Agenda item

DM/17/02274/FPA - 16 Bradford Crescent, Gilesgate, Durham

Change of use from a family house C3 to C4 house (4 bed) in multiple occupation.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for change of use from a family house C3 to C4 house (4 bed) in multiple occupation (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor Corrigan referred Members to page 22 of the report where Officers had made much of the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework. As with much legislation and policy, interpretation as to weighting was critical in making planning decisions and as such care must be taken with analysis.

Much was made in the report of the over-riding message that new development that was sustainable should go ahead without delay – however it was clear from this application that this was not a new development at all – the property itself was over 60 years old and having been used as a bail hostel up until recently the property had been used for multiple occupation. The comments in the report could therefore be discounted.

The reason that the application was called into the Committee by local members was due to the deep resentment that the local community had expressed at a range of previous public meetings related to planning applications. Planning Officers experienced the aggression and unrest that a previous application for a development on the estate had caused. That application was withdrawn in the light of the possibility of further anti-social behaviour and it was Councillor Corrigan’s contention that this application would be viewed by the neighbourhood in a similar light and had been submitted at an inopportune time, before the problems being experienced by residents had been adequately addressed by the Council and other agencies.

In this respect the NPPF provided reasons for turning down an application as follows:-

Paragraph 17 stated that ‘within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking’. These 12 principles included finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people lived their lives. In this application there was no positive benefit to the community.

Paragraph 56 attached great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design was a key aspect of sustainable development, was indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It was possible that the application would have a detrimental effect on the community.

Paragraph 58 noted that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments ‘created safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, did not undermine quality of life or community cohesion’. This was not the case given the response of the local community.

Paragraph 69 indicated that planning policies and decisions, in turn, ‘should aim to achieve places which promoted safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion’. There was nothing in the report to contradict the possibility of increased anti-social behaviour within the community should this development go ahead.

On this basis the Member encouraged colleagues to take her objections and concerns into consideration. Councillor Corrigan moved refusal of the application.

 

The Planning Officer responded to the points made by Councillor Corrigan. Members were advised that the application also had to be considered within the Council’s Planning Policy Framework.  In accordance with the aim of the NPPF to promote mixed communities, the Council’s Interim Policy stated that applications for C4 development would not be supported if more than 10% of the total number of properties within 100m of the application site were also in use as HMO’s. The percentage level in this location was lower than the threshold and accorded with the Policy, and should therefore be permitted subject to there being no detrimental impact on residential amenity.

 

This property had not been occupied as a typical family home, but by individuals in the judicial system or single homeless people, and this had led to complaints from residents. When an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness had been submitted by the applicant there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the property was already a House in Multiple Occupation. However, the scheme proposed mixed accommodation and the agent currently managed student accommodation, and it was felt that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed HMO would be materially more harmful in terms of loss of residential amenity or car parking.

 

Councillor Temple referred to the applicant’s statement which advised that the property already had the appropriate approval for its current use as a bail hostel. The Member asked if the property could therefore remain as a bail hostel if the application was refused, or if the building was not currently being used appropriately, the application would legitimise a potential enforcement situation.

 

The Planning Officer responded that prior to the implementation of the Article 4 Direction in September 2016, the dwelling could be occupied as either a C3 or C4 use class without consent. A bail hostel was occupied by three or more people with shared facilities but as the applicant had been unable to provide evidence of this occupation it had not been possible to determine the use class.  This application sought to regularise the situation and although the end users of the property were unknown the application must be considered on the basis of C4 use.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Clark, the Member was informed that Management Plans were implemented for larger accommodation; this property was a family-sized home.

 

Councillor G Bleasdale seconded Councillor Corrigan’s motion to refuse the application.

 

The Solicitor clarified with Members the exact reasons for the motion to refuse the application and advised that paragraph 56 of the NPPF would not be a sustainable reason at it was about built development, whereas the application was for a change of use.  Members accepted this advice and it was:

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

 

The change of use from a C3 family house to a C4 house in multiple occupation would not provide a positive benefit to the community, is considered to detract from the residential amenity of the area by virtue of noise and disturbance to residents from additional comings and goings, additional traffic movements from a dwelling that has no off street parking and an increase in crime and disorder and a fear of crime and disorder. For these reasons the application is not considered acceptable and is considered to be contrary to paragraphs 17, and 58 of the NPPF and policy T1 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.

 

Supporting documents: