Agenda item

Erection of part two-storey/ part single-storey extension to rear of existing small 4-bed HMO (use class C4) to include provision of 2 no. additional bedrooms.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Penman, 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 part two-storey/ part single-storey extension to rear of existing small 4-bed house in multiple occupation (HMO) (use class C4) to include provision of 2 no. additional bedrooms and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer noted that the application was not for change of use as the property was already a four-bed HMO with C4 use, allowing for up to six bedrooms.  She explained that the applicant had a fallback position in terms of a ground floor extension scheme under permitted development rights and noted a similar application that had been refused had subsequently been allowed at appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

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 explained that the City of Durham Parish Council had come into being in 2018 and since then had endeavoured to represent the interests of the residents within the Parish.  She noted that Whinney Hill was already an area with a high percentage of students and the application sought to add two bedrooms to an existing HMO and to facilitate that by building an extension to the property.  She added that would turn a small MHO into a large HMO and add another two students to an area which already had 50 percent student housing by postcode.

Councillor L Brown noted that, within the Committee report, great weight had been placed on the fact that an appeal for a neighbouring property with similar planning circumstance had been allowed.  She added that paragraphs 47, 50 and 64 all referred to the Inspector’s conclusions. 

She noted, however, that each application should be considered on its own merit and, as the City of Durham Trust had pointed out in their submission dated 6 December 2021, the Local Plan Inspector’s report was omitted from the written reports submitted with the appeal documents.  Councillor L Brown explained that report had placed far greater emphasis on the parts of Policy 16.3 dealing with extension which result in extra bed spaces.  She noted the Inspector’s actual words were “cumulatively over time, this could lead to a significant increase in the number of students living in an area, undermining the objective of the policy”.  She added that would then affect residential amenity as set out in Policies 29 and 31.

Councillor L Brown noted that furthermore, the Residential Amenity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) referred to in Policy 29 set out minimum separation distances, which the application breached.  She added the Planning Officer admitted that at paragraph 66 but then goes on to say that it was not considered that the proposals would be unacceptably harmful to residents.  She noted that it was the cumulative affect on residential amenity that was the issue.  She explained that not only would there an extension that would be overlooking a garden, two extra students could well mean more rubbish, more anti-social behaviour and more full-time residents suffering from lack of sleep and of a gradual erosion of their lives.  Councillor L Brown concluded by noting the Parish Council urged the Committee, on behalf of residents, reject the application as it was in breach of County Durham Plan (CDP) Policies 16, 29 and 31.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Elmer noted the importance of Policy 16 within the CDP, a policy that had been hard fought by the City of Durham Parish Council and other groups, to protect against the studentification of the city, impact on services and anti-social behaviour.  He explained that it was a huge credit to the Council in adopting CDP and Policy 16, drawing a line as regards student properties.  He added that he felt the proposals were a clear breach of Policy 16.3 with there already being a high number of student properties in the area.  He noted the argument made as regards the permitted development, however, he did not feel that was sufficient to abandon Policy 16 adding he felt that the Committee should hold the line and go against the Officer’s recommendation.  He noted the applicant’s statement made a case for the permitted development.  Councillor J Elmer moved that the application be rejected.  Councillor J Cosslett seconded the proposal for refusal.

Councillor C Marshall noted the application was a difficult one, noting the existing impact of HMOs, with families moving out of the city. 

He noted it was not a simple case of complying or not complying with policy, rather complying in part with weight given to Policy 16 and also the wider policies within the CDP.  He added that there was a risk in relation to an appeal, with Officers having set out the details of an appeal against a refusal for a similar application relating to 75 Whinney Hill that was subsequently upheld the Planning Inspector.  Councillor C Marshall noted the applicant had referred to permitted development and asked why put the Council at risk at appeal without a robust case.  He noted he felt there were not enough grounds for refusal and added that while some may not have concerns as regards value for money for taxpayers, he did.  He noted the sale of the Council’s new headquarters at the Sands and noted the additional students attending the University Business School would need somewhere to live.  He concluded by noting that, looking at broader policy and not wishing to waste taxpayers’ money frivolously, he would support the Officer’s report and propose that the application be approved.  Councillor A Surtees seconded the proposal for approval.

Councillor J Elmer agreed students would need a place to live and noted that the University wished to control that aspect and build accommodation themselves.  He noted that any subsequent appeal of a refusal may be lost, and asked Officers whether the appeal referred to that was upheld was prior to the CDP and Policy 16 being in place.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that the appeal relating to 75 Whinney Hill was decided on 18 May 2021 and at that point would have determined against the interim policy.  He noted another appeal decision relating to 51 Whinney Hill, and that whilst that appeal was dismissed by the Inspector it was not upheld on reasons relating to the presence of a legitimate fallback position.  He added that it was likely there would be the risk of costs at appeal and explained that the Officers’ professional opinion was that the application should be approved.  He reiterated that the appeals had been for similar development and accordingly had significant weight.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter noted Policy 16 was the key policy, with an application to be determined in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations said otherwise.  He added the fallback position relating to permitted development was sufficiently material to be given weight.  He noted the applicant had submitted a permitted development scheme, which Officers noted was likely to come forward should the current proposals not be approved and added that was a significant planning consideration.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) referred to the recent appeal decision where the Inspector had given weight to permitted development.  He noted that if the application was refused, he would expect that the applicant would appeal, and he would also expect a costs application.  He added that the issue of costs was not a significant or overriding issue, however, it was something for Members to have regard of.

The Chair noted that the Council, City of Durham Parish Council, City of Durham Trust and other organisations and individuals had fought hard for the policies as set out in the CDP, including Policy 16.  He noted the position in relation to the appeal decisions and noted he was minded to support Councillor J Elmer.

Councillor J Elmer reiterated he felt the application should be rejected as he felt it was contrary to Policy 16 in terms of creating balanced communities, noting the age structure of the area, and the impact on the settled community in the city.  He added he felt the applicant had been bombastic and bullyish in their approach in terms of permitted development.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that the applicant had undertaken a fairly standard approach in terms of stating what they would be able to take forward under permitted development adding it was not a bullying tactic, reiterating it was a common approach.

In relation to the motion for refusal proposed by Councillor J Elmer and seconded by Councillor J Cosslett, upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

In relation to the motion for approval proposed by Councillor C Marshall and seconded by Councillor A Surtees, upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

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