Agenda item

DM/19/00702/FPA - 7 Dryburn Hill, Durham

Change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to small HMO (use class C4) with 5 bedrooms and associated car parking.

Minutes:

The Planning Officer, Susan Hyde, 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, SH 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 dwelling (use class C3) to small HMO (use class C4) with 5 bedrooms and associated car parking and was recommended for approval.

 

The Planning Officer, SH referred Members to aerial photographs of the site and noted the location north of the city centre, towards Framwellgate Moor, with the University Hospital of North Durham (UHND) to the south of the application site.  Members were shown proposed elevations of the property and floorplans, with the Planning Officer, SH noting proposed car parking arrangements for five vehicles, with an area of land owned by the applicant that had not been previously fenced off to be used.  She added that pedestrian access to cul-de-sac ran alongside the property boundary and that there was a shared access with a neighbouring property at the rear.  Members noted the proposed boundary treatments and the location of a bus stop near to the property.  The Planning Officer, SH explained that it was proposed for five bedrooms, all en suite, with only minor external alterations, with no proposed extensions to the property.

 

The Planning Officer, SH noted that the Highways Section had offered no objections to the application and Spatial Policy had noted a figure of 4.8% for HMOs within 100 metres of the property, noting the data used being that from March 2019.  She added that Environmental Health had also offered no objections to the application.  Members were asked to note that Durham Constabulary had raised objection in terms of change of use of properties, especially within a cul-de-sac having the potential for more anti-social behaviour, though they had clarified that there had been no police complaints within the last 12 months.

 

The Planning Officer, SH explained that representations had been made by the City of Durham Civic Trust and Local Residents in objection to the application, as set out within the report noting issues including: bins; fencing/boundary treatment; access and impact upon the nearby bus stop; more comings and goings in an area where children play; and whether occupants would be students or those in recovery for substance abuse.

 

The Planning Officer, SH noted that the application was in line with policy and Officers felt there would not be negative impact upon residential amenity and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, SH and asked Local Member, Councillor M Wilkes to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor M Wilkes thanked the Chair and noted he did not support the application and would ask the Committee to refuse the application for the following reasons.  He firstly referred Members to saved Local Plan Policy H9 and also concurred with the comments made on a previous application by Councillor L Brown in terms of the issue of the numbers of HMOs within an area and some not being registered, and the impact upon existing properties within an area.  He added that the application area of Durham Moor, while outside of the city centre, was not immune to such issues and he felt that there would be detrimental impact upon the area.

Councillor M Wilkes noted that in the period of the property being empty and with unemptied bins this was in breach of Policy H9, adversely affecting the character of the location.

 

Councillor M Wilkes added that he felt the application was contrary to Policy T1 in terms of access on to the proposed driveway from the busy, main arterial route, with a nearby bus stop compounding issues.  He noted that he did not think drivers on this road would expect cars to be reversing out on to the main road, though this was a possibility in terms of the application as set out.  He added that also there would be cars crossing across the pavement and therefore the application was contrary to saved Policy T1 in terms of pedestrian and highway safety.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted saved Policy H13 referred to impact upon residential areas and noted there would be reduced garden space and issues with bins as only for five, not six therefore not eligible for additional bins from the Council.  He added that Local Members, the Parish Council and residents did not support the application and asked the Committee to refuse the application based upon Policies H9, H13 and T1 of the Local Plan.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor M Wilkes and asked Mr Kevin McLernon, the applicant to speak in support of his application.

 

Mr K McLernon thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted that the application was from himself and his business partner, not a large company.  He explained he had been professional landlords since 1997 and his business partner was a Teacher / Volunteer, and both were responsible people.  He wished to clarify that the property was not for use by those recovering from substance misuse or asylum seekers as purported by some people.  He reiterated as per the application that the intention was for a high-quality development for local professionals, for example those working at the nearby hospital, Police Headquarters or County Council. 

He added that he would be happy for a caveat such that no one under the age of 23 could occupy the property, to allay any doubts as regards the property being used by young students.

 

Mr K McLernon noted his routine with the properties within his portfolio included a monthly inspection, and he noted in another of his properties he had a tenant for 20 years.  He noted the parking provision proposed was acceptable to the Highways Section and that in general those renting in such properties would not have a car, or that the likely total would be for two cars, though provision was made.  In reference to comments from Durham Constabulary as regards HMOs and potential increase in anti-social behaviour, he quoted the Police themselves as stating no incidents within the area.  He asked that Members of the Committee would take on board the comments he had made and the Officer’s recommendation for approval.  He noted he was happy to answer any queries from Members of the Committee if appropriate.

 

The Chair thanked Mr K McLernon and asked the Planning Officer, SH to comments on the issues raised by the speakers.

 

The Planning Officer, SH noted as regards issues in relation to the Interim Policy, this had been addressed by the Policy Team Leader and Solicitor – Planning and Development.  In terms of saved policies, she noted that H9 referred to amenity and that in this case Officers had felt that the alterations were minor and in keeping with the exterior and five residents was not a high number, with many families consisting of four or five people.  In terms of Policy T1, the Planning Officer, SH noted that the Highways Section had looked at the proposals and found them acceptable in terms of the access on to the highway, being able to turn within the curtilage to exit the property, and the context of the bus stop nearby.  She added that in terms of Policy H13 and character and amenity, Officer felt that a mix of C3 and C4 use class was acceptable, with the density being below that set out within the Interim Policy and therefore the recommendation was for approval.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the suggestion made by the applicant in terms of an age restriction on those that may occupy the property.  He advised that this would not meet the necessary tests for imposition notwithstanding the applicant’s acceptance of it.

 

Councillor M Davinson asked which elements as set out in the report represented the objections raised by the Civic Trust, as they seemed to be listed in with residents’ comments.  The Planning Officer, SH noted they objected primarily on the change of use from C3 to C4 on the basis of increasing studentification within the area.

 

 

Councillor J Robinson noted the saved policies referred to within the report and asked as regards residents concerns as regards access and bins blocking a shared right of way.  The Chair asked if Mr K McLernon wished to clarify for Members’ information. 

 

Mr K McLernon explained that the previous tenant was a family of five and comings and goings had been predominantly from the front of the property, not via the shared access at the rear.  He added that he would be more than happy to work with the neighbour in order to minimise any issues relating to the shared access.

 

Councillor P Jopling proposed that the application be approved, she was seconded by Councillor R Manchester.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

 

Supporting documents: