Agenda item

Change of use from single dwelling house C3 with 2 bedrooms to HMO C4 with 4 bedrooms.

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 application was for change of use from single dwelling house C3 with 2 bedrooms to HMO C4 and was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out within the report.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the application property was mid-terrace and the proposed plans included conservation style window and window lights, and there had been no objections from the Design and Conservation Section.  She explained that colleagues from Spatial Policy had determined the density of HMOs within 100 metres of the property was 68.9 percent.

The Planning Officer, JJ explained there had been objections from the City of Durham Parish Council and the City of Durham Trust, as set out within the report, with a representative from the Parish Council being at Committee to speak in objection to the application.  She added there had also been objection letters from two neighbours and a Local Ward Member.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that when considering the application, it was felt the application was acceptable in respect of impact upon the Conservation Area, amenity and in terms of parking.  She explained that Paragraph 51 of the report went into detail as regards the rationale behind the recommendation for approval, with the consideration being that the application was acceptable in terms of the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation despite being over the 10 percent threshold of HMOs within 100 metres as there was already a percentage greater than 68.1 percent, an amount where conversion of further C3 dwellings would not cause further detrimental harm.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked Parish Councillor Roger Cornwell to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell thanked the Chair and reminded Members that al planning applications had to be determined on the individual facts of the case and noted that as a conversion from a C3 property to a C4 the application differed from the applications considered at Items 5a and 5b, though he hoped for a similar conclusion.  He added that decisions by Planning Inspectors could set precedents, however, the Case Officer must show why a particular decision is relevant to the case under consideration.  Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that the Parish Council did not feel that the Planning Officer had done this in this particular case, a blanket 68.1 percent having been applied without further justification, referred to at Paragraph 44 of the Officer’s report:

“…it has been indicated that a level of 61.8 percent or above is deemed to be the point at which an area is already imbalanced”.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell asked where this was “indicated” and why it was “deemed”, noting the paragraph was not evidence.  He noted upon reading the decision of the Planning Inspector in the case being relied upon within the Officer’s report, he felt it was clear the Inspector had taken individual circumstances into account and that looking at several appeal decisions that individual circumstances for each were one common factor.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that there was a need to unpick the appeal decision which gave rise to the 61.8 percent figure to see whether it is therefore relevant in this case.  He highlighted that there was a significant difference in between that case and the one for determination at Committee today.  He explained that the case considered at appeal concerned a new build specifically focussed for students in Peartree Cottages near the main University Campus.  Parish Councillor R Cornwell stated that it that case there was no loss of a family home as there was potentially in respect of the application to be determined.  He reminded that policy was to save C3 family properties and argued that the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation did not cover new builds, meaning the appeal referenced was not relevant in this case. 

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that, specifically in the appeal case referred, the 100 metre radius took into account some houses either side of St. Oswald’s graveyard, those not readily accessible from the site in question.  He noted that the Inspector had given weight to that saying: “in the area immediately surrounding the site the figure was considerably higher”. 

Parish Councillor R Cornwell explained what he would draw from that was a need to look more closely at the surrounding area with all the houses within a compact area, either on Hawthorn Terrace or the streets like Lawson Terrace that lead off it.  He added that unlike the case being put forward as a precedent, they were all readily accessible to each other.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that Council Tax records indicated that 68.9 percent of properties were let to students, meaning that 31.1 percent, or very nearly a third, were not.  He stated that one should not, indeed must not, write off an area where a third of houses were still family homes.  He noted that during the last application it was noted the emerging County Durham Plan could not be afforded weight, however, an upper threshold of 90 percent was being suggested.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell referred to the Applicant’s Statement and noted the Parish Council had been helped by the Applicant who had came and explained her personal circumstances and those of her mother, in terms essentially the same as in the Committee Report.  He noted that unfortunately very few of those were valid grounds in planning terms as the permission goes with the property, not with the applicant, and it was not known how things would pan out in the future.  He noted that the Applicant quoted another appeal case, however, the percentage was 78.9 percent, a full ten percent higher than was the case for this application.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that the Applicant quoted an expert opinion that the house was not suitable for the normal rental or private market.  He added that this opinion came from people who made their money letting to students.  He noted there was another view that may give the Applicant some hope, a letter having been received by a lot of residents from a local Estate Agent stating: “We have been a student landlord in Durham for 28 years.  However, we have also started to buy houses to rent out to non-students, since there is a growing demand from families who want to rent in Durham City”.  Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that the Parish Council therefore inferred that with the right agent the house, subject of the application, could be let to non-students.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted in conclusion that the Parish council would ask the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds set out within their objection, as summarised at Paragraph 25 of the Officer’s Report.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor R Cornwell and asked Officers to respond to the issues raised.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that the appeal referred to was for 10 High Wood View and was a C3 to C4 change of use application which was upheld, with costs awarded against the Council, therefore the advice was not just in reference to new build properties.  She noted that the percentage of HMOs within 100 metres of that property had been 69 percent and reiterated that the emerging County Durham Plan was not yet in place.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked Ms Gillian Thompson to speak in support of the application.

