Agenda item

DM/20/00865/FPA - 11 Cedar Drive, Durham, DH1 3TF

Change of use from a C3 family house to a C4 HMO, demolition of existing garage and replacement with two storey side extension and single storey extension to rear.

Minutes:

The Planning Officer, George Spurgeon, 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 change of use from a C3 family house to a C4 house in multiple occupation (HMO), demolition of existing garage and replacement with two storey side extension and single storey extension to rear and was recommended for approval subject conditions.

 

The Planning Officer, GS explained that it was important to note the application site fell outside of the Article 4 Direction area and therefore planning permission was not required for the change of use from a C3 property to a C4 HMO.  He added the Council had no control as regards the use of the property as C4 HMO and therefore the potential impacts of that use could not be taken into account in the consideration of the application before Committee.  He clarified as regards paragraph 48 of the report, that delegated authority had been made to consult on a possible new Article 4 Direction which would cover the application area, however, that consultation had not yet been undertaken and therefore currently there was not the delegated authority to create a new Article 4 Direction.

 

The Chair thanked the Officer for his presentation and update and asked Parish Councillor Grenville Holland, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that there was a dilemma in respect of the application in that the use was stated as C3 to C4 and therefore he noted that it must be recognised that this was the only intention for the property and one must not let the application slip through simply because of the absence of an Article 4 Direction in the area.  He noted the Parish Council believed that there were five reasons why the application should be refused.  Firstly, it was contrary to Saved City of Durham Local Plan Policy H13 because it fails to promote the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities and maintain an appropriate housing mix in this part of Durham City using the same criteria as those we use in the city centre.  Parish Councillor G Holland explained that H13 clearly stated that: “planning permission will not be granted for new development or changes of use which have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of residential areas, or the amenities of residents within them”.

 

He noted that it was not just the appearance; it was the character and amenities as well and it was the adverse impact on the character and amenities of this small housing estate that should concern us.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted secondly the Saved Local Plan Policy H9, which was dedicated solely to HMOs, stated that: “The sub-division or conversion of houses for multiple occupation, or proposals to extend or alter properties already in such use will only be permitted provided that:  

1. Adequate parking (in accordance with policy T10), privacy and amenity areas are provided or are already in existence; ………….

2.  It will not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents

 

He noted that, as the residents would tell Committee, adequate parking could not be provided for the proposed number of individual occupants for this property on Cedar Drive, with up to six parking slots being needed for six individual tenants, student or otherwise, because there was no authority to limit it to two.  He added that residents would also tell Committee that the additional HMO will adversely affect their amenities, with the application certainly failing to meet the test of Saved Local Plan Policies H9 and T10 in terms of privacy, amenity and parking and should therefore be refused.

 

He explained thirdly, Saved Local Plan Policy Q8 required that new developments must offer: “Good quality preapplication discussion to provide adequate amenity and privacy for each dwelling, and minimise the impact of the proposal upon the occupants of existing nearby and adjacent properties”. 

He noted that Policy was endorsed in the NPPF which promoted pre-application engagement on applications, Section 39 of the NPPF recommending that: “Good quality pre-application discussion enables better coordination between public and private resources and improved outcomes for the community”.  He continued the Parish Council could find no evidence of any pre-application discussions having taken place in the preparation of this application and felt for such a sensitive issue that was not good enough and added that perhaps the residents would explain how the proposed development fails the test of Q8.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that, fourthly, the application was also contrary to the NPPF’s stated aim in paragraph 127 which required the creation of “places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users”.  He noted existing residents knew just what awaited them if the conversion to yet another HMO was allowed to go ahead.

 

He explained the fifth reason was that Paragraph 91 of the NPPF encouraged policies that “achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion”. 

He noted that he was sure that the residents would tell Committee about the detrimental impact that they have already suffered from the HMOs on Cedar Drive and therefore the application failed to meet that guidance and was therefore contrary to Paragraph 91 of the NPPF.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland summarised that it was felt the application failed five clear tests associated with the development of an HMO in a residential environment and should therefore be refused because it was contrary to Local Plan Policies H9, H13, T10 and Q8 and NPPF paragraph 91 and section 39.  He concluded by noting that, in coming to a decision, the Committee may be tempted to back away from refusing the application simply because of the threat that it may go to Appeal, however he noted that over the last 12 months there had been six Appeals against refusals of HMOs in the city and the Inspectorate has supported the County Council and its residents and turned down every single one of them of them.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked Local Member Councillor L Brown to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor L Brown thanked the Officer for his very thorough report to Committee, however, she noted she must disagree with him on one point regarding permitted development.  She explained that in her many years of attending Planning Committees she had always been told by Chairs and Committee Solicitors alike that it was paramount to only comment on the application that was before the Committee on that day.  She noted that therefore she would be commenting on the whole of the application that was before Members, part of which was for “Change of Use from a C3 family house to a C4 HMO”.  She reminded the Committee that the application was validated by Planning Officers in its present form.

 

Councillor L Brown noted she was today supporting residents in their objections to the application, there being considerable local feeling against this proposed development as could be seen by the number of objections and, having listened to the residents, she hoped to give a voice to those who could not speak to the application either because of time or technology constraints.  She noted that the application was in part of the Farewell Hall estate that was built in the mid-20th century and that many of the residents would agree that they were not in the first flush of youth and had raised their children in that quiet part of south Durham City and were hoping to spend their retirement years in the area, enjoying the tranquillity.  She added that there were already assimilated two student houses into the close community in this part of Cedar Drive, both located near to number 11.  She noted that residents would no doubt explain how the existing HMOs had already affected them when they address the Members of the Committee.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that City of Durham Saved Policy H9 addressed the provision of HMOs in Durham City and added that the application was in breach of both Parts 1 and 2 of that policy, Part 1 stating that applications would only be approved if adequate parking was provided.  She noted the HMO provision was for six students and yet the property had only one garage and parking for one car on the drive.  She added that any other cars for residents, and the inevitable visitors, would park on a narrow street which already suffered from parking problems associated with the High School opposite and would possibly have problems with overspill student parking when the two new colleges were up and running.  She noted there was no Parking Permit scheme in the area to mitigate the effects of thoughtless parking.  Councillor L Brown explained that saved policy T1 backed up policy H9 in this case by stating that permission would not be granted for a development which would generate traffic which would have a significant effect on the amenities of the residents.  She asked Members to bear in mind that quite apart from personal vehicles, six more people would generate significant traffic by shopping online both for food and goods, something which long-term residents tended not to do, but which experience showed that students regularly used.  She noted Part 2 of policy H9 stated that permission will only be granted for an HMO if it did not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents.  Councillor L Brown noted that, as a resident of a student area herself, the Committee could believe her when she said the student lifestyle was diametrically opposed to that of local residents and did adversely affect residents’ lives.

 

She noted she had already mentioned deliveries of goods and added there was also the regular incidence of anti-social behaviour (ASB) which was higher in student areas than areas where family houses predominated.  She noted this was not intentional, and that we have all been young and empathy was something that comes with age and experience.  She noted that Police statistics would confirm that the risk of crime was higher in student areas and small, high-value items were a staple of student life and add to that empty houses five months a year, and a somewhat cavalier attitude to security, and one could see why.

 

Councillor L Brown explained a final issue was the maintenance and upkeep of student houses which was honoured more in the breach than in the observance. She noted she had lost count of the amount of management plans she had seen in her time, with not one of them being enforced or indeed having proved to be enforceable.  She noted that this was not leading to the healthy, balanced, safe and sustainable communities which paragraphs 62, 91 to 95 and 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework sought to promote adding those paragraphs were in place to safeguard the community in areas like Cedar Drive. 

 

She concluded by asking that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons stated and the fact the adverse impacts on the residents of approving the application would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, of which there were none.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Mr Robert Williams, local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Mr R Williams noted he spoke on behalf of the residents of Farewell Hall and noted the large number of objections from 27 local residents, their Local County Councillor, their Parish Councillor and the City of Durham Trust.  He noted the area was quiet, comprising of family homes that helped provide the balance against areas already dominated by student housing.  He explained that there were concerns in terms of the extension aspect of the application, however, it was felt the change to an HMO for 6 adults was of deep concern for the community.  He noted that firstly there would be a significant loss of amenity, with already two HMOs on Cedar Drive within a stretch of six houses and the extension of 11 Cedar Drive would place 11 adults in two adjacent properties in a family area.  It was noted that 13 Cedar Drive had already been extended and was occupied by five or six students, with the neighbour having noted examples where they had to go out in the early hours of the morning in an attempt to calm a drunk and rowdy party and ask if cars could be moved to allow others access to their driveways.  Mr R Williams noted that when 13 Cedar Drive had been occupied by five professional temporary residents, there had been five cars parked on the street and this had resulted in the street being blocked and prevented bin collection for most of Cedar Drive.  He added that 3 Cedar Drive had been converted to an HMO and had works to convert the front garden to allow off-street parking and, while significantly altering the character of the house, was recognition by one Landlord of the problems with parking on Cedar Drive.  He noted that the proposed development at 11 Cedar Drive would clearly cause harm to the living conditions of residents of nearby family homes and would have an adverse impact upon the balance of the housing mix, damaging the cohesion of the Farewell Hall community and therefore was contrary to Policy H13.  He added that the proposed development as an HMO would introduce noise, disruptive parking, issues relating to bin collection, erosion and loss of community spirit and neglect or disruption to the frontage of the property causing negative change to the character of Cedar Drive.

 

Mr R Williams explained that the Applicant had claimed two cars could be parked on the driveway, however, that would not solve the parking problem, with potentially six residents have cars. 

 

 

He noted from the existing HMOs in the area, resident had learned there was no restriction on the number of cars and with Cedar Drive only being six metres wide with parking and drives on both side of the street, when parking was permitted on both side the width remaining was not sufficient to allow refuse vehicles or other large delivery vehicle to get along the street.

 

Mr R Williams noted that NEDL had not been consulted as regards the application, however, they would require access to their sub-station located further along Cedar Drive.  He noted in summary that residents would wish for the application to be refused as the adverse impact of its resulting use would have on the community, another HMO within a stretch of six homes would add further disruption to the small neighbourhood of families, a mix of younger and older residents.  He added that residents’ experience was that the temporary occupants of such HMOs had no interest or regard for our balanced communities and had so far shown no regards for the welfare of residents in their conduct, blocking the street with their cars, and leaving their bins out obstructing the street.  He noted the extensions and conversions to HMOs had no regard for the quality and character of the street.  He concluded by noting that the residents of Farewell Hall would appreciate if the Committee could support local residents and refuse the application to protect the character of the estate, the quiet amenity of immediate neighbours and prevent traffic issues.

 

The Chair thanked Mr R Williams and asked the Senior Committee Services Officer, Ian Croft to read out a statement received from Mary Foy, MP for the City of Durham.

 

The Senior Committee Services Officer noted the statement from Mary Foy MP read as follows:

 

This application for an HMO is in an area of the city that remains mostly populated by families and elderly residents.  As such, it is one of the few locations in what could be considered the city that has not seen a huge increase in the number of HMOs, although several have appeared recently.  Although the conversion to an HMO does not require planning permission, and so cannot be considered by the Committee, there are however a number of concerns that my constituents have raised that they feel will fundamentally affect the local area in a number of ways.

 

First, there is the issue of traffic. This application is for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of an extension to the side and the rear of the property.  The properties along Cedar Drive are semi-detached properties, with many having extended above existing garages, but none having extended to the rear.  As such, if these properties are used as family homes, then there would usually be adequate off-street parking for these properties.

