Agenda item

Change of use from 6 bed C4 to 9 bed Sui Generis HMO with single storey rear extension.

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 change of use from 6 bed C4 to 9 bed Sui Generis HMO with single storey rear extension and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

Councillor C Marshall left the meeting at 10.00am

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Grenville Holland, representing the City of Durham Parish Council, to speak on the application.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that Members of the Committee would have noted that no less than 38 households in the immediate vicinity of the property had lodged written objections.  He added that the strength and the breadth of those objections should alert the Committee to the level of feeling in the neighbourhood, a feeling which, as Members would be hearing, was based on their experiences in recent years.  He noted that, in planning terms, the extension of the property apparently survived the restrictions imposed by County Durham Plan (CDP) Policy 16.2 whose intention was to prevent our city becoming no more than a student dormitory for Durham University.  He added that, as Members were aware, it was a policy that was being bypassed by the landlords.  He explained that, however, Policy 16 was not the only constraint on such developments, there were other policies designed to protect both the setting of our neighbourhoods and the welfare of its residents, and the integrity of those policies must not simply be minimised, as had happened in the Officer’s report at paragraph 71.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted that it was a great pity that Committee Members no longer made the once obligatory site visit prior to their meetings as it would have enabled Members to see first-hand the concerns of the residents.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted he would refer to the policies that led to the conclusion that the application should be refused, explaining that they included Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), CDP Policy 29 paragraphs a, c, e and f, and Policy 31, as well as Policies S1, H3 and D4 of the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP).

 

He noted that Part 12 of the NPPF was a baseline policy, which sets the platform to achieve well-designed places, and offered guidelines as to how that target could be reached by requiring sustainable buildings and by making certain that developments will ‘always add to the overall quality of an area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development’.  He added that the proposed development at Larches Road missed that target completely.  He explained that Policy 29 of the CDP provided more restrictive conditions, and that the proposed extension did not, to quote 29a, ‘contribute positively to an area’s character, identity, townscape and landscape features’, nor did it help ‘to create and reinforce locally distinctive and sustainable communities’.  He added that furthermore, it most certainly did not, to quote 29e, ‘provide high standards of amenity and privacy and minimise the impact of [the] development upon the occupants of existing adjacent and nearby properties’.  

 

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that there was plentiful evidence from the local residents that the property already fails 29f, ‘contribute towards healthy neighbourhoods; noting that indeed, once increased in size, as planned, its negative impact would be even more damaging.

 

In respect of CDP Policy 31, amenity and pollution, Parish Councillor G Holland noted that it required that ‘there will be no unacceptable impact, either individually or cumulatively, on health, living or working conditions’ and that it ‘can be integrated effectively with any existing community facilities’.  

He added that the application also fell short of DCNP Policy S1, sections a) and c), because it did not, ‘conserve the significance of the setting, character, local distinctiveness, tranquillity, and the contribution made to the sense of place’.  He noted that nor did it secure the ‘equity and benefit to the local community’ required by that policy nor, according to the residents, did it offer ‘a design and layout capable of respecting the privacy of, and visual impact on, occupiers of neighbouring properties’.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland added that the application did not meet the constraints of DCNP Policy D4 by providing accommodation to the highest standards.  He explained that this particular building was once a fine residential home with beautiful and well-maintained gardens and noted that now it was proposed to reduce it to no more than an unkempt functional building of convenience designed solely for profit by crowding in as many students as possible.  He noted that as a new extension to an existing house, it would fail to respect ‘the character and appearance of the local area’.  Parish Councillor G Holland added that the application did not meet the demands of DCNP Policy H3 because the development would most certainly not ‘sustain and make a positive contribution to the character and quality of the area’.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted, in summary, that the application failed elements of the NPPF Part 12, and the constraints embedded in CDP Policies 29 and 31 and DCNP Policies S1, D4 and H3.  

 

He explained that the detailed record of neighbours’ concerns made it clear that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on their neighbourhood and their lives.  He added that even the Officer admits in her report that ‘the change of use proposed will lead to a significant intensification of residential use. This will increase the likelihood of general noise… which may impact on neighbouring residential use’.   

He added that, however, the Officer sets that aside as ‘unlikely to cause a statutory nuisance’.  He asked did that mean that the policies he had just discussed carried no weight unless it was certain there would be a statutory nuisance.

 

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that the golden thread of these policies was that any development: must ‘always add to the overall quality of the area’; must ‘sustain and make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of the area’; must bring ‘equity and benefit to the local community’; and must respect “the privacy of occupiers of neighbouring properties’.  He noted that the phrasing, the words, and the spirit of those policies could not be set aside and added that simply concluding in the Officer’s report that it would not do that much damage and that residents would just have to get used to the added problems it created in their community, did not accord with those policies and was no longer acceptable.  He added that the Committee therefore would need to confirm that our planning policies, so recently endorsed and approved, actually mean what they say they mean, and that they were policies that set the standard both now and in the future.  Parish Councillor G Holland explained that the application had understandably aroused strong local opposition and noted that the Committee would hear first-hand about those concerns.  He concluded by asking that the Committee listen to them, as it was Members who acted as their voice, and today Committee Members were the only voice that they had.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked Madeleine Ashdown, representing local residents in objection, to speak in relation to the application.  He noted there would be slides accompanying the representations.

