Agenda item

Erection of two storey side extension to C4 (House in multiple occupation) dwelling.

The Planning Officer, Leigh Dalby 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 application was for the erection of two-storey side extension to C4 (House in multiple occupation) dwelling and was recommended for approval.

The Planning Officer, LD referred Members to photographs and elevations, and reminded Members the application fell within the City of Durham Conservation Area.  He explained the proposed extension would provide an additional two bedrooms and the application would retain the C4 HMO use.  The Planning Officer, LD noted that the application had been referred to Committee by the City of Durham Parish Council as they felt it was contrary to the interim policy on student properties.

The Planning Officer, LD noted no objections from statutory or internal consultees, with the Council’s Spatial Policy section noting that as the property was an existing C4 use, they felt the additional two bedrooms to create a six-bed C4 HMO was not contrary to the aims and objectives of the interim policy.  He added that the Design and Conservation Team had noted the proposals represented a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and therefore had no objections to the application.

The Planning Officer, LD explained that the Whinney Hill Community Group had objected to the application, with issues raised including: loss of amenity for residents; failing to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area; detracting from the streetscene; and failing to reflect the character of the area.  He noted that there were concerns raised by neighbouring residents in respect of levels of noise and disturbance, anti-social behaviour, refuse, the character of the area and the application being contrary to saved local plan policies and the interim policy on student accommodation.

The Planning Officer, LD noted that in looking at the application Officers referred to the NPPF, Local Plan Policies and the interim policy on student accommodation, with reference to those being set out within the report.  He added that in terms of the interim policy, a recent appeal determined by the Planning Inspectorate for an application relating to Hawthorn Terrace within Durham City had been upheld.  He noted that the inspector in that case had noted the interim policy was “at odds with the more permissive approach of saved Policy H9 of the Local Plan” in terms of extension to existing HMOs.  Accordingly, Officers felt that it would be very difficult to sustain a refusal reason based on conflict with this element of the interim policy.

The Planning Officer, LD noted that as there were no objections from the Highways Section, and the design was considered acceptable in terms of scale, design, impact upon amenity and neutral impact on the Conservation Area, Officers recommendation was for the application to be approved.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, LD and asked Parish Councillor J Ashby, speaking in on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council, to speak in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor J Ashby thanked the Chair and explained the Parish Council felt the application was a crucial test case of whether the County Council’s planning policies could protect Durham City from overwhelming imbalance in the community. 

He noted he first wished to make the point that the Submitted County Durham Plan sought to abandon resistance to extensions to existing HMOs, adding that the Committee were aware that no weight could yet be attached to the policies within the Submitted County Plan.  He noted that the matter of abandoning the policy on HMO extensions was highly contentious and must await consideration by an Independent Inspector at the forthcoming Examination in Public.  Parish Councillor J Ashby added that any attempt to pre-empt that Inspector’s unfettered examination of the Submitted Plan would be improper.

Accordingly, Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that instead, weight could and must be attached to the Council’s Interim Policy on Student Accommodation, adopted after extensive consultations and discussions, in which HMO extensions that result in additional bed-spaces were not permitted if the 10 percent limit is already exceeded in the locality.

He explained that within 100 metres of 77 Whinney Hill the percentage of student HMO lets was about 70 percent, thus the area was significantly in excess of the limit of 10 percent set by the Interim Policy.  Additionally, Parish Councillor J Ashby noted in the case of 77 Whinney Hill, the applicant had previously attempted to gain planning permission to build an adjoining two double-bedroom dwelling and following refusal of that application, and defeat on appeal, he was attempting the same two double-bedrooms scheme but as an extension to his four bedroom C4 property to create a six-bedroom C4 property.  He noted that the proposal was contrary to the Interim Policy and should be refused, adding that saved Policy H9 of the City of Durham Local Plan also carried significant weight and it opposed extensions to existing HMOs on intensification and amenity grounds.

Parish Councillor J Ashby reminded Members that it took 12 years of campaigning by residents for the severe problems of studentification to be recognised and for the Article 4 Direction and a Policy addressing these issues to be adopted by the County Council.  He added that with the University set on a 40 percent increase in student numbers in Durham City between 2016/17 and 2026/27 it was not the time to weaken the protections for neighbourhoods envisaged so wisely in the City of Durham Plan and carried forward in the County Council’s Interim Policy.

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that one appeal decision about extensions was referenced in the Officer’s report and reminded Members that it was not by “the Inspectorate” but by one Inspector.  He added it was not a sound basis for weakening the policy and that each Inspector's decision was on a particular case and generally should not be taken as precedent.  He explained that it was essential, in the view of the Parish Council, that the County Planning Authority takes a resolute stance against the ever-creeping additions of yet more student accommodation in neighbourhoods such as Whinney Hill with excessive student accommodation already.

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted in conclusion that the Parish Planning Committee urged that the application be refused as it was contrary to Saved Policy H9 and the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor J Ashby and asked Mr S Shaw to speak in support of the application.

Mr S Shaw thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted that the application was to improve the existing C4 unit, not to create a new unit.  He thanked the Planning Officer for his work and reminded Members of the support from the internal consultees “across the board” for the application.  He noted the Inspector’s decision as mentioned relating to Hawthorn Terrace and reiterated that the application before Members was to enhance the existing C4 use HMO by increasing amenity in terms of bedrooms and bathroom. 

Mr S Shaw noted that in terms of the balance of housing within the area, permission had been granted for 70 family homes nearby, with works having started.  He noted it was felt that the area could take the kind of enhancement to an existing C4 unit and urged the Committee to approve the application as per the Officer’s recommendation.

The Chair thanked Mr S Shaw and asked for any comments from Officers on the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer, AD noted paragraph 63 of the report set out in some detail the rationale in terms of the interim policy and the Inspector’s decision.  He added that Officers would look at appeal decisions in order to take on board the views of Inspectors representing the Planning Inspectorate.  He noted that the previous application for the site had been refused, Members of the Committee having visited the site.  The Principal Planning Officer, AD noted the application for determination was a very much reduced scheme and at this scale, Officers felt that it sat comfortably with the existing property and therefore was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer, AD and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted his concerns as regards the application and supported the comments of the Parish Council, noting he could not support the application.  Councillor D Freeman noted he felt similarly to Councillor J Shuttleworth and noted that reference to one incident in another part of the City did not necessarily apply equally to all areas within the City and that Planners should not back down in terms of HMOs.  He noted that the previous application had been refused under Policy H9 and added that while rear extensions were seen at Whinney Hill, such side extensions were rare and would be extremely visible. 

Councillor D Freeman noted he felt the application would have impact upon the amenity of residents within the area.  He agreed the development of the former school site nearby for 70 family homes was very good.  Councillor D Freeman moved that the application be refused as he felt it was contrary to saved Policy H9.

Councillor M Davinson noted the situation was one faced often by the Committee and asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development for her opinion if Members were minded to refuse the application.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted Members could afford weight to the saved policy and it was for the committee to decide upon that weight and the impact of the proposed development.  She added that in her opinion there would be risk, including costs, should a refusal decision be referred to appeal.

Councillor D Brown noted he felt differently and asked for the photographs and plans to be displayed on the projector screen.  He recalled the previous site visit and noted he felt the current proposals for side extension were appropriate and moved the application be approved.

Councillors A Laing and J Shuttleworth seconded Councillors D Brown and D Freeman respectively and upon a vote being take it was:

RESOLVED

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

Councillor M Davinson left the meeting at 3.02pm