Agenda item

Change of use from C3 to C4 property.

The Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings, 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 to C4 property and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer explained that the property was at the end of a cul-de-sac, with units of Dragonville Park to the rear of the property.  Members noted that there was an integral garage and a driveway, and there were no proposed alterations to the property.

The Planning Officer noted no objections from the Highways Section, having commented that there was sufficient parking provision. 

The Planning Officer noted that Belmont Parish Council had objected to the application, noting: loss of an affordable family house at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac; loss of residential amenity from potential noise; and impact upon parking.

The Planning Officer noted that the Council’s Spatial Policy Team noted that 2.6 percent of properties within a 100-metre radius were in use as houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), less than the 10 percent threshold set out in the Council’s Interim Policy relating to student accommodation.  Councillors noted no objections from Environmental Health.

It was explained there had been three letters of objection, two from the Local Divisional Members, and one from Durham Constabulary.  It was noted the comments had been similar to that of the Parish Council and also included comparisons to Laburnum Avenue where Police had been called to deal with complaints specifically related to HMO properties and concerns regarding an increase in the fear of crime that could be created by letting property out as an HMO.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was in line with the Interim Policy relating to student accommodation and there was not anticipated to be any serious impact in an increase of one student from two to three occupying the property.  She added that the site was in a sustainable location and as the application was in accord with policies the recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Barbara Howarth, representing Belmont Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor B Howarth thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted she was the Chairman of the Planning Committee of Belmont Parish Council. 

She noted that the Parish Council had concern in terms of the proposals for the property at the bottom of a narrow cul-de-sac, a two-storey semi-detached house, adjoining 14 Bevan Grove, near to numbers 11 and 12.  She added that the cul-de-sac was used as a turning head and that 13 Bevan Grove had parking for one vehicle within the garage, if vacant, and one vehicle on a driveway.  Parish Councillor B Howarth noted that consequently any additional vehicles would have a negative effect, contrary to saved City of Durham Local Plan Policy T1. 

Parish Councillor B Howath noted that Durham Constabulary had raised concerns, and that the Committee report set out their full letter.  She explained that the size of the house lacked the necessary amenity space for three unrelated individuals and added that students were not static, they changed year on year.  It was noted that paragraph 43 of the Officer’s report set out that “…HMO accommodation occupied by students does result in differing patterns of activity to a standard family household…”.

Parish Councillor B Howarth noted that it was stated within the report that student density within the area was less that the 10 percent threshold within the interim policy, however, she explained that only a few hundred metres away, and visible on the map shown by the Officer in their report, there was a large PBSA at Ernest Place, and therefore it was felt that the area had a good share of students.

Parish Councillor B Howarth noted there was concern in the removal of affordable family housing from the market and that the grant of change of use from C3 to C4 use could set a precedent and was contrary to saved policies H9, H10 in respect of loss of amenity for neighbours, and T1 as previously described.  She noted that the Parish Council therefore asked that the Committee refuse the application. 

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor B Howarth and asked Mr Andrew Wilkinson, owner and applicant to speak in support of his application.

Mr A Wilkinson thanked Members for the opportunity to speak and noted that while the Highways Section had raised no objections, he had offered to pave the front garden to provide three car parking spaces if required, although he preferred not to and indeed Highways had said it was not necessary. 

Mr A Wilkinson stated the application to increase from two to three student use came from the current students occupying the property, they were wishing to have a friend live in addition.  He noted two of those would complete their studies and be working next year, with the other being a post-graduate student.  He added that the location was in general considered too far out from the city centre for students.

Mr A Wilkinson explained that he handpicked the tenants and he spoke to local residents to ensure there was no problem or complaints.  He gave examples where those currently living in the property had helped clear snow in the cul-de-sac and help a neighbour to assemble furniture.

Mr A Wilkinson noted that the comments from the Police as regards Laburnum Terrace and in general seemed to refer more to the viaduct area of the city centre than Bevan Grove at Gilesgate. 

He noted that he had made it very clear to the tenants that the property was not “party central” and if that was what they wanted then they should go elsewhere.

Mr A Wilkinson noted the student density was below the threshold for the area and he noted that his experience of students in the property over the last few years had been a positive one.  He added that the option those young people were choosing in terms of living in a shared house gave them the option to save up for a mortgage, having four sons himself he could empathise with that situation.

Mr A Wilkinson concluded by reiterating that the application had no building works associated, and he would ask the Committee to support their Officer’s recommendation for approval.

The Chairman thanked Mr A Wilkinson and, with no further comments from the Officers, asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor M Davinson asked as regards clarity on the number of letters of objection, as set out at paragraph 25 of the report.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the number was three, one each from two of the Local Divisional Members, and one from Durham Constabulary, none from local residents.

Councillor I Jewell noted there was always an element of objection in terms of any application before Committee.  He noted the property already had two students living there and that if Members refused the application, it would still have students living there.  He added that if the property was a family home, there could indeed be more that three people living there, with potential for more issues in terms of vehicles and parking than a student property with three tenants.  Councillor I Jewell noted it was very interesting that there had been no objections from residents.

Councillor P Taylor asked why the Police had objected now, given no evidence of any incidents in the past at the location.

Councillor O Temple asked as regards the change of use application, and whether it would go forward with the property if it was sold in the future.  He noted the current owner seemed a model landlord, however, he asked what could be done in terms of the future and asked if the decision opened up the avenue for other such changes of use or would each be upon their own merits.

The Principal Planning Officer noted the application was for change of use from C3 to C4.  He added if an extension was proposed or for larger numbers then this would require the appropriate permission.  He noted the current floorspace and licencing appeared to limit this to three at present. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that this was not to say those elements could not come forward by way of an application in the future, and that should the change of use be granted it would be for the property itself going forward.

Councillor J Robinson noted that in some cases the student houses in the city were little more than coalhouses and he felt that if the numbers in the property were less than six then he did not object. 

He added that he would have liked to have heard from the Local Members as regards where their information had come from and noted he was saddened by comments regarding “the fear of crime”, noting the vast majority of students were good people.

Councillor D Freeman noted the actual high density of students in the area, given the nearby PBSA and while he understood there were little grounds for refusal he noted he felt concerns for the future of such areas.

Parish Councillor B Howarth noted for clarity that there were four letters of objection, the Parish Council’s, the two Local Members and Durham Constabulary.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Parish Council’s objections had been set out within its own paragraph within the report.

Councillor I Jewell sought clarification on the comment made by Councillor D Freeman on the student density in the area, whether it was high or was low.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that while there was the PBSA in the local area, the figures are an assessment of small-scale HMOs in the area, though having the PBSA did raise the number of students living in the area.

Councillor P Taylor asked as regards what grounds the Local Members had called-in the application to Committee.  The Principal Planning Officer referred to paragraph two of the report, Local Members having cited impact on amenity and the character of the area, and issues in terms of parking.  Councillor P Taylor added he did not see the objections from the Police as being justified.

Councillor O Temple noted that Local Members had stated an issue in terms of parking, however, there were no letters of objection from residents.  He added that while the Highways Section had stated no additional parking was required, the application had stated willingness to provide additional spaces.  He asked for advice in terms of this element.

The Highway Development Manager, John McGargill explained that the parking was in line with a standard residential street, with three bed units having an internal garage and driveway., he noted some properties in the area had extended and only had single driveways.  He noted that the Highways Section could not recommend refusal on the basis of the parking provision, and while he would not object to the applicant’s offer as regards additional provision, he would also not object in terms of the current provision.

Councillor I Jewell moved that the application be approved, Councillor P Taylor seconded the motion.

RESOLVED

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