 

M Ashdown thanked the Chair and explained she was speaking on behalf of the many residents in her neighbourhood who had objected to the application, and that residents would, in particular, like to thank our MP, Mary Foy for her ongoing help and support in respect of the matter.

 

She noted Parish Councillor G Holland had already explained why the application did not comply with the demands of relevant planning policies, accordingly, so noted that she would like to explain why residents objected so strongly to the application.  She noted that in her statement, the applicant said ‘I am a responsible landlord living locally and rarely have problems from my tenants’.  M Ashdown noted that residents’ experience was that that was simply not true, and they had been told of problems elsewhere in the city.  She noted that there had always been issues with this student accommodation, however, since this applicant bought 1 Larches Road in 2021, local residents had suffered ongoing problems that had caused disruption and distress to their family lives.

 

She explained that those problems included, to name a few:

 

1. late night noise and antisocial behaviour;

2. a serious outbreak of rats in the house next door;

3. uncontrolled storage of rubbish;

4. very poor maintenance of gardens and hedges;

5. parking cars and smoking weed in the back garden.

 

M Ashdown noted that in the last two years the students had hosted too many very noisy parties, disturbing neighbours until 3.00am or 4.00am, and the impact on the surrounding houses had been huge because the students gathered in the car port and in the garden outside the dwelling so that noise spread easily and widely.  She added that the next-door property, Rounton, contained two student flats which were both Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), and the students in both properties went back and forth between the two when parties were being held.  She noted that when asked to quieten down, the students had been abusive.  She added that neighbours had to call the police on several occasions, and the Community Response Team came out to the house wearing bodycams and dealt with the disturbances, which were recorded.

 

M Ashdown explained that the owners of the next-door property on Shaw Wood Close moved into their house about 18 months ago and the first thing they had to deal with was to call out pest control to deal with the outbreak of rats coming from next door, where dustbins were constantly overflowing and often not put out for collection.  She noted that the bad management of waste had caused a major health hazard to neighbours living close by.  She explained that the Applicant was never seen on site to oversee and manage this high-risk situation, rubbish was just dumped in the front drive when the tenants moved out.

 

M Ashdown noted that the back garden, once beautiful, was now abandoned and added that the photos shown by the Case Officer showed that the applicant cleaned up the garden when she put in the application.  She added that neighbours on Shaw Wood Close repeatedly tried to contact the applicant to ask her to cut back the hedge between their properties and explained that the hedge had grown so high it had reached 9 metres high at one point.  She noted that yet, the applicant ignored them so that at last, they had to cut the hedge back themselves leaving a note for her through the door.  M Ashdown explained that the Applicant then came to their house shouting, called the police, and tried to have them charged with criminal damage.  She noted that what the applicant describes in the Officer’s report as ‘having to involve the police’ because of problems with neighbours was actually threatening behaviour towards our neighbours who were simply trying to keep their own house in good order.

 

M Ashdown noted that the statement by the applicant in the Officer’s report that ‘Neighbours occasionally contact me; any problem is swiftly dealt with’ was clearly untrue.

 

She explained that students often smoked weed in the back garden; the smell was sometimes so strong that a close neighbour could not let her young daughter play in the garden for fear of her breathing in fumes.  She added that, taking advantage of the neglected garden, students had often used the back lawn to park their cars, overlooking the neighbouring houses to the rear, cars being sometimes left over the holiday period.

 

M Ashdown noted the applicant was now planning to add another three bedrooms to a property that had already been extended from three to six.  She noted the Case Officer did not think that there would be any overlooking issues between the extension and neighbouring properties, but the photo, set out in the presentation, shows that in fact it would intrude appreciably into the gardens of houses to either side.  She reiterated that poor management by this landlord had already seriously affected our neighbourhood even with six residents in occupation and asked Members to imagine how that would be magnified by cramming in yet another three students.  She added that indeed, the Case Officer admitted that in her statement: ‘the change of use proposed will lead to a significant intensification of residential use of the property via the introduction of an increased number of bedrooms/occupants. This will increase the likelihood of general noise… which may impact on neighbouring residential use’.  M Ashdown asked how that could accord with planning policies designed to protect our neighbourhoods and reiterated that the proposals would make an awful situation for residents even worse.  She thanked the Committee for listening to residents’ concerns and asked, for the sake of all of those who live in the area, that Members refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked M Ashdown and asked Councillor L Brown, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor L Brown thanked the Chair and explained that the property had originally been a four bedroom detached family home, adding she went to school with children who had lived there.  She noted that turning it into a nine bedroom HMO represented overdevelopment that was off the scale, in direct conflict with CDP Policy 6 parts b and d, which refer to inappropriate back land development and the scale and character of such development and directed Members particularly to Paragraph 4.115 of Policy 6.  She added that the application was also in conflict with CDP Policies 29 and 31, which deal with residential amenity.  She noted there was a history of complaints about the property and an apparent lack of control by the owner, which could only be compounded by increasing the number of residents.  She explained that DCNP Policy H3 referred to a development making a positive contribution to the character of an area, which should be taken into consideration.  She added that Members should also consider the application in the context of the Council’s Residential Amenity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  She asked how many times could you extend a house before the character of the original property was lost?