This application, however, proposes removing the garage but introducing six bedrooms to the property.  As Cedar Drive is a narrow street where on-street parking would either block the road, or access to another property, it is hard to see how this was assessed as having adequate parking. Saved Policy T1 indicates that “The Council will not grant planning permission for development that would generate traffic which would be detrimental to highway safety and/or have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property.”  Given that this property will house six unrelated people, it is easy to see that this development could introduce an unacceptable level of vehicles to this street and will significantly affect the amenity of local residents.

 

Furthermore, H9 states that the conversion of properties will only be permitted if “it will not affect the amenity of nearby residents…” Given the traffic issue, and the fact that my constituents have reported that even with the small number of HMOs in the area, the disruption is such that they feel the need to move away from the area, this application for the development of the property to incorporate 6 bedrooms would breach this policy.

 

I am also aware of a number of other issues that have been raised by constituents, including the effect that the extension would have on the amenity of No.9 Cedar Drive through the loss of privacy and daylight.  This would seem to be in contravention of policies H13 and Q9.

 

Ultimately, while there is no current mechanism to stop the conversion of this property into an HMO, it seems unlikely that this application for an extension would be proceeding without the intention to change the use of the property. Indeed, one more additional occupant to the property would push this property into the realm of a large HMO and require planning permission as this would then be Sui-Generis.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Committee Services Officer and asked the Applicant, Ms Gabrielle Moore to speak in support of her application.

 

Ms G Moore thanked the Chair and noted that the intention was for the garage to be used and was included on the plans to be taken down and rebuilt as it did not have foundations sufficient to hold an extension above it.  She added that the garage as included in the plans was four metres long which was long enough to park most cars and noted there was parking for two cars outside of the house, not going out onto the street.  She noted that if one were to drive up and down Cedar Drive one would find it was a quite affluent area and the residents usually had two or more cars, typically more than a group of students would have, which Ms G Moore noted was her experience as a student landlord for 10 years.  She explained that it was rare for more than one car per student household, and usually there was no car.

 

Ms G Moore noted she found Parish Councillor G Holland’s representation to be very saddening and very shocking in prejudging that students would be involved in crime, she noted that in terms of her properties she had only ever had one incident involving the law and that had not been to do with students, it had not been a student property.  She asked that people stop prejudging the students within our communities.  In relation to comments from Councillor L Brown noting concerns as regards deliveries causing traffic in the area, Ms G Moore noted that residents traveling by car to a shop or themselves ordering goods for delivery equated to the same amount of traffic on the road.  She noted that it had been pointed out that student properties were unoccupied for five months of the year as a problem and suggested that if there would then be peace and quiet and less traffic generated then she could not see the logic in complaints in that regard.  As regards sui generis use of the property, Ms G Moore noted that if that was her intention for the property that would have been the permission she would have applied for, however, her student properties had large rooms for students and as her children were students she wanted the properties to be as she would want them for her own children.  She noted that if one were to make the property into a seven bedroom property, it would require a living room and therefore it would not be possible and was not her desire in any case. She asked that the Committee be assured it would never be more than six bedrooms and the garage was intended for use as a garage.

 

Ms G Moore noted that it had been mentioned that there were no rear extensions to nearby properties, however, if one checked on the Council’s website you could find that 4 Cedar Drive had a much larger extension to the rear than the one proposed within her application.  She noted she had friends that lived nearby, and she did not want them to have “an embarrassment of a house” in their street.  Ms G Moore noted an example of friends in their late 80s and 90s that lived in another part of Durham where the neighbouring property had come up for sale and they rang her to ask her to purchase the property as they knew she would look after the property and deal with any issues with students should they arise.  She noted an issue with another student property she owned having been an opaque window not being sufficiently opaque, so a blind was installed.  She noted that she would appreciate if students would not be prejudged, highlighted that a mixed community was just that, residents that worked, those of low-income and students, and noted that she found the snobby attitude against students quite upsetting.

