Agenda item

Change of use from C3 dwelling house to HMO Sui Generis (Student Accommodation).

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, JJ 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 to HMO Sui Generis (Student Accommodation) and was recommended for approval.

The Planning Officer, JJ referred Members to site plans, noting the prominent location on the busy junction of the A167 and Potters Bank and the site having garden and driveway areas. 

She explained as regards proposed elevations, noting that the existing balcony area to the rear would be removed.  Members noted current and proposed floor plans, moving from four bedrooms as existing to seven as proposed, four downstairs, three upstairs.  She added that this would represent largely internal works and the removal of the balcony as previously stated and a two-metre-high boundary fence with the adjacent property, “Russet Grey”.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted no objections from the Highways Section, noting the application site was in a sustainable location.  She explained objections had been received from the City of Durham Parish Council, noting their comments in relation to how the percentage of student Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) was calculated, with the Council’s Spatial Policy Section noting an 8.8 percent figure, below the ten percent threshold set out within the Council’s Interim Policy on student Accommodation.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted no objections from Environmental Health and the HMO Licensing Officer noting the requirements in terms of the appropriate licence.  She explained there had been a number of letters of objection from the public, as set out within the report, with issues raised including: loss of a family home; impact upon the community balance; existing student provision already in the area in terms of large PBSAs at Mount Oswald and Sheraton Park; and that a number of properties within 100 metres were used as student HMOs.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted Members were familiar with the methodology in respect of the HMO density calculation and that the figure provided by Spatial Policy was 8.8 percent.  She added that Officers felt the proposals were acceptable and the letting agent had noted they would monitor and enforce the letting agreement, provide maintenance and liaised with Colleges and Police representatives.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked Local Member, Councillor L Brown to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor L Brown thanked the Chair and noted she was at Committee as County Councillor for the Neville’s Cross Ward and wished to object to the conversion of Corner House from C3 to C4 use, noting the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation on which she based her objection stated that:

“changes of use from any use to:

·       A Class 4 (House in Multiple Occupation) where planning permission is required; or

·       A House in multiple occupation in a sui generis use (more than six people sharing)

will not be permitted if more than 10% of the total number of properties within 100m of the application site are already in use as HMOs or student accommodation exempt from Council Tax charges”

Councillor L Brown added that confusingly there were three different figures quoted as percentages of student housing within 100 metres of this property.  She noted the applicant had stated the percentage was zero, however this was the figure for the narrow postcode in which the property falls and was not the relevant figure for planning purposes.  She noted that Planning Officers had given the figure as 8.8 percent extracted from a single source of data on September 1st last year in the middle of the summer vacation.  Councillor L Brown added that Council tax exemptions would have expired on or around the 30th June for students who had graduated, and their replacements were unlikely to have claimed exemptions until October.  She noted a more accurate reading would have been obtained by using figures from the more up to date register published in April this year which includes new registrations arising from the updated HMO legislation.

Councillor L Brown explained that a third figure had been obtained by a door knocking exercise within 100 metres of the property.  She noted this had been carried out by a local resident and this was then repeated during which she was accompanied by a local Parish Councillor, who was also a Trustee of the Neville’s Cross Community Association.  Councillor L Brown noted this was to check that the findings were accurate and explained that their findings revealed that out of 45 properties within a 100-metre radius of the site, ten were occupied by students, suggesting a percentage of 22%.  She noted this figure disregards those properties which are renting out rooms to students.

Councillor L Brown noted that there was a potential discrepancy in the latter two figures which was very worrying if it were repeated throughout the City.  She noted Officers had been made aware of the problem with the figures, as it was based on residents’ concerns about the accuracy, or otherwise, of the Council’s Spatial Policy figures.  She added that she felt there was a need to review not only how the Council arrives at its percent figure from a single, now outdated source, but also how to make use of other datasets that were now available.  She lamented that it was a sad fact that no one in Durham, neither Officers, residents nor students knew exactly how many student properties there were in the city.  She added that it was now one of the priorities of the Parish Council to research the amount of student housing throughout the city and arrive at a realistic total.

Councillor L Brown explained that she felt the nub of the matter on which the Committee must decide; having listened to her address did Members now have reasonable concerns about the accuracy and robustness of the figure that was given in Paragraph 37 of the report? 

She noted that if Members were concerned, she would suggest that the application should be deferred to allow the Council’s figures to be checked. She explained that the Spatial Policy Team were relying on out of date Council Tax data, she reiterated that she was not saying it was wrong, however, she argued it may be out of date and may only reflect part of the picture.  She noted that those who lived in the City knew that some landlords would pay council tax automatically, to save themselves paperwork, and that this had yet to be compared with other sources of data.  Councillor L Brown noted she had sight of the list of student properties and visited the area and at least five of them were much closer than 100 metres away.  She noted that obviously because of data protection and privacy laws she would not disclose addresses at Committee but would liaise with Officers after Committee to allow them to check residents’ figures.

Councillor L Brown noted that as the application was being recommended for approval on the basis of the figures supplied by the Spatial Policy Team as per paragraph 61 of the Officers report she offered it up as a test case.  She added that at the risk of repeating herself, she felt that until it could be proved beyond doubt that the student occupation figures in the immediate area were correct, she would ask that the application be deferred or even refused because the data was being challenged.   

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Parish Councillor R Cornwell, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell thanked the Chair and explained that a figure of 8.8 percent HMOs within 100 metres of the application property represented three properties out of a total of 34 within that distance.  He added that the Parish Council, using Ordnance Survey data established there were 34 properties within the radius and were confident as regards this.  He explained that he believed there were in fact five properties from those 34 that were occupied by students, three being a matter of public record and two known from the door knocking exercise as described previously.  Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that this represented 14.7 percent, above the threshold as set out within the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.  He added that the postcode showing zero percent was not relevant, as the location was previously a shop and the only building to have that particular postcode.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell explained that Council Tax data from September 2018 was not reflective of the numbers currently and he would dispute the figures now, being eight months out of date.  He suggested that that if not a current figure then Members may wish to refuse the application, or Spatial Policy could look at the plausible explanation as regards a figure of 14.7 percent.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor R Cornwell and asked Ms Lucy Szableweska, local resident to speak in objection to the application.