Councillor L Brown, in respect of planning policy, noted that there had been many HMO conversions and extensions put before Committee in the last few years as the University had expanded.  She noted that most of those had been approved under CDP Policy 16, however, too much weight was being given to both the Committee and Officers to that policy.  She explained that this was understandable as Policy 16 was a quantifiable policy, where an application either met the criteria or did not.  She noted that planning, as set out by the NPPF, was all about balance, adding that very little weight seemed to be given to other planning policies which also contain material planning considerations.  She explained that those policies were equally important as they were all put through an equally stringent validation by Inspector Fieldhouse in 2019.

 

Councillor L Brown asked that the Committee therefore not only look at Policy 16, where of course the application meets the criteria, but also consider and give equal weight to whether the application stands or fails against CDP Policies 6, 29 and 31, as well as Policy H3 of the DCNP.  She concluded by noting that policies that make one think were equally as important as a policy where the answer was handed to one on a plate.

 

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

 

Councillor L Brown left the meeting at 10.21am

 

Councillor J Elmer thanked the speakers, including the representations on behalf of residents.  He noted that Councillor L Brown had spoken of ‘balance’ and while the application was in line with Policy 16, there were other policies to consider, for example Policy 6, point 4.115 which stated: ‘…conversions and replacement buildings, proposals should not significantly increase the size or impact of the original building where this would have an adverse effect on the character of the surrounding area or the amenity…’.  He noted that the Committee had heard as regards the issues with amenity, anti-social behaviour, noise, threatening, abuse, parties, drug use and police involvement.  He added that represented significant harm.

 

Councillor I Cochrane left at 10.23am

 

Councillor J Elmer explained that Council Tax records gave an HMO percentage in the area of 8.5 percent, however, it was likely higher as it was not always possible to tell by Council Tax records whether a property was being used as a student HMO.  He noted the objections that had been raised by the residents, Local Member, City of Durham Parish Council, City of Durham Trust and the Local MP and explained that therefore he would move refusal of the application.

 

Councillor J Cosslett noted he would second the motion for refusal.

 

Councillor I Cochrane entered the meeting at 10.25am

 

Councillor K Shaw referred to a recently approved purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) block, noting such applications were approved, in part, as they helped to reduce the demand for change of use of residential dwellings into student HMOs.  He added he shared the concerns raised by residents in respect of the application.  He noted that Members were referred to policies within the CDP, NPPF and DCNP and told by Officers that the application should not be refused, however, he felt that there must be a tipping point.  He added there had been a 900 bed student accommodation previously approved and noted that he felt that now we were at that tipping point.  He explained he understood that each application should be considered on its own merits, however, in this case the move from six to nine bedrooms was too much and therefore he was opposed to the application.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted she agreed with Councillor K Shaw and noted that Members were in a very difficult position and noted Members had sat in Committee many times considering HMO applications.  She noted there was a need to look at this issue and to have a firm policy as, at the moment, applicants use the NPPF, and reiterated that the Council needed to ‘grab the bull by the horns’ in terms of policy.  She noted she too was opposed the application.

 

The Chair noted that he felt the Council did have the requisite policies to deal with HMO applications.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted for clarification that the large PBSA located down the hill from the application site was very much a University project and that they preferred their PBSAs and therefore he felt refusing this application would align with Durham University’s position.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted that he felt any refusal in this case would not be carte blanche for the future applications for change of use for HMO, rather was specific for this application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that Policy 16 was a policy relating to the principle of HMOs, designed to protect the balance of communities.  He noted the Committee had noted the issues of noise and disturbance and how that impacted the community.  He added that Officers had felt that the application was in accordance with Policy, however, the speakers had referred to other policies relating to noise and disturbance that were material. 

He added that if Members felt that those issues outweighed in terms of residential amenity, if they could expand on their reasoning as he felt it would be important, should the decision required to be defended at appeal.

Councillor J Elmer noted he felt the strongest point was in relation to Policy 6, in securing the amenity of neighbouring properties, not just in terms of noise, but also anti-social behaviour, rats, drug use, parties, abuse and police involvement.  He noted there was ample evidence of existing impact, made worse if the property was extended.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the identity of the applicant was not material, nor was previous impact.  Councillor J Elmer noted it was the impact on amenity by the additional number of students proposed by the application.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter noted that he would caution against any refusal reason linked to the applicant or tenants, rather to focus on amenity issues, not individual tenants or neighbour disputes.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted those were the reasons she felt that there needed to be an HMO policy with criteria for clarification, reiterating she felt the policy in place was not firm enough.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED as the change in use of the property to a larger house in multiple occupation (Use Class Sui Generis) and the associated increase in occupants would have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing residents through increased noise, disturbance and antisocial behaviour, contrary to the aims of policies 6, 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan and Part 15 of the NPPF.

 

Councillor L Brown entered the meeting at 10.39am