Agenda item

Change of use from small HMO (Use class C4) to 9 bed large HMO (Use Class Sui Generis) including erection of part two-storey/part single-storey extension to rear.

The Planning Officer, Lisa Morina, 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 change of use from small HMO (Use Class C4) to 9 bed large HMO (Use Class Sui Generis) including erection of part two-storey/part single-storey extension to rear and was recommended for approval.

The Planning Officer, LM noted that the property was in the east of Durham City and within the Durham City Conservation Area.  She explained that the property had previously had approval for a two-storey extension to the side with a flat roof.  Members were shown proposed elevations and floorplans, and the Planning Officer, LM noted that the previous approval had commenced and therefore that application could be built out should the application before Committee be refused with up to six residents living therefore, however the change of use to nine would not be able to be implemented. 

The Planning Officer, LM noted no objections from the Highway Section, Durham Constabulary, Environmental Health, HMO Officers or Design and Conservation.  She added that the Spatial Policy Team had noted 57.6 percent of properties with 100 metres being student properties.

The Planning Officer, LM noted there were three letters of objection from residents and objections from the City of Durham Parish Council, who had representation at Committee, and the City of Durham Trust.  She noted the reasons for objection were summarised within the report and included: increase in student numbers; the proposal not being in keeping with the scale and character of the area, contrary to Policy H9; not promoting healthy, safe and sustainable communities; more noise and disturbance; being against the interim policy of student accommodation; and potentially setting a precedent which would open the floodgates for similar applications.

The Planning Officer, LM noted that the application would not result in an increase in the number of HMOs, the housing mix being unaltered, however there would be an increase in the number of bed spaces.  She referred to previous appeals decisions in this regard and with it being considered that there would be no harm to the heritage assets, the recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, LM and asked Parish Councillor Grenville Holland, representing the City of Durham Parish Council, to speak in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor G Holland thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted that application represented a familiar circumstance, one that Members had met on previous occasions.  He added that the fact that the Parish Council and the local Community Association objected to this application for good reason would therefore come as no surprise to the Committee.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that if Members lived in Durham City, they would understand the concerns raised and even if they did not, he felt that they may well be vexed by their repetitious appearance at planning.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted the reality was that in order to fund its ambitious business plans, the University now needed to increase its student numbers to 22,000 without adequate accommodation.  He continued noting that as a result the City faced a surge of students coming into the City, seeking accommodation in the private sector.  He explained that in turn this offered a lucrative and attractive opportunity for the private landlords who, every week, were submitting applications for C3 to C4 conversions or the expansion of C4 properties in order to squeeze in extra bodies.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted this was an endless trail, and 22,000 students may well not be the end of it.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that Durham City was a market town with limited family housing and the overload of students had created an unacceptable imbalance, with adverse social and commercial consequences.  He explained that the imbalance was in fact the worst in the UK, with other cities having far greater capacity to absorb their student population.  He added that in Durham there was simply not that capacity, and the City was ceasing to be residential, progressively becoming instead a student dormitory.  Parish Councillor G Holland reminded the Committee that in response to this, in 2016, the Council introduced an Article 4 Direction that was carefully designed to provide a healthy balance between students and the local community.  He added that the Direction built upon the saved 2004 Local Plan Policies and reflected the underpinning requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Parish Councillor G Holland reminded Members that those tools were available and were there to be used by the Planning Committee.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that time and again the issue was ducked, with concern in case an appeal was lost should Committee decide to prevent a C3 going to C4, or a C4 being expanded to increase the student take.  He noted that the issue had been ducked again in this case.  He added that the Officer’s report pivoted on paragraphs 47 and 48 of the report which dwelt on an individual appeal decision for a C4 extension in Hawthorn Terrace, which was upheld. 

He noted that was a single decision which, in the opinion of the Parish Council, was misguided and should not determine all future applications for C4 extensions in Durham City, for those extensions were contrary to the Article 4 Direction and the Interim Policy, NPPF guidance and Policies H9 and Q9 of the Local Plan.

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that the policies designed to protect the integrity of the City and so preserve the belief in the value of a balanced community should not be set aside and that by allowing the landlords, and their agents, to have a free reign in converting the city centre into one huge dormitory represented a disregard for the City’s heritage.

Parish Councillor G Holland reminded Members that the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation, which was carefully designed and agreed, clearly stated:

“In order to promote the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities for new build HMOs (both C4 and sui generis), extensions that result in additional bed spaces where planning permission is required…..will not be allowed 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.”

He noted that the policy related both to new builds, or extensions, or an increase in student occupancy in such localities and it covered all of these eventualities and the Officer wrongly advised that it related only to new builds.  He added that this interpretation accords with several chapters of the NPPF, none of which were mentioned in the Officer’s report.  Parish Councillor G Holland explained that those chapters encouraged the development of healthy and safe communities and promoted social interaction through mixed use development to enable and support healthy lifestyles and well-being.  He added that it was about mixed, balanced and sustainable communities and most certainly did not support the wholescale conversion of any community into a single purpose ghetto.

Parish Councillor G Holland referred to Policy H9 of the Saved Local Plan and noted that it placed important and relevant restraints on the development and expansion of HMOs, including parking restrictions; adverse impact on the neighbours; scale and character with the surroundings; adverse concentration of a sub-divided dwelling; and avoidance of significant extensions to the property altering the character or scale of the original building.  He noted that those limitations were confirmed in Policy Q9 which considered the quality of the proposed development and limitations imposed.  Parish Councillor G Holland stated that the present application for the Whinney Hill residential area was a typical over-massing of a C4 conversion and was wilfully exploiting the site. 

He noted it was felt that it failed the test of H9 and Q9; and it was contrary to the broad intentions of NPPF sections 2, 5 and 8.  He added that furthermore, it certainly failed the important test of the Interim Policy which was not just about new C4s, it was about increasing bed spaces in an already over-concentrated area of HMOs. 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that, using Council Tax criteria the property already has 58 percent of properties within 100 metres of it defined as HMOs, well above the 10 percent threshold, however, still well below the 90% margin that lead some people to conclude “all is lost, so let’s give up”. 

He noted that the argument that a few extra beds make no difference cuts no ice with the application being contrary to the Direction and Policy for a good reason, to simply carry on with that fallacious and sterile argument, you end up at 100 percent HMOs.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that the Parish Council urged the Committee to reject the application with the sound and proven criteria already available and concluded by stating that using the prospect of an appeal was surely not an option and we must use and sustain our policies with confidence. 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer noted many of the issues had been raised at Committee several times with regard to applications in relation to new HMOs, extension and conversions, and those for an increase in the number of bed spaces.  He added that Officers had to make recommendations that were cognisant of appeal decisions and that Officers had fought a number of appeals in these types of application and several of them had been lost.  He noted that the refusal of an application on an increase of the number of bed spaces alone was one that was tested at appeal very early in the Interim Policy and this appeal had been lost.  He reminded Members of the costs awarded in cases of lost appeals and reiterated that the recommendation as set out within the report had been arrived at after careful thought from Officers, considering relevant policies and appeals decisions.

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

Councillor D Freeman noted that the situation felt like déjà vu, with a very similar application approved at the last meeting of the Committee. 

He noted his concern in terms of former family homes being converted to HMOs, further increasing the imbalance between families and students and reiterated the point that the Interim Policy was very clear in terms of not increasing the number of bed spaces should a property be within an area of greater than ten percent HMOs within a 100 metres radius.  He added that to allow such applications would represent an unacceptable cumulative impact and he asked if one was to only consider the appeal decisions for properties elsewhere in the City then what was the point of our planning policies?

Councillor D Freeman explained that he felt the application seemed to be contrary to NPPF Part 8 and Local Plan Policies H9 and Q9. 

He noted there were a number of reasons why he felt the application was contrary to those policies, including increase in noise and disturbance, impact on services such as refuse collection; and was not in keeping with the neighbourhood in scale or design.  He concluded by noting he proposed that the Committee should refuse the application as it was contrary to saved Policies H9, Q9 and the NPPF.

The Chair asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond to the points made by the Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the report set out responses to each of the policies referred to by Councillor D Freeman, including reference to the extant permission.

Councillor I Jewell noted the interesting contradictions between the objectors and Officers in terms of the scale and impact of the development and noted that it was not for the Committee to decide in terms of who could apply for such HMO permissions and the increase of capacity by the University was presenting a dilemma for Members.

Councillor P Taylor noted that he was not likely to be the only Member who was sick of the number of these type of applications that were coming before Committee.  He reminded all that Durham was a beautiful city and not a business opportunity to look to accommodate additional students.  He noted that Parish Councillor G Holland had spoken wonderfully as did Councillor D Freeman, however, the Principal Planning Officer has also spoken well and was right in terms of where we were with our policies.  Councillor P Taylor noted the risk in terms of the Government’s Planning Inspectorate overturning the democratically elected Members’ decision and noted that perhaps it was time to stand up for the city and perhaps lazy to blame the remote Government Planning Inspectorate in terms of allowing Durham to become a business opportunity.

Councillor M Davinson agreed with Councillor D Freeman in that there was a sense of déjà vu and asked if the recent Examination in Public of the County Durham Plan (CDP) had yielded any information that would be relevant for the Committee in making a decision.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that he had not been involved in the Examination in Public, do did not know the detail of what had been discussed. However, the Council’s position is that the CDP could not be afforded weight until it was agreed and adopted.  Councillor M Davinson asked at what point would the CDP likely come into effect.  The Chair noted she understood the frustrations of Members, however, the decision on the application must be based upon the policies in effect currently and in relation to the CDP, this was a matter Officers could come back to Members with further information in due course.

Councillor J Robinson noted that the Committee was totally frustrated and that while the Highways Officer had no objections, he had his heart in his mouth whenever he drove along Whinney Hill.  He noted that many applications similar to this one had been considered by Committee and that the Interim Policy had been shown not to work in these cases.  Councillor J Robinson noted he reluctantly proposed the Officers recommendation for approval as he felt it would be overturned should a refusal be taken to appeal.  Councillor M Davinson noted he would second the proposal, again noting it was reluctantly and with similar reasons to those he had stated at the last meeting.  He added that he understood that Officers had tried to fight those appeals and currently the Members’ hands were tied, and he hoped that the CDP would help in the future.

RESOLVED

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

Councillor I Jewell left the meeting at 2.12pm