Ms G Thompson thanked the Chair and noted she was the daughter of the applicant and the application was for her and her mother.  She stressed the importance of the situation in that she was now caring for her elderly mother and had given up work to do so, and the property had been a family home for 45 years.  She explained that the rent as a student property would make up for her loss of salary and pension, and reiterated that this application was not a typical student landlord application.

Ms G Thompson noted connections to the City and that her mother and herself would not be absentee landlords.  She added there was sentimental attachment to the house and that the character would be retained, lending itself to conversion back to a family home should the area change in the future.  She noted expert opinion had been that the house was not suitable for ‘normal’ rental, for reasons including: low-level disruptive noise at night, not conducive to family/working life; the closure of both corner shops and a children’s park; and the use of large communal bins.

Ms G Thompson explained that the application had met all Local Planning Policies and therefore should be approved as per the Officer’s recommendation and noted that in reference to any tipping point in relation to percentages of HMOs, the area felt more like 81.8 percent rather than 61.8 percent.

Ms G Thompson noted that there would not be six people crammed into the property, rather queen-sized beds would be used, for the first three bedrooms in the first year, with the loft room to be used thereafter.  She added that it was a key time of year to be able to sign students up and emphasised the danger of missing this and having the property remain empty for a year.  Ms G Thompson noted that the application could be successful at appeal, however, she did not want the extra stress, cost and time to impact upon her mother or herself.

The Chair thanked Ms G Thompson and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor M Wilkes noted he had a lot of sympathy with the Applicant’s situation, however, he did not feel that the area could be wrote off given a third of the residents were non-students.  He asked where the 61.8 percent figure came from as it appeared to be arbitrary, was it the average across a number of appeal cases?  He noted he felt minded to move refusal of the application in line with reasons mentioned by the Parish Council.

The Chair asked if Officers could provide clarification as regards the 61.8 percent figure.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that a series of appeals decisions had gone against the Authority where the Authority had felt the applications were contrary to the Interim Policy, with Inspectors noting no upper threshold in relation to HMO density.  He added that across those decisions the percentages varied with some up to 80 to 90 percent, and with the lowest where there was a decision against the Authority being 61.8 percent, hence this was adopted as a threshold.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that since that time, the Authority has been successful at two separate appeals where the Authority refused applications that were above 10 percent but below 61.8 percent.

Councillor M Wilkes noted that it appeared as if Inspectors based each appeal on the facts of each individual case and therefore an Inspector may support any decision to refuse this application.  Councillor M Wilkes proposed that the application be refused being contrary to Saved Local Plan Policy H9, the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation and the NPPF as the application did not encourage a mixed and balanced community.  Councillor J Shuttleworth seconded the proposal.

Councillor P Taylor thanked the Applicant for her candour and sympathised, however, he noted applications needed to be looked at on their merits with Members acting professionally and he felt he was unable to support the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as the application was contrary to Saved Local Plan Policies: H9, lack of parking; the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation; and the NPPF, not promoting mixed and balanced communities and with an adverse impact on residential amenity.