Agenda item

Change of use from a C4 house in multiple occupation to a 7 bedroom HIMO with a wrap round single and 2 storey extension and external alterations.

The Planning Officer, SH, 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 a C4 house in multiple occupation to 7-bedroom HIMO with a wrap round single and 2 storey extension and external alterations and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer, SH referred Members to site plans and noted the location of the dwelling within a small cul-de-sac, being an end terrace property.  It was highlighted that the adjoining property was in C3 use and that the application property currently was in C4 use, albeit with no extensions.  Members noted some single storey extensions to properties within the area and noted the scale of the proposed extensions and the Planning Officer, SH highlighted this on proposed floorplans and elevations.

Councillor G Bleasdale left the meeting at 3.00pm

The Planning Officer, SH noted that in terms of responses from statutory and internal consultees, there had been no objections from the Highways Section, and objections had been received from the City of Durham Parish Council in relation to the Interim Policy, the increase in the number of bedrooms, bin and cycle storage, and impact on local residents.

The Planning Officer, SH added that Spatial Policy had provided a figure for HMOs within a 100 metre radius, 49.2 percent.  It was added that Environmental Health had raised no objections to the application, however, had raised concerns as regards the levels of noise and disturbance that individual households may experience.  Members noted there had been no objections from the HMO Officer, the Conservation Officer or Durham Constabulary.

The Committee were informed that there had been representations from the City of Durham Parish Council, the Civic Trust and a local resident, the neighbouring C3 property, all objecting to the application.  Issues raised included the high levels of noise from the existing HMO being exacerbated by the application, issues with parking in the narrow cul-de-sac, access via communal areas, and a fear that the organisation for seven bedrooms could be altered to fit nine.

Councillor G Bleasdale entered the meeting at 3.06pm

The Planning Officer, SH explained that Officers felt the scale and character of the proposed extension was such that it was not subordinate to the host property and out of keeping with the host property, in addition the change of use to a sui generis use class with seven or more occupants would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity from noise and disturbance.  The Planning Officer, SH noted that this would be contrary to saved Policies H9 and H13 and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, SH and asked Parish Councillor Victoria Ashfield, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor V Ashfield thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council to object to application.  She explained that the City of Durham Parish Council Planning Committee had discussed the application at its meeting on 15 March 2019 and requested that the Clerk object to the proposal.  She added that the Parish Council were grateful that the application had come to Committee and wished to add their strong support to the report of the Officer who was recommending refusal.

Parish Councillor V Ashfield noted the objections of the Parish Council included that within 100 metres of 51, Whinney Hill the percentage of student lets was over 50%, well over the acceptable threshold for extensions to HMOs resulting in additional bed-space. 

She explained that the Parish Council was aware that the Pre-Submission Draft County Durham Plan Policy on Student Accommodation has abandoned the reference to extensions to existing HMOs with the Parish Council regarding this as retrograde, as the impact of additional people causing noise and disturbance was the same whether they were in a new HMO or an extension to an HMO. 

She added that the Parish Council did not believe that the decision of one Inspector should be accepted as sufficient reason to set aside the policy on extensions to HMOs.  Parish Councillor V Ashfield noted other Inspectors have given differing advice: extensions will result in more students whether in a new HMO or an extension to an existing HMO.

Parish Councillor V Ashfield noted that the County Council’s Interim Policy on Student Accommodation stated that:

"In order to promote the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities […], applications for new build HMO and extensions that result in additional bed-spaces [...] will not be permitted if more than 10% of the total number of properties within 100 metres of the application site are already in use as HMOs or student accommodation exempt from council tax charges."

Parish Councillor V Ashfield noted that the previous application was withdrawn following publication of the Planning Officer’s report to Committee. The Planning Officer’s conclusions at that time were the same as those before Committee now.

She explained that the Parish Council also supports the Planning Officer’s other objection (alteration to the character and scale of the host property, contrary to policies H9 and Q9 of the City of Durham Local Plan, 2004 and the NPPF, part 12). Parish Councillor V Ashfield stated that in fact the proposed development would use the entirety of the garden and direct access to the back garden would be impossible and would create difficulties for storage (and timely emptying) of waste and recycling bins.

Parish Councillor V Ashfield referred to the issue of parking and noted that although the Highway Officer has indicated that no further parking permits would be allowed, even if this did not add to the parking congestion on this road it could however create additional pressure on surrounding areas, such as The Hallgarth, where existing residents, including those with Disability Permits, were already having difficulty in being able to park their cars.

Parish Councillor V Ashfield explained that the Parish Council also supported neighbours who have objected on a range of grounds, including: that the new building, being out of keeping with the remainder of the street, would detract from the appearance of the World Heritage area; the additional traffic caused by construction works would create significant difficulties; that for the immediate neighbour at No.52, it would create a real deterioration in their living conditions, the inevitable noise and disturbance brought about by a group of seven students living on the other side of a party wall was hostile to family life and loss of private right of access and reduction of “right to light” would also undermine their living conditions.

Parish Councillor V Ashfield added that the Parish Council noted that there were increasing concerns among permanent residents of the city that it was more and more difficult to bring up young children in safety in the city in the context of the noise and sometimes unfavourable environment of the different lifestyle of student neighbours.  Parish Councillor V Ashfield noted that for all those reasons the Parish Council fully supported the Officer’s conclusions and grounds for recommending refusal and asked the Committee to refuse this application.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor V Ashfield and asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

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 he welcomed the Officer’s recommendation and fully supported their report.  He noted he felt the proposal was an appalling application, with no merit, a three-bedroom family home becoming a monstrosity.  He added that should such a proposal be allowed it would feel much larger than a seven-bedroom property and could have internal alterations made such that it would have more bedrooms still.  He noted that while Environmental Health had not objected, they had raised concerns for the neighbours in the C3 property should the application be approved.  Councillor D Freeman proposed that the application be refused in line with the Officer’s report and recommendation.

Councillor J Robinson seconded the proposal made by Councillor D Freeman. 

He explained he was familiar with the area and the issues relating to parking and traffic and added that the point made at paragraph 50 of the report in relation to one external door only was also a great concern in terms of fire safety.

Councillor M Davinson noted there would be an escape window, however, he felt this was not the same as having another door as a means of escape in the event of a fire.  He added that on visiting the site it had been clear to him that the access utilised by the C3 property next door, allowing them to take their bin around the application property into the cul-de-sac for collection, would be effectively blocked and accordingly he supported colleagues who had proposed and seconded the application for refusal.

Councillor G Bleasdale noted as she had left the meeting for part of the item she would not take part in the vote.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED.