Agenda item

DM/21/02279/FPA - 26 May Street, Durham, DH1 4EN

Erection of single-storey extension, conversion of flat roof to pitched roof and new window all to rear elevation and internal alterations to an existing HMO (use Class C4).

Minutes:

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 the erection of single-storey extension, conversion of flat roof to pitched roof and new window all to rear elevation and internal alterations to an existing HMO (use Class C4) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Officer noted there was an update to amend an error in paragraph 52 of the report, with the paragraph to read: “Given the limited scale of the proposal and the fact that the materials proposed were considered appropriate subject to a condition that materials match, it is considered that points i - l are met.  In respect of points c, d, f and h, it is considered that these are not relevant in the determination of the application” as opposed to sample materials being submitted.

 

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

 

Councillor L Brown thanked the Chair and Committee Members and explained she was speaking to disagree totally with the Planning Officer’s recommendation that the application should be approved.  She added that the determination of the application was based entirely on a flawed interpretation of CDP Policy 16.3.

 

Councillor L Brown noted CDP Policy 16.3 stated that applications for new build HMOs and extensions that result in specified or potential additional bedspaces would not be permitted if, including the proposed development, more than 10 percent of the total number of residential units within 100 metres of the application site were exempt from Council Tax charges, Class N Student Exemption.  She added that extensions would not be resisted if the area already had a concentration in excess of 90 percent of Council Tax exempt properties.

 

She explained that, in plain English, that meant that an application for an extension to an HMO that resulted in a potential extra bedroom would not be allowed if the concentration of students within 100 metres was over 10 percent and under 90 percent.  She added that Members would note from the documents associated with the application that 59.5 percent of the properties within 100 metres were student properties.  She highlighted that the policy did not refer to the number of student properties per postcode as the Applicant’s statement within the Committee report would have one believe.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that Policy 16.3 was adopted after much discussion at the Examination in Public, to promote, create, and preserve inclusive, mixed, and balanced communities, to protect residential amenity, and maintain an appropriate housing mix.  She added the policy was supported by NPPF Policy 8 which promoted mixed and balanced communities whose residents should live without the fear of crime.  She explained that it was adopted to protect the 40 percent of residents who still lived in the area and wished to go about their daily lives without interrupted sleep and fear of anti-social behaviour.  Councillor L Brown noted that the Durham Constabulary crime map showed that student area, known as the Viaduct area, was subject to high rates of crime and anti-social behaviour, as were other student areas in the city.

 

Councillor L Brown noted Members may say “its only one room”, however she added that “only one room” in every HMO in the area would result in an intolerable situation for the beleaguered residents whom she represented as County and Parish Councillor.  She noted the Applicant wanted to build the extension to house a shower room which would enable him to turn the previous shower room into a bedroom, thus turning a five bedroomed HMO into a six bedroomed HMO.  Councillor L Brown noted the application was for an extension that resulted in a potential addition bedroom, and therefore it was contrary to CDP Policy 16.3 and NPPF 8.  She explained that the Officer’s recommendation should be overturned, and the application refused.

 

 

 

Councillor L Brown noted she had one final point that, despite it being an extremely remote possibility that the application was approved, if the application was approved, she would ask that a construction plan be included within the conditions.  She explained this was because work had been recently carried out to student properties in the area seven days a week starting early in the morning and that was not fair to permanent residents.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Officers to comment on the points raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted, with reference to CDP Policy 16.3, issues were covered within the Committee report at paragraph 66.  He explained that the policy made reference to extensions which would either deliver additional bed space or the potential to deliver additional bed space.  He added that, for the reasons as set out within the report, Officers did not feel that the application delivered new bed space or the potential to deliver new bed space.  He noted the internal alterations could take place through permitted development rights without the extension and the number of beds that were proposed could be delivered irrespective of the extension.

 

Councillor E Mavin asked if there was a CMP set out for the proposed development.  The Planning Officer noted that there was currently no condition proposed for a CMP, it not normally being a requirement for development of the size proposed, however that was something the Committee could consider should they be minded to do so.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he felt that it was fairly clear that the point behind the application was to enable more people to live in the house.  He added that it offered the potential to created additional bed space and while that case could not be absolutely proven, he thought that was immaterial as the word “potential” was being used specifically.  He noted that gathering the evidence to prove that was the case could be the thing to do.  He agreed with Councillor E Mavin in respect of a CMP as it may give clear understanding as to what precisely was proposed and to make a judgement as to whether the applicant was creating the potential for an additional room.  He noted it was complex and he imagined the applicant would wish for determination at Committee today, however he did not feel Members had sufficient knowledge to be certain as regards the potential to create an additional room.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that he did not think the standard CMP that the Authority used would necessarily give control over the end layout, it would refer to how the development would be undertaken, in terms of deliveries and the like, and he was not sure that it would deliver what Members were asking for.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that therefore he felt the only reasonable assumption was that the application was about creating the potential for an additional room.  The Planning Officer noted that the plans showed that the development was for six bedrooms, the maximum allowed for a C4 use application and explained that the Authority could not control those aspects as all of the internal alterations could be carried out without planning permission, the six rooms could be created without planning permission.  She added that the elements the Council could control were the pitched roof, which did not create any additional rooms, and the enlargement to the existing shower room, which also did not create an additional room. 

She noted that while the number of people in the property would increase, the development which created the increase in the number was not under the control of the Authority, the owner could carry out those works in any case.  She added that if the application was refused, the Applicant could carry out the internal works with a smaller shower room and then come back to the Authority as a six bed HMO with an application for an extension to the shower room.  The Planning Officer noted that, in terms of CDP Policy 16, the development that the Authority could control did not increase the number of bed spaces, rather the internal alterations would.  Councillor J Elmer asked if that required a change of use application.  The Planning Officer noted it did not as the use was already C4 HMO which allowed for up to six people, a change of use would only be required for a number greater than six to change from C4 use to sui generis use.

 

Councillor D Brown moved that the application be approved, he was seconded by Councillor L Holmes.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that rather than a CMP being conditioned for an application of the size before Committee, there was the option to control the hours of operation by condition which may be more appropriate than a full CMP.  He noted the decision was for the Committee.  Councillor E Mavin suggested moving to the vote, Councillor J Elmer suggested the addition of a condition relating to the hours of construction. 

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked those Councillors that had proposed the approval of the application if they were also proposing a condition in relation to the hours of working.  Councillors D Brown and L Holmes agreed to such an additional condition.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report, with an additional condition relating to the hours of construction works.

 

Supporting documents: