Agenda item

Change use of dwellinghouse (C3) to 7 bed large HMO (Sui Generis) including changing the use of the garage into a habitable room.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Hurton 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 use of dwellinghouse (C3) to 7 bed large HMO (Sui Generis) including changing the use of the garage into a habitable room and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Members to recall a previous application for the property at 1 St. Monica Grove, approved at Committee at its meeting in February.  He asked Parish Councillor Susan Walker, to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor S Walker thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that the Parish Council objected to the application on several counts.  She noted that, firstly, in respect of the issue of parking, the Council’s Highways Section accepted that three parking spaces was required and submitted plans did show three spaces.  She noted, however, that one of the spaces would be locked in behind two other cars, which was never an ideal arrangement especially in a household of three unrelated adults.  She noted that more worrying was that in gaining the third parking space it appeared that there was a requirement to remove an established hedge which would not only impinge on the privacy of the residents of 5 St. Monica Grove but was also in direct contravention of CDP Policy 40 which stated that hedges should not be lost unless the benefits clearly outweigh the harm, which the Parish Council felt was clearly not the case in this instance.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, the Parish Council would ask that the hedge was protected, and the number of bedrooms be reduced to five, to allow for the fact there would only be parking for two cars, in accordance with the Council’s own parking supplementary planning document (SPD).  She noted that it also appeared that there was no provision of EV charging or bicycle storage facilities, contrary to CDP Policy 16.3 (d) and Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) Policy T3.  She added that the supplied plans appeared to show there was no route to remove bins from their storage location without the removal of cars, which was not an acceptable arrangement and contrary to CDP Policy 16.3 (e).  She reminded the Committee that the CDP stated that development would only be permitted if it meets Policy 16.3 (d) – (g), which the proposed development clearly did not.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that, secondly, the application was in reality a join development, as evidenced by the fact the plans for 1 St. Monica Grove were included within the application.  She noted that the Parish Council felt it was a de facto PBSA project that sought to overdevelop what were, and should continue to be, residential properties in an established residential street, by imposing high density transient student presence among what were families with young children and older residents, to the detriment to their amenity.  She explained that this was contrary to CDP Policy 31 and noted that if the development was permitted, there would be significant loss of amenity to the current residents of both St. Monica Grove and Lyndhurst Drive, with up to 12 unrelated adults living at a single location.  She noted it would cause significantly more noise, rubbish and traffic with all the separate journeys and deliveries, more than two family homes, of which there was a significant shortage of in the area.  She noted this was contrary to the spirit of CDP Policy 16.3 and because of that, the Parish Council would ask that, if the Committee were minded to approve the application, that they make the recommendations of the Council’s Noise Action Team (NAT) mandatory conditions.  Parish Councillor S Walker explained they included that prior to occupation of the premises, a scheme of sound proofing measures, to ground the ground floor bedrooms, shall be installed, with the aim of the scheme to ensure that the noise insulation of walls between adjacent properties shall be sufficient to prevent excessive ingress of noise.  She added that another condition should be applied to ensure that the use was for HMO use only, with no more than seven occupants to be in the residence at any one time and added that if Committee were minded to reduce the number of bedrooms to five, the occupancy would also be reduced to five.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the NAT recommended, and Planners were advised to ensure via condition, that a suitable tenant management plan was provided by the applicant. 

She noted that thirdly, there was the issue of need, adding that one of the CDP targets was to create mixed, balanced communities and explained that within Durham City it was increasingly difficult to find affordable family homes and yet, by the University’s own admission there was a surplus of student accommodation.  She added that was sufficient University and private sector accommodation to meet the 2026/27 target for student numbers and the Parish Council felt it was unacceptable that ordinary working class people were being squeezed out of the city, purely for the benefit of developers.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that the application was for a development that was both unwanted by local residents and unneeded.  She noted the Parish Council had numerous representations from residents who were opposed to the development.  She added that while the Parish Council received complaints from the Committee in bringing such matters before Members, it was the job of the Parish Council to do so and it was the job of the Committee to represent the best interests of the residents of Durham, to listen to their views and to find wats of ensuring that the city remained a tranquil and connected place for permanent residents.  She noted the Parish Council would plead that, rather than give hints and tips to developers on how they could get the application ‘over the line’, which she noted appeared to have happened in this case, that Members find a way of doing what the ordinary residents of the community wanted.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked Jon Old, speaking on behalf of residents, to address the Committee.

J Old noted there had been 62 objections to the application from the surrounding area, from a spectrum of residents young and old, those with families and those that were retired.  He noted the area was within walking distance to nearby schools and was ideally suited for families, with such housing being in short supply.  He noted residents had been disappointed that the application for 1 St. Monica Grove had been approved and had not been considered alongside this application.  He noted it would in total represent 12 unrelated adults living across the two adjacent properties, effectively a PBSA.  He noted that 1 St. Monica Grove was being advertised as a six bed property, not five bed.  He explained that new MHO data would be put forward in April and noted the applications had not been deferred to take this into account.  He referred Members to a presentation slide which set out properties that residents understood were used by students, and that this would represent a student density within 100 metres to be 11.6 percent.

J Old noted that such applications were an assault on residents’ quality of life, contrary to CDP Policy 16.3 and added that CDP Policy 29 (e) noted that development should represent a minimum impact on amenity.  He asked that if the application be approved that a 24 hour telephone contact be provided for residents use in reporting issues. 