Ms L Szableweska noted as a local resident the first she had known as regards the application was a notice attached to a nearby lamppost.  She added that given the number of student properties in the area, and the nearby PBSAs one would assume there was sufficient student accommodation.  She explained she was dismayed as regards the potential conversion of the property and could not understand why there would be a loss of housing stock, formerly a family home and a shop among other uses.

Ms L Szableweska noted that students would not have as active a role in the local community as they did not live there permanently.  She added that while not against students or student landlords, she felt that within the area there was a disproportionate number of HMOs in the area.  She noted several good student neighbours.

Ms L Szableweska noted she felt somewhat in the dark as regards how the figure for number of HMOs within 100 metres was calculated, for example was a property cut in half by a 100 metres radius be counted?  She reiterated it was not an issue with students as such, having a friendly relationship with those nearby, reminding them to put out their rubbish bins for example.  Ms L Szableweska noted the Raynsford Review of Planning which had noted the break down of communities and a need for a new community covenant.  She concluded by asking the Committee to kindly consider the comments made in objection to the application.

The Chair thanked Ms L Szableweska and asked the Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie to comment on the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer noted the issues raised as regards the percentage of HMOs within a 100-metre radius of the property.  He reminded Members of the consistent methodology that was used, as set out within the Interim Policy, noting it was robust and at planning appeals Planning Inspectors had agreed.  He noted while it had been noted there were several previous and possible uses for the property, the application before Members for consideration was for a HMO.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation sought to control the numbers of HMOs and that local plan policies referred to within the report were also those relevant to control and balance communities within the City.  He added that as the percentage of HMOs within 100 metres had been calculated to be less than ten percent, and the application was in accordance with planning policy, the recommendation was for approval.

The Policy Team Leader, Spatial Policy, Graeme Smith noted that in terms of the data used, it was as set out within the Interim Policy, paragraph 11 that:

“In order to assess the percentage of HMOs or student exempt properties within 100m of an application for an HMO, the Council will use Council Tax information consisting of those properties with Class N exemption mapped using the Council’s GIS mapping system”.

He noted that therefore it was clear which data was to be used in determining the percentage of HMOs within a 100-metre radius.  The Policy Team Leader noted mention of the data used and when it was collated, he added that the timing of when the application was submitted meant that data from September 2018 gave a percentage of 8.8.  He noted that using March 2019 data, the most up-to-date, this too gave a figure of 8.8 percent, encompassing the current academic year.

The Policy Team Leader noted the map relating to the National Land and Property Gazetteer (NLPG) was updated weekly and the Council’s Geographical Information System (GIS) was used to give a 100 metre radius buffer and the data set ran against this.  He reminded Members that the data from Council Tax was anonymised and given to Planning as a percentage figure.  He reiterated the comments of the Case Officer and the Principal Planning Officer as regards other methods and data not being that set out within the Interim Policy and therefore was not that which was used.

The Policy Team Leader noted in more general terms that some of the comments made related more to the Interim Policy itself, rather than the specifics of the proposal. It was noted that the emerging County Durham Plan includes an updated version of the Interim Policy, which has recently been subject to public consultation. The representations made as part of this consultation will be subject to discussion at the Examination in Public on the Plan.

The Chair thanked Officers and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor O Temple noted he felt the Committee was “over a barrel” in terms of the application.  He noted the Interim Policy as defined and agreed if judged against that the application would succeed.  He added that it raised issue therefore of the policy itself and the issue raised as regards student landlords paying council tax suggested a possible loophole within the policy that was open to abuse, given the relatively inexpensive cost to such landlords.  Councillor O Temple noted that unfortunately he would have to vote for the application, however, he noted that the debate had provided impetus in looking at the policies and to see if they were sufficiently robust for the future.

Councillor M Davinson noted he had attended the site visit and the property was on a prominent corner plot near to traffic lights on a busy junction and gateway into the city centre.  He asked for clarification in terms of maintaining the garden and hedge through a management plan. 

The Planning Officer, JJ reiterated that the letting agent, Harringtons, would deal with any issues at the property and had maintenance teams that could attend 24 hours a day, and carried out quarterly inspection and liaised with the University Colleges and Durham Constabulary.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter noted that if the question was whether a potential condition on hedge maintenance could be included, then he felt this would not be reasonable, as the Council has separate planning powers for untidy sites.  He added that in the context of the planning application it would be unreasonable to condition at that level of detail.

Councillor D Freeman explained he was a Member of the City of Durham Parish Council, however, was not a member of their Planning Committee and had no input into their comments on the application.  He noted that the Interim Policy seemed to be full of holes and the figures used seemed to be flawed based upon the experience of people living in the areas where such HMO applications were being submitted.  He added he felt it would be better to defer the application in order to look to being able to have more accurate figures as regards HMOs, or not approve this application.

Councillor M Davinson noted he disagreed with Councillor D Freeman and while he noted the Interim Policy may not be perfect, it was the policy in place and unfortunately the Committee had to refer to that.  He proposed that the application be approved as per the Officers report.  Councillor O Temple seconded the application.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development reiterated that the Interim Policy referred to a specific data set and therefore this was the one to consider in terms of applying the Interim Policy.  He endorsed the comments of the Policy Team Manager and the ongoing review in relation to the County Durham Plan.

RESOLVED

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