner.  In terms of the Article 4 Direction, the Planning Officer noted that this would be for public consultation initially; however there would be stipulations in terms of student densities of 10% per postcode.  It was added that historically there would be a number of postcodes with 80% - 90% student densities and therefore if some of those remaining residents wished to move out of what had effectively become a student area, was there not a case in terms of protecting the rights of those individuals in being able to do so.

Councillor J Robinson noted that planning applications needed to demonstrate sustainability and given the thousands of student flats within Durham and not enough students to fill them, what community was going to be left without any people to occupy these properties. 

Councillor J Robinson noted he was horrified to see an application for 7 bedrooms in what was a 2 bedroom house and asked was there not issues in terms of fire safety having 2 bedrooms contained within the loft space.  The Chairman noted the concerns raised and the good intentions in terms of safety; however felt that the safety issues would be an issue for Building Control.

Councillor B Moir proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of Local Plan Policy H9, HMOs and Policy H13, impact on character and local amenity. 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it needed to be clear which aspects of those policies the application was in conflict with.  Members were reminded of the possibility of the undertaking a 6 bedroom scheme  under existing permitted development  rights, and that at any potential appeal of a refusal decision, the additional harm of 7 bedrooms in comparison to the 6, which would be permitted development,  would likely be questioned.

Councillor M Davinson recalled cycle parking in lieu of car parking for other student developments and asked whether this was appropriate for this application.

Councillor J Clark noted that reasons to support refusal could include conflict with: NPPF Part 7 – requiring good design as the application did not seem to have any communal space and only 2 bathrooms for 7 people; and NPPF Part 12 – conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Councillor J Lethbridge noted some sympathy with the Local Members and also with the concerns raised by Councillor J Robinson.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted the comments of Durham Constabulary adding that in his experience when the Police felt the need to comment it was worth consideration.  Councillor J Lethbridge expressed his concern as regards the disturbing and inexorable advancement of HMOs and added that it was important how Members were able to express their concern that our society, in parts, was being put at risk.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted that Members could look to conflict between the application and the policies as stated by Councillors B Moir and J Clark, adding that there was no slight on the Planning Officer, however, he felt Members would be at fault if they did not express their concerns in this regard. 

Councillor K Dearden noted she did not believe in the sustainability of the further creation of student HMOs in Durham adding that there must be similar situations in other cities and therefore could there not be scope to bring some pressure in terms of legislative change, and in the context of devolution for the region.

Councillor J Robinson agreed in terms of Councillor J Clark’s comments that there was conflict with NPPF Part 7, as he felt the design was not good in terms of fire safety.  Councillor B Moir also agreed with Councillor J Clark and therefore cited this as another reason for recommending refusal, adding that in terms of Local Plan Policy H13, it would be the greater impact on the amenity of Gilesgate, not just Wynyard Grove.

Councillor G Bleasdale noted her support of the comments made by the other Committee Members, adding that she believed that there were many student properties that were not occupied or not at full capacity and therefore such additional student properties were not needed.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the reasons as cited by Councillor B Moir in terms of Policies H9, H13 and NPPF Part 7 as being reasonable, however he was not satisfied with the reason of fire safety as that issue was controlled outside of the planning system.     

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be refused; he was seconded by Councillor P Conway.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED on the following grounds:

The change from a two bedroom C3 dwelling to a sui generis 7 bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) is considered to detract from the character and residential amenity of the area and adversely impact on the concentration of HMO properties in this location to the detriment of the available housing stock.  In addition the proposal is considered to provide inadequate residential facilities for 7 bedrooms.  This is considered to be contrary to Policy H9 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004 and Part 7 of the National Planning Framework.