Agenda item

Change of use from C3 (dwelling house) to either C3 (dwelling house) or C4 (house of multiple occupation).

The Planning Officer, Paul Hopper, 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 C3 (dwelling house) to either C3 (dwelling house) or C4 (house of multiple occupation) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer noted a similar application had been approved by the Committee in February 2017 for a nearby property, 45 Dalton Crescent, however, the permission for this property had not been implemented.  Members were reminded of the two purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) blocks to the rear of Dalton Crescent, near completion with students to begin occupation in September 2017.

The Committee was asked to note that the change of use application was to retain an element of flexibility in terms of the applicant being able to move between the uses for family home and house in multiple occupation (HMO).  Members noted floor plans showing proposed internal changes to the layout giving 5 bedrooms and a kitchen/living area.

In terms of representations, the Planning Officer noted no objections from the Highways section, subject to an extension to the driveway to accommodate two vehicles.  It was added that colleagues in Spatial Planning Policy had provided information in terms of council tax exempt properties within 100m of the application, the measure used in determining student density, the figure being 6.5%.

It was added that there had been no objections from the Noise Action Section or the HMO Licensing Officer in terms of the application.

The Planning Officer explained there had been objections from the City of Durham Trust, the Sheraton Park Residents Association (SPRA) and one letter of objection.  Those noted that: it was felt the actual number of student properties within 100m of the property was such to give a density greater than 6.5%, and indeed greater than 10%; there were already two PBSAs directly behind Dalton Crescent; further student properties would be a detriment to the neighbourhood; and there were restrictive covenants on the properties at Dalton Crescent restricting their use to single family occupation only.

Members noted that in terms of the principle of development, the density of 6.5% was less than the 10% threshold as set out in the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.  It was explained that while the extant permission for 45 Dalton Crescent had not been implemented and therefore not considered within the 100m survey, even if that permission had been implemented, the density of Council Tax exempt properties would still have been below 10%.  It was added that while two PBSAs were due to be occupied from September, these were controlled and managed by the University.

The Planning Officer concluded by noting that, as it was felt there was not significant impact on residential amenity and that the application was in accordance with the relevant National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), saved City of Durham Local Plan, and Interim Policy on Student Accommodation, the application for change of use be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and noted that the Local Councillors for Neville’s Cross were unable to attend, however, the Committee Services Officer would read out a statement submitted by Councillors L Brown and E Scott.   

“Chairman, Members of the Committee.  Please accept the apologies of both Councillor Scott and myself, Councillor Brown.  We are unable to with you today due to other commitments but we feel that we need to comment on this application as we object to any further student accommodation in this area of Neville’s Cross.

Dalton Crescent is part of the Sheraton Park estate, built on the site of the old teacher training college.  It was envisaged as a residential estate with one of the original blocks earmarked to be luxury apartments and the other an upmarket hotel. The estate was built within an open site with plenty of community space.  Sadly the expected apartments and hotel did not materialise and the two original sites were left for several years as an eyesore (one eventually had to be demolished).  They were eventually turned into student accommodation now due to be taken over by Ustinov College, Durham University’s postgraduate arm.  The houses in the meantime have started to be let out privately and this conversion is the latest in a long line of lets, many of which have come in below the radar.

Dalton Crescent we are told in the report has 6.5% HMOs within 100m.  However my data on council tax exemptions, sent by Durham County Council’s Spatial Policy Manager gives me 8.6% for this postcode (council tax exemptions are the main indicator for student properties).  Moreover, let us look at the surrounding streets. Kirkwood Drive, the next street along, 11.3%, Faraday Court in the same estate, 28.8%.  Can I also point out that I know at least one student house in this area where one of the occupants works meaning that the property is not council tax exempt.  Then there’s the elephant in the room… two huge blocks of student accommodation behind this site which will house 418 students.  Is this a balanced community as described in NPPF paragraph 50.  This states planning requirements need to “create sustainable inclusive and mixed communities and to maintain an appropriate housing mix”.

I would ask committee to think very carefully before they grant the applicant his permission.  Parts of Durham have become student ghettos to the detriment of all Durham residents.  This area has a thriving community spirit with a mixture of ages. Approving this application may not seem like a big deal but it could be the step that leads to the loss of yet another community for no-ones benefit except that of private landlords who have no interest in the area and no investment in the local community.  Thank you Chair, for your indulgence”.

The Chairman thanked Committee Services Officer and asked Mr B Hesselink to speak in objection to the application.

Mr B Hesselink thanked the Chairman and Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted he was speaking on behalf of the SPRA in objection to the application.  He noted that the SPRA had over 130 followers on the internet and worked for a balanced community for Sheraton Park and Neville’s Cross.

Mr B Hesselink explained that residents objected to the increasing of student numbers in the area, with the two new PBSAs as mentioned due to open in September 2017.  He added that new rules were introduced in 2016 to try and give a balanced mix within communities, however more HMOs did not support this balance and therefore the application was contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 50. 

Mr B Hesselink asked that the Committee take into account the most up-to-date information, based on the students living in the area, with not all students being registered as such, with some that work paying Council Tax.  He added that those, and the volume that would be introduced by the PBSAs should be taken into account, Sheraton Park having a very high percentage of HMOs, as explained by the Local Members.

Mr B Hesselink added that there were several restrictive covenants in place on the properties within the estate, including those to prevent people running a business from their property or use their property as a HMO.  It was added that the Planning Committee should not be looking to support the breaking of such covenants, and that he would urge Members to not approve the permission to allow the property to be used as a HMO.

Mr B Hesselink reiterated that in the area there was around 30% HMOs and that to avoid student ghettos the application should be refused.  He concluded by noting that and that if the application was approved then it would appear that the new rules introduced in 2016 were not doing their job.

The Chairman thanked Mr B Hesselink and asked Mr T Swindells, the applicant to speak in relation to his application.

Mr T Swindells thanked the Chairman and noted he had lived in the property for 7 years and had bought the property from Barratt Homes on the basis of it being a family home in a residential area.  He added he felt this was a broken promise, in respect of the building of the PBSAs, and therefore the application at Committee represented the most viable option for his family.  Mr T Swindells added that the immediate neighbour had not objected to the application and there had been no complaints as regards anti-social behaviour or noise in terms of the other HMOs nearby.  Mr T Swindells noted the 10% cap on HMOs and felt this was a fair balance and also added that he would be willing to extend the driveway as mentioned by the Planning Officer.  Accordingly, Mr T Swindells asked that Members approve the application.

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

Councillor J Robinson noted that he clearly understood the issues raised by the residents’ associations though noted where applications which had been refused had been subsequently approved at appeal.  He added that the policy was set and that he therefore supported the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J Robinson moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor A Laing.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.