Agenda item

Change of use from Class C3 Dwelling House to Class C4 House in Multiple Occupation.

The Planning Officer 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 change of use from Class C3 Dwelling House to Class C4 House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Officer reminded Members of 2 purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) buildings, to be ready for use in September 2017.  It was explained that the proposals were mainly in terms of changes to internal layout and that there had been no objections from statutory consultees.  It was added that a figure of 8.2% had been returned when looking at Council Tax exempt properties within a 100 metre radius, below the level of 10% as set out within the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.  It was noted that this was the data used by the Spatial Policy Section, and the Council Tax data used was considered to be a robust data set.

 

Members noted objection from the City of Durham Trust on the grounds that while the concentration of HMOs within 100 metres was currently below 10%, there was planning permission for 2 large PBSA blocks close the rear of the property.

  

The Planning Officer added that there had been 20 letters of objection to the application, and not 19 as set out at paragraph 35, with 2 letters of support having been received.  Members noted the reasons for objection and support were summarised and set out within the report.

 

The Planning Officer noted that in terms of the principle of development, data had shown that the density of student properties within 100 metres was 8.2%, less than the 10% set out within the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.  It was added that while there were 2 PBSAs that would be occupied from September, in terms of disturbance there would be a number of mitigation measures in place as regards levels of noise and a single HMO within such an area would not be so significant as to warrant refusal.  It was added that there had been no objections from the Highways Department and that, as the proposals were considered to be in line with policy, the recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and noted there were several speakers registered and asked Councillor G Holland, a Local Member, to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor G Holland thanked the Chairman and noted that the determination of the application pivoted on a single point: does this addition of another C4 property in this locality take the total number of C4 properties above 10% within the immediate 100 metre vicinity?

 

It was explained that paragraph 22 of the Officer’s report noted that Spatial Planning Policy had indicated that, applying the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation, 8.2% of the properties within 100 metres of the site were currently occupied as HMOs.  It was noted however, in paragraph 25 of the same report, amongst the 20 or so objections, there was the claim that “The concentration of HMOs within the area was already over 10%.”  Councillor G Holland explained that for that reason he had asked the application be brought to Committee so that claim, and the associated Article 4 Notice, could be tested.

 

Councillor G Holland added that the report noted that there were 61 houses identified in this immediate vicinity relevant to the calculation and 5 of those houses were already classed as C4 properties using Council Tax criteria.  It was explained that 6 houses at C4, to include 45 Dalton Crescent, would make it 9.8%, just allowed, but any number over that would exceed the 10% threshold. 

 

However, apart from the 5 agreed houses that are HMOs, 4 other houses were identified by residents as being HMOs either with an unidentified C4 category or as a C3 acting as C4.  Councillor G Holland emphasised that this was the crucial test of the validity of the application as even one of the 4 houses within this cluster would have taken the C4 category over the limit.

 

Councillor G Holland had therefore asked those making the claim to identify clearly any additional C4 properties in the vicinity but the information was, to his mind, inadequate.  Councillor G Holland explained he also discussed the claim with the Case Officer prior to the Committee meeting to see if he could cast any light on these claims and his own research had indicated that the evidence was not robust.

 

Councillor G Holland concluded that in the absence of robust evidence, Committee would probably be unwise to turn down this application, however, his fellow Local Member; Councillor N Martin wished to ask further questions on this matter.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor G Holland and asked Councillor N Martin, the other Local Member for the area to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor N Martin explained that he had spoken to the Case Officer last week as regards the other 5 properties being used as C4 properties, with another 2 properties that were thought to be used as C4.  Councillor N Martin noted that it would be interesting to note which 5 properties the Planning Officer had listed as HMOs as if they were not the same as the 5 Councillor N Martin knew about then the number of HMOs would be greater, and the application today would therefore take the density beyond 10%.  Councillor N Martin asked if some of the properties were not Council Tax exempt, for example 1 person living in an HMO was not a student, did those properties count.  He added that any sensible policy would count those properties, with those HMOs having a majority of students living there.  

 

Councillor N Martin added that in regards to the 2 new PBSAs, some parts were less than 100 metres away, and as PBSAs were divided in terms of Council Tax exempt properties, and that some parts would be empty and therefore “Council Taxable” within the 100 metre radius in September 2017. 

Accordingly, Councillor N Martin noted that he felt that the Committee should consider that the density would be greater than 10% in 6-7 months’ time and therefore the policy would be breached.  It was added that it was another case of over-studentification, which was what the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation was all about.  Councillor N Martin noted that many students in this area would be postgraduates, however the spirit, if not the letter of the policy was being breached.  Accordingly, Councillor N Martin asked that the Committee turn down the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor N Martin, adding that he felt knocking on doors to canvass whether students were occupying a property would not give professional and robust information.

 

The Chairman added that while Councillor N Martin was asserting that policy may be breached in the future, the Committee must look at the application in front of it today, with the information given to Members stating a current density of 8.2% and Councillor G Holland noting that should the application be granted that this would take it to 9.8%.  The Chairman added that he was uncomfortable with anecdotal evidence, feeling that was not a professional or sound basis for Members to make decisions.