 

The Chair thanked Ms G Moore and asked the Officers to respond to the points raised by the speakers.

 

 

 

 

The Planning Officer, GS noted that in respect of Policy H9 he could clarify that it was not relevant as the change of use did not require planning permission and the extension was not to an existing HMO, the property currently being in C3 use and therefore the policy did not apply and the impacts not considered.  In respect of previous Appeals, he noted the application was different in that it fell outside of the Article 4 Direction, the successful Appeals being for properties within the Article 4 Direction area and added that each application should be judged upon its own merits.  The Planning Officer, GS noted that while seeking pre-application advice was preferable, it was not a requirement for Applicants to seek such advice and an application would not be looked upon less favourable should such pre-application advice not be sought.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter noted that in respect the change of use, it was listed as part of the description of the application and therefore if the permission was approved, the permission would cover the change of use.  He noted the position that Officers had taken was that as the change of use from C3 to C4 was permitted development, a deemed planning permission, then the principle of that use was established and provided a strong fallback position for the Applicant.  He noted this was why the Planning Officer focused on issues with the built form of the development within his report.

 

The Highway Development Manager, John Mcgargill noted that Objectors had suggested parking provision in curtilage in line with the number of bedrooms and added this would not normally be the case for any other type of development, for example three-bedroom properties did not require three parking spaces, four-bedroom properties did not require four spaces.  He noted that numbers for greater numbers of bedroom were not within the Council’s parking standards and added there were two in-curtilage parking spaces, together with the garage albeit at five metres it was not considered.  He explained that Officers had looked at the two spaces being provided, noted existing HMOs in the area, and looked at the potential impacts of the application including parking on the street, on the amenity of neighbours and whether the application would then be contrary to saved Local Plan Policy T1.  He noted that Officers had felt in general that it would not be contrary to T1 in that car ownerships within the Area Action Partnership (AAP) area was not 100 percent, rather was around 75 percent, and one would not expect 100 percent of students, especially within Durham City, to own a vehicle.  The Highway Development Manager noted there was a bus stop at the top of South Road which could be accessed from the rear of the property and there had been reference to the property being served by delivery vehicles so therefore car ownership may not be as high as being suggested.  He reiterated he did not feel the application was contrary to T1 as it was not a significant effect on the amenity of neighbourhood if there was an additional car parked on the street. 

He added that street was 5.5 metres wide and therefore sufficient to enable parking of cars alongside the footway and allow for service and emergency vehicles to pass parked cars.  He noted that there was a reliance on responsible parking so that there was not an obstruction, however, this would be no different to any other street. The Highway Development Manager noted there had been reference by speakers that the application would be contrary to Policy T10 which was contradictory as that policy sought to limit the number of parking spaces provided in order to promote sustainable modes of transport.  He reiterated that it was the Officers’ view that the application was in sustainable location with a bus stop nearby.  The Highway Development Manager noted that there had been a query in terms of Policy H9 and adequate parking an impact upon amenity in the area.  He shared a street view of Cedar Drive with the Committee on screen and noted that the position of Officers was that the provision of off-street and on-street parking was such to allow emergency and service vehicles to pass any parked vehicles.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked the Committee for their comments and questions on the application.

 

Councillor P Taylor thanked the Officer for an excellent report and the Local Member and Parish Councillor for their representations.  He noted he felt some confrontation from the Applicant and added he was against the proliferation of business opportunities in terms of student properties within residential areas and would look to resist such applications.  However, he noted that he was struggling in terms of planning policy reasons and therefore refusal would be very difficult.  He reminded Members that it was the Committee’s decision to make, however he felt, while not afraid of any Appeal of a decision, unfortunately a case for refusal could not be made.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he agreed with Councillor P Taylor in respect of the proliferation of student properties and noted residents of the city were sick and tired of HMOs.  He added that HMOs were destroying the city centre, noted the many purpose build student accommodations within the city and felt that there was a degree of pandering to the University.  He noted it was not fair to residents that lived in the city, used the shops and paid money to the Council, students did not, and he was of a mind to let the application go to Appeal.