In respect of the parking arrangements, J Old noted that for 12 unrelated adults in total, the number of parking spaces was insufficient, contrary to CDP Policy 6 (e) and asked that the new parking standards be applied in this case.

J Old noted that the area represented a direct route into the city and was part of the National Cycle Network, however, was used as shortcut by students.  He noted articles within the Northern Echo from 2019 as regards HMO figures and reiterated there would be an update to figures in April.  He asked that the application be deferred until such figures were available or refused as there was no evidence of need, alongside issues with parking and highway safety.

The Chair thanked J Old and asked Officers to respond to the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper (PH) noted that the issues raised were similar to those raised in connection with the previous application referred to for 1 St. Monica Grove.  He noted they had been discussed at the last Committee and were addressed within the report.  He added that in respect of HMO data, it was updated at two points within the year, the next being in April.  He noted that when the report was ready to be considered by Committee it would be listed to be heard, adding there was no planning reason to defer.  In terms of car parking, he noted the section within the report set out the view of the Highways Officers, with there being an opportunity for three space without the removal on the hedge.  In respect of bin storage, he noted there was a management plan, and the proposals showed the number of bins for the number of occupants could be accommodated, though additional conditions could be applied should Members be minded to do so.

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

Councillor L Brown noted she was one of the Local Members in respect of the application and had a keen interest in the matter.  She noted she agreed with the Parish Council in terms of a condition to protect the hedge and would ask that construction hours be brought in line with those agreed for 1 St. Monica Grove, with 0800 start times.  She noted that Neighbourhood Wardens had been contacted as regards issues already with the works at 1 St. Monica Grove, with issues relating to the footpath, and asked that Construction Management Plan (CMP) be put in place in terms of this application to prevent such issues.  She noted it was a very difficult application, one the one hand local people were not very happy while on the other there were not policy reasons for refusal, which she felt was very disappointing.  The Chair asked as regards the proposed conditions put forward by Councillor L Brown. 

The Principal Planning Officer (PH) noted that the working hours could be changed to mirror those for 1 St. Monica Grove.  In relation to a CMP, he noted that would not normally be pre-commencement, though a potential condition could be worded as regards a trigger point.  He noted that a specific condition relating to the hedge may prove difficult, however, he recalled that in the past landscaping plans had been used to include that anything with such plan be protected for a period of five years.  Councillor L Brown noted as an aside that it was hoped that a Controlled Parking Zone could be brought in for the area.

Councillor A Bell explained he had been on the Committee since 2009 after Local Government Reorganisation and noted that HMOs had always been and issue.  He added the CDP was now in place, with the 10 percent threshold and therefore he would find it hard to find a policy reason for refusal, though he did sympathise with the points made by the Parish Council and local residents.  He asked for information as regards what would happen if data in April showed a higher percentage of HMOs.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) reiterated that data was collated twice each year, and that policy as adopted within the CDP noted this.  He asked Members to recall that the issue had been discussed at the examination in public of the draft CDP and now that the CDP was adopted, the policy would be adhered to, unless there were other material considerations.  He reiterated that there was no reason to hold or defer the application in that respect.

Councillor J Elmer noted concern that one of the rooms did not meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS).  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) noted that had been initially the case, however, an update within the report notes that was no longer the case.

Councillor J Elmer noted that CDP Policy 16 and that while the percentage relating to HMOs within the report was stated as 6.1 percent, the Parish Council and residents state that it was greater than 10 percent.  He noted he had read the policy and did not see where it stated it would be based on Council Tax data gathered at a specific time.  The Principal Planning Officer, (PH) noted it related to the Class N exemptions, and that data was released twice annually, meaning that in those six month periods, that was the most accurate Class N data.  Councillor J Elmer noted he felt that data was not as accurate or up to date as it could be and asked for clarification from the Legal Officer.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways), Laura Ackermann noted that the data referred to was not out of date, it was that collated at the time of the Council Tax data sift, and that the data was accurate until the next time it was collated and reported.  Councillor J Elmer asked if the Council did not have access to the data at all times to be able to assess at any time.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted that the procedure in place was for twice annual reporting, noting that the process was time consuming. 

Councillor J Elmer noted that he disagreed and felt that the Graphical Information System (GIS) data could be kept up to date at all times.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) reiterated that the methodology was as agreed at the examination in public, with Class N data having been felt as robust.  Councillor J Elmer noted he had been at the examination in public and did not recall any reference to data being reported twice a year.  He explained he felt that this application was the exact opposite to the first item brought forward by the University.  He noted this application sought to cram in as many students as possible and while he was not happy with the application it was very complex in terms of looking to try and refuse under policy.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted the examination in public the use of Council Tax records had been discussed and the Inspector had agreed with the methodology, initially it had been annual, now twice annually.

Councillor R Manchester noted that with the approval of the application for 1 St. Monica Grove in February, surely the data was out of date by at least one HMO.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) noted that policy allowed to take into account non-started previously agreed permissions, adding the figures relating to this were set out within the report and they still were below the 10 percent threshold.

Councillor A Bell noted that the issues were complex in terms of HMOs, however, in this case he would move approval as per the recommendations and suggested conditions as referred to by Councillor L Brown and the Principal Planning Officer (PH).  Councillor S Deinali noted she could not see any policy reason to refuse the application and seconded the motion put forward by Councillor A Bell.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report and amended and additional conditions relating to operating hours, landscaping plan and construction management plan.

Councillors A Bell, C Marshall and S Deinali left the meeting at 2.27pm