 

The Planning Officer explained that the PBSAs were currently unoccupied and the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation stated “already in use” when considering HMOs.  It was added that information as regards the 5 properties which had been identified from Council Tax records as HMOs was subject to data protection.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted personal data could not be divulged.   

 

Councillor N Martin noted he resented being called unprofessional.  The Chairman noted he had not called Councillor N Martin himself unprofessional, rather that anecdotal evidence as a basis for decision making was unprofessional.

 

Councillor N Martin reiterated that he was not asking for a specific individual address or details, rather just to confirm that the 5 properties he had identified as HMOs were the same as identified by the Authority.  He added that he was asking as a matter of fact and felt that it was not a data protection issue.  Councillor N Martin noted that if they were not the same then this was evidence of additional properties.  Councillor N Martin added he did not see where the specific personal data would be in this exchange.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he disagreed and felt there would be a data protection issue.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development added that the criteria as set out in the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation was for 10% density, based upon Council Tax exemptions, not from other data sources and therefore he felt that it was not possible to depart from what was set out in the Policy.

 

The Chairman asked if Officers from the Spatial Policy Section could help clarify some of the issues.

 

The Spatial Policy Team Leader, Graeme Smith noted that the information used was Council Tax exemptions, “any property wholly occupied by students”, as per Class N.  It was added that the dataset used was Council Tax records from June 2016 and the bespoke figure for the 100 metre radius around the property being considered was generated from this.  It was reiterated that the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation set out the 100 metres and use of Council Tax exemptions.  It was explained that nationally the use of Council Tax exemptions had been recognised by the Planning inspectorate and the method was gaining currency as a way of understanding student densities.

 

The Spatial Policy Team Leader added that there were very specific terms and conditions in the use of Council Tax data and any information that could give away personal details was not permitted, hence the information being presented as a percentage figure.

 

The Spatial Policy Team Leader added that looking at the issue of alternative data sources there were 2 considerations, firstly it was not as proscribed by the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation and secondly it was likely that the data would be less reliable than that from Council Tax records, with Council Tax records being one complete dataset, compiled at the same time using a consistent methodology.

 

The Chairman reiterated that he wished for matters to be conducted professionally and for respect between the Chair, the Committee, and other Councillors. 

 

The Chairman thanked the Local Ward Members and Officers for their comments and asked Mr A Todd, the applicant to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Mr A Todd noted that he was a graduate of Durham University and explained he had lived at 45 Dalton Crescent for 7 years and had hosted students and was not aware of any negative issues in terms of student behaviour in the area.

 

Mr A Todd explained that he had checked with the Planning Department prior to application to find the density of student accommodation was 8.2% and therefore on that basis he had then moved to the full planning application stage.  Mr A Todd reiterated that there were not major structure changes, rather a change of use and internal layout changes and added that a Management Agent would be used and therefore they would check references of potential tenants.  It was added that there would be no more than 2 cars permitted at the property.

 

Mr A Todd concluded by noting that the application would not breach the 10% student density as set out in the Interim Policy and there had been no objections from the statutory and internal consultees, including Highways and therefore he would ask the Committee to approve the application as per the recommendation.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr A Todd and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

 

Councillor P Conway noted he felt the debate was becoming similar to “how many angels could dance on the head of a pin” and added that the issue was regards data being such that density of student properties was 8.2%. 

Councillor P Conway added that he noted the data was from June 2016 and would have hoped for a later baseline.  Councillor P Conway added that, in terms of the data collected, there appeared to him to be a discrepancy between those registered and those not registered as Council Tax exempt and however unsatisfactory this baseline was felt to be, he felt that on the basis of the Interim Policy it must be accepted.  Councillor P Conway added that the property was a reasonable town house and he felt intuitively that he should oppose the application; however he could not on the basis of the facts.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted he had some concerns and was not convinced by the arguments in terms of the student density put forward by Officers and felt that Councillor N Martin’s questions had not been answered.  Councillor D Freeman added that that Council Tax data was June 2016, however the majority of the changes to student population were in September/October of each year and therefore he felt it could be argued that the data was not sound. 

 

Councillor D Freeman also felt that in the approval of the 2 PBSAs near to the application meant that in effect that the density would end up greater than 10% and that this had been accepted by the Council.  Councillor D Freeman noted that as he was unhappy with the information provided, he did not support the application.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted the points that had been raised; however, the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation was in place and therefore was to be used.  Councillor M Davinson noted the issues of whether the policy was fit for purpose or in terms of the robustness of data could be argued, however, the application was for determination with the current policy and using the data as provided.

 

Councillor J Lethbridge reflected upon the colliery houses from the 19^th Century and how, whilst compact accommodation, they were built to last.  He added he was not impressed by the architecture of the properties in the area being considered and he imagined that the buildings would look sad in a few years’ time.  Councillor J Lethbridge felt that the issues raised deserved examination and also we should look to have families living in such areas to avoid a “desertification” of our City and allow students to take over.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted that as Councillors P Conway and M Davinson had pointed out the Committee must go with the policies that were in place.

 

Councillor M Davinson moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor P Conway.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out in the report.