 

Councillor A Gardner noted he worked for St. Mary’s College, Durham University and explained he was therefore aware of how students may act on occasion within some of the HMOs.  He understood the position as set out be the Applicant, students were requiring homes while they studied at the University, which itself had expanded at a rapid rate, and he added that there was a balance required in terms of protecting local residents. 

He thanked the Solicitor – Planning and Development for the clarification in terms of the change of use, and while he would like to stand with residents, Councillor A Gardner felt any refusal would be overturned on Appeal

 

Councillor D Freeman thanked the Chair and noted, like the Members who had already spoke, he had immense sympathy with the residents’ position.  He asked as regards why Policy H9 could not be applied in this case, feeling that it was relevant with the change of use to an HMO.  He felt H9 and H13 were grounds for refusal and it was not clear why H9 could not be used as it was a student property within a small street affecting the balance of the area and the amenity of residents.

 

The Planning Officer, GS noted Policy H9 referred to changes of use to sub-divide houses, which would include C4 HMOs as well as extensions to existing HMOs.  He reiterated that the application site was outside of the Article 4 Direction area and therefore planning permission for change of use from C3 to C4 was not required, it being permitted development.  In respect of the extensions, it was clear the policy referred to existing HMOs, with the current property not being an HMO, therefore Policy H9 did not apply.

 

Councillor M Davinson asked if the Highway Development Manager could comment in terms of similar applications where parking permits were issued, or otherwise.  He noted a cycle store within the plans and asked for further information in relation to the 75 percent car ownership within the area and guidance and parking standards. 

 

The Highway Development Manager noted that parking standards referred to properties up to four-bed, with no specific requirements for those beyond four bedrooms.  He noted the usual in-curtilage provision was two, with this being met by the proposed development.  He noted the question of “adequate” parking then required consideration of issues such as car ownership levels and noted if demand was such for a car parking space per bedroom of a property the streets would be blocked.  He explained that even with car ownership of 75 percent, that would represent four cars, with two in-curtilage and two parked on the street, with Officers believing there was adequate space available to park responsibly.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that as Members were not able to find policies in order to refuse the application, she would move that the application be approved. 

 

Councillor M Davinson asked as regards paragraph 54, where Councillor L Brown had requested a construction management plan (CMP) be put in place should the application be approved.

 

The Planning Officer, GS noted that he had noted within his report the suggestion from Councillor L Brown as regards the inclusion of a CMP or similar to protect residents during the construction phase.  He noted that Officers did not feel that was necessary in order to make the application acceptable as CMPs were generally for larger types of development which would take place over larger timescales.  He noted CMPs would normally include details relating to issues such as hours of operation and locations for the unloading and storing of materials.  He noted the report had suggested the inclusion of an informative to advise the Applicant as to what reasonable construction working hours would be and Officers felt a condition in this respect was not required.

 

Councillor M Davinson suggested that a condition in respect of hours of operation and protecting against the possibility of the street becoming blocked would be beneficial and that the Planning Officer, GS could look to speak as regards the necessary times and requirements.  The Solicitor – Planning and Developer noted that whether such a condition was necessary was for Members to decide, noting it was the opinion of the Planning Officer that it was not necessary.

 

Councillor P Taylor had similar concerns in respect of the construction phase and agreed with having levels of control to protect the amenity of residents.

 

Councillor A Laing recalled at previous Committee meetings similar conditions as alluded to by Councillor M Davinson had been added by Members and would agree for that to be the case for this application.

 

Councillor J Robinson seconded the motion for approval, with the CMP condition to take Members concerns into account, noting for them to be delegated to the Officer, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.  Councillor D Brown noted he agreed with the comments as made by Councillor J Robinson.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out within the report and an additional condition relating to a Construction Management Plan, the details of which to be delegated to the Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair and Vice-chair of the Committee.

 

Supporting documents: