Agenda item

Change of use from 6 bedroom HMO to 7 bedrooms (C4 to Sui Generis) and loft conversion.

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 6 bedroom House in multiple Occupation (HMO) to 7 bedrooms (C4 to Sui Generis) and loft conversion and was recommended for approval.

The Planning Officer noted that the property was in central Durham with University owned land to the rear used for staff parking, and the property was one of four in a semi-detached block. 

She referred Members to elevations and noted that, except for roof lights, there would be no external alterations.  She referred the Committee to existing and proposed floorplans, highlighting the change from six to seven bedrooms.

The Planning Officer noted no objections from the Highways Section or Police, with objections having been received from the City of Durham Parish Council and City of Durham Trust.  She noted objections included the application being considered contrary to the interim policy on student accommodation and concerns as regards the number of applications to convert family dwellings into HMOs or to increase the size of existing HMOs which did not promote or preserve an inclusive, mixed and balanced community, contrary to NPPF Paragraph 8(b).

The Planning Officer noted that in terms of internal consultees, Design and Conservation noted no objections, subject to heritage style roof lights being used.  She added there were no objections from Environmental Health or Ecology in relation to the application.  The Planning Officer noted that Spatial Policy had reported that the percentage of HMOs within a 100-metre radius was 67.1 percent.  She noted that the HMO Licensing Team had noted the property would need to be licenced under the Housing Act 2004 Part 2, and the applicant had demonstrated the requirements in terms of room sizes.

The Planning Officer noted the application had been called-in by the Local Member, noting the concerns as raised by those in objection and issues in terms of community cohesion.

The Planning Officer noted that saved Local Plan Policy H9 applied to HMOs and student accommodation and therefore NPPF Paragraph 11 was not engaged and policy H9 could be afforded full weight in considering the application.

The Planning Officer noted that the percentage of HMOs within the 100-metre radius as set out in the interim policy would not be increased and therefore the application was not in conflict with the aims of the interim policy in terms of housing mix.  The Planning Officer noted the report set out recent appeals decision which gave Members context in this regard.

The Planning Officer noted that when assessing against the relevant policies, Officers felt that the application would not alter the housing mix and taking into account the recent appeal decision, and that the alterations proposed were not significant and would not impact negatively upon the Conservation Area.  She concluded by noting the interim policy had less weight than saved Policy H9 and on that basis the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

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

Parish Councillor, R Cornwell explained the Parish Council urged the Committee to refuse the application because it breached the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.  He noted that the 67.1 percent of student households was well in excess of the 10 percent threshold.  He added that it was not so far gone to say that the localised community was too imbalanced to be worth protecting and supporting.  He noted one third of the local residents were not students and that a good number of student residents appreciated peace and quiet so that they can get on with their studies.

Parish Councillor, R Cornwell noted his remarks would focus on paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Officer’s report, in which she tried to make a case that the community was already too imbalanced.  He noted she referred to two recent appeal decisions, in the first of which at 10 High Wood View the percentage of student households was 73 percent, six percentage points higher than the case for the Committee to consider today.  Parish Councillor, R Cornwell explained that indeed the appellant has argued that due to the number of empty properties owned by the University the figure there could be a high as 87 percent and therefore one more HMO would not make things much worse.

Parish Councillor, R Cornwell noted the second case might at first glance appear more difficult for those objecting because the percentage was 61.8.  He noted that Members had received a briefing at a recent meeting of the Committee and this case was mentioned.  He reminded Members that this property was in Peartree Cottages, also in High Wood View, adjacent to St. Oswald’s Cemetery and with Oswald’s Court on the other side.

Parish Councillor, R Cornwell noted the successful applicant in the second case said in his appeal statement:

“Oswald Court is an entirely separate and distinct housing area the southern extent of which just happens to be within 100m of the appeal site.  This has extremely low levels of student exemption housing (2 percent) and therefore significantly affects the average percentage rating when calculated within the 100 metres radius”.

Parish Councillor, R Cornwell explained the applicant went on to say:

“When properly considered it can be seen that the seven postcode areas within the distinct housing area of which the appeal site is formed have an average exemption level of over 85 percent”.

Parish Councillor, R Cornwell noted that while the interim policy set a lower threshold it did not set a higher one, instead it states that there may be some cases where localised communities were already so imbalanced that the policy objective of protecting a balance was unlikely to be achieved.

He added the appeal cases showed that when you get concentrations of student HMOs at these high levels you have to treat each case on its merits.  Parish Councillor, R Cornwell noted that in the case of the application at Committee, with one third of the households within 100 metres being non-student, the bar had not been crossed.  He noted other objectors had elaborated on this point, including in comments received from the City of Durham Trust, with concerns that student accommodation would outnumber local people.

Parish Councillor, R Cornwell noted his final point was that, in a masterpiece of timing, the issue was being discussed on Thursday this week at the County Durham Plan Examination in Public.  He added the County Council was proposing a main modification which would set that bar at 90 percent and it was not known whether this would find favour with the Inspector, however, the new County Durham Plan would have a permanent, not an interim, student accommodation policy and all the signs were that it would be stricter.  Parish Councillor, R Cornwell noted that if the application was refused and then went to appeal, the case would be judged on the new policies and the Parish Council would suggest any such appeal would be refused.  Parish Councillor, R Cornwell concluded by noting that firstly the Committee would have to turn the application down, which the Parish Council urged the Committee to do.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor, R Cornwell and asked the Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

The Planning Officer noted that the main points were that the property was an existing six-bedroom HMO and the proposal would not affect the percentage of HMOs within 100 metres.  She added that given the information referred to within paragraph 42 of her report relating to the recent appeal decisions it was not possible to refuse an application on increasing the size of an existing HMO by one bed.

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

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that from the site visit it was clear the housing stock was former “Council Housing” and that the increase of students was creating an imbalance.  He noted Council Tax was not payable by students and wondered how much was lost to the Council in cases such as this. 

He asked if there were sufficient safeguards in place, especially in terms of the roof space being converted.  The Planning Officer noted that the HMO Licensing Section had reported that the application met their guidelines, including in respect of fire safety.

Councillor D Freeman noted he agreed with Councillor J Shuttleworth and explained the City of Durham Parish Council had estimated the County Council lost out on around £6.5 million in terms of students in place of paying residents.  He noted paragraph 40 of the report spoke of the interim policy on student accommodation with the policy including additional bed spaces and extensions as being contrary to the policy, not just an increase in the percentage within a 100-metre radius.  He added that he said this at each meeting each month.  Councillor D Freeman noted he received the weekly planning lists and he saw a gradual “drip-drip”, each week, each month, each year with the city being transformed as a result.  He stressed that the appeals that were lost and referred to were not in this particular street and in those cases the percentage of student properties was much higher, with Elvet Crescent having around one third private residential properties.  He noted his opinion was that adding more was adding more and the issues as set out in Policy H9 came into play.  Councillor D Freeman noted he felt the application was contrary to the interim student policy and there were the issues of increased noise, disturbance, potential of unkempt properties and anti-social behaviour.  He added he felt these types of application should be stopped and that they could be refused.  He noted the upcoming Inspection in Public for the County Durham Plan and hoped there would be a better position after this.

The Chair noted the property was an existing HMO and asked if Councillor D Freeman was proposing that the application be refused.  Councillor D Freeman noted he was proposing refusal.  The Chair asked the Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie to address the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that he understood the concerns of the Local Member and the Parish Council and gave reassurance that Officers had fought the case in terms of the interim student policy in terms of both extensions and additional bed spaces.  He reiterated that in those cases the Inspector had not agreed.  He added that there was consistent argument in terms of cumulative impact and a number of appeals had been fought, again with decisions going against the Council, with costs awarded in one case.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that it was in that context that Officers made the very measured recommendation as set out within the report. 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that any decision by the Committee would need to be based upon existing policy currently in effect and not in considering what may be decided upon by the Inspector when looking at the County Durham Plan.

The Chair asked if anyone would second the motion for refusal made by Councillor D Freeman.  Councillor J Shuttleworth seconded the motion.  The Chair asked for refusal reasons.  Councillor D Freeman noted as the application was contrary to the interim policy on student accommodation and Policy H9 of the City of Durham Local Plan.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked if the Member could elaborate as regards the aspects that were contrary to Policy H9.  Councillor D Freeman noted the adverse impact on the character of the area and negative impact on the amenity of nearby residents.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted there was little he could add to that said by the Principal Planning Officer in terms of the strength of any such refusal and the recent appeals decisions.

Upon a vote being taken, the motion was LOST.  The Chair asked the Committee for any other proposals.

Councillor M Davinson noted he felt paragraph 42 within the report was unhelpful as the property was an existing HMO and therefore a lot of the information was not relevant.  He asked as regards more information following from paragraph 41 in order to help Members understand being unable to refuse applications for an extra bed and more information in terms of costs being awarded.  He added he agreed with the comments from Parish Councillor, R Cornwell and Councillor D Freeman.  The Chair noted it was a broad subject and noted information in general could be circulated to Members.  Councillor M Davinson asked if it would be possible to defer the application.  The Chair asked the Area Planning Team Leader (Central and East), Sarah Eldridge to provide further advice and information for the Committee. 

The Area Planning Team Leader (Central and East) noted appeals decisions in respect of HMO applications including: 6 Waddington Street a change of use; 24 Mistletoe Street, a change of use; 40 Hawthorn Terrace an extension; former Neville’s Cross Club, a Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA); Pear Tree Cottage, one HMO; 97 Gilesgate, one HMO; Laburnum Avenue, one HMO; and 10 High Wood View, change of use and the case where costs were awarded as the Inspector noted the application would not give rise to an increase in the concentration and the percentage of HMOs within a 100 metre radius would remain the same.

Councillor M Davinson noted that only one of those applications was for an additional bedroom and he hoped progress following the Examination in Public would help provide more options for the Committee.  He noted that no one on the Committee was happy with these types of application, however, given the information within the report, and provided by Officers today he would move approval as per the recommendation.  The Chair noted she understood his frustrations and asked if there was a seconder for the motion.  Councillor J Maitland seconded the motion for approval.

RESOLVED

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

Councillors I Cochrane and J Shuttleworth left the meeting at 2.30pm