Agenda item

Change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to House in multiple occupation (HMO) (use class C4).

The Senior 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 change of use from dwelling (use class C3) to House in multiple occupation (HMO) (use class C4).and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Susan Walker to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council in relation to the application. 

Parish Councillor S Walker thanked the Chair and noted that the Parish Council’s Planning Committee strongly objected to the application. 

She noted that the application represented the first change of use application since the introduction of the Article 4 Direction to Mount Oswald in October 2011.  She explained that in their original justification for the introduction of the Article 4 Direction, the County Council had concluded that:

‘a) there is evidence of student households (which are generally HMOs) in these areas and;

b) residents have expressed concerns that concentrations of HMOs can negatively impact upon residential amenity (the quality of an area and the impact on local living conditions) and change the overall character of an area’.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that one of the key challenges identified in the DCNP was the loss of family homes to student accommodation and the imbalance it created.  She noted the imbalance in parts of the city was damaging the quality of life and future sustainability of schools, shops and other services and facilities.  She explained the Parish Council had regard to the objection letters submitted by neighbouring properties and noted that over 30 residents had attended a recent meeting of the Parish Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee to discuss the matter with the Parish Council.  She explained that it should be noted that nearby residents had reported being detrimentally affected by anti-social behaviour attributed to other student properties in the locality and residents had also reported that attempts to rectify the problems with HMOs had fallen on deaf ears, with no meaningful planning enforcement action when things had gone wrong.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted it was reasonable to assume that the occupiers of an HMO were likely to lead independent lives from one another and, taking into account the size of the application site, the activity generated by several persons living independent lives, with separate routines, and their attendant comings and goings along with those of their visitors would lead to a level of activity that would be markedly more intensive than which could be reasonable be expected to be associated with a single household.  She added that the activity, within an area where there was already a number of existing HMOs, would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.  She noted that, in particular, it was fair to assume that any future tenants of the property would likely be more frequent uses of the city’s night-time economy and therefore the likelihood of noise at anti-social hours was increased significantly.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that CDP Policy 29 was clear that all development would be required to achieve well designed buildings and places, having regard to SPDs and other local guidance documents where relevant and:

‘e) provide high standards of amenity and privacy, and minimise the impacts of development upon the occupants of existing adjacent and nearby properties’ and;

‘f) contribute towards healthy neighbourhoods and consider the health impacts of development and the needs of existing and future users’.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that Policy 31 relating to amenity and pollution also stated that development would be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact, either individually or cumulative, on health, living or working conditions.  She added that the Parish Council was concerned that the present proposals would result in a further imbalance in the community and would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding residential amenities through noise and disturbance, contrary to CDP Policies 29 and 31, as well as the NPPF Paragraph 130(f) which sought to resist development that adversely affects residential amenity.

Parish Councillor S Walker asked Members to consider the car parking needs of the proposed development, with the proposals appearing to have two spaces for six unrelated adults and their visitors and guests, to be provided on a narrow single driveway.  She noted that no dimensions for those proposed in-curtilage parking spaces had been provided as part of the submitted plans and therefore it was impossible to identify if they meet the requirements of Council standards.  She explained that the Parish Council was also concerned as regards the proposed bin storage and cycle storage for the dwelling, within the garage itself, further restricting the parking space within the garage.  She added that the reality would be that cars would be spilling out on to the street if the development was approved.  Parish Councillor S Walker noted that, in addition, the narrowness of the driveway would mean that the cars would need to be removed for transporting the bins to and from the kerbside, and in all probability to access the garage as a bicycle store.  She added that would require a significant level of coordination and cooperation from six unrelated adults and it was not unreasonable to accept that the management of household waste could become somewhat unneighbourly, giving rise to a significant loss of amenity to local residents.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that there was no provision of EV charging points as required by the Council’s Parking and Accessibility SPD, which would make potential residents dependent on the more expensive public charging network. 

In considering the needs of any future residents, Parish Councillor S Walker reminded Members that Policy 29 stated that ‘all new residential development will be required to comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS).  She explained that residents noted the objections from residents and also the website for the original developer of the site. 

She noted that the application site house is of the house type ‘Bradgate’ and the proposed bedroom six was the former study of the dwelling, the original developers having not thought it large enough to be called a bedroom. 

She noted that while the proposed elevations submitted by the applicant do not include room dimensions, neighbours in the same house type have measured their own study rooms and concluded that bedroom six was in fact 5.91m².  She added that was below the 7.5m² minimum required by the NSSS and the minimum 6.51m² required by HMO space standards.  Parish Councillor S Walker noted that, putting aside the immorality of people in HMOs not having the rights to the same standards as the rest of the community, she felt the Committee deserved that that measurement be checked.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that much of the proposed gross internal floorspace of the dwelling was proposed to be taken up by private bedrooms which effectively leaves very limited communal living space for future occupants.  She noted that, as such, the applicant’s assertion that the dwelling could accommodate six bedrooms was incorrect, adding that Members had a duty to potential tenants of the developer, that they were not “packed in like sardines”.

Parish Councillor S Walker concluded by noting that the development was not only significantly detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents, it was not even providing barely adequate provision for future occupants and for those reasons, and the fact Durham City needed more familiar homes not fewer, the application should be refused without delay.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked Fiona Adamson, Chair of the Mount Oswald Residents Association, to speak in relation to the application.

F Adamson noted she represented 47 residents and apologised that 45 of those had been unable to attend the Committee.  She reminded Members that the estate had been created to provide local family homes, with families having bought properties on that basis.  She added it was not a case of ‘town versus gown’, rather that the Mount Oswald development had been for mixed use, with two colleges for students, of 850 beds, and the rest for residential homes.  She noted that the approval for the PBSAs would be negated if HMOs were permitted it was against the original vision of the Mount Oswald development. 

She added the threat of systematic loss of family homes was a serious issue and residents had been delighted as regards the Article 4 Direction.  She noted the Officer’s report referred to an HMO percentage of 7.3 percent, however, local knowledge of additional properties where landlords pay Council Tax as the price to pay to operate an HMO.  She added that a large HMO property at the Bellway site also skewed the figures, and that looking at the postcode, one in five properties were HMOs.

F Adamson noted that CDP Policies 29 and 31 and explained that the impact of six people would be greater than a family and that student properties within the development were easily recognisable, with unkempt gardens, rubbish and a number of cars at those properties.  She noted that it was unfair that existing residents should be impacted negatively and that was contrary to Policies 29 and 31.  She noted that it was stated that the property would be for rent, not necessarily for students, but could include families, however, she noted that as someone that had grown up in Durham City, all areas now had a proliferation of HMOs and therefore it was important to prevent what was happening.  She noted that the 150 residents of the development had bought their forever homes and noted the Elected Members of the Committee could prevent the takeover of a family area.

The Chair thanked F Adamson and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor L Brown noted the application was within her Electoral Division and referred to paragraph 87 which set out the public highways were not adopted and asked whether this matter was in hand by the Council.  She also noted that the previous application had referred to the balance in terms of student properties within an area and noted that Planners had not expected these properties to become HMOs as they had been deemed too expensive to be let for students and therefore no covenants had been placed on the properties.  She therefore noted that Members should look at the balance and while the proposals may meet the requirements of Policy 16, she would say the application was against CDP Policies 21, 29, 31 and those within the DCNP and therefore she would vote against the application.

Councillor J Elmer noted that for the sake of consistency, he would note similarities to the previous application, adding six students into an area, where there were already concerns relating to anti-social behaviour, litter, noise, there would be impact upon residential amenity.  He noted that additionally there was a lack of cycle parking, parking, EV charging and there was the question of the NDSS and bedroom sizes.  He added that with 47 neighbours objecting, there was a strength of feeling from the community, and he felt it was important that Elected Members listened. 

He concluded by noting that the area should be for family homes, including for older people, and that the University had the students covered in this area, and therefore the application should be refused.  Councillor L Brown seconded the motion for refusal.

Councillor K Shaw noted his concerns, and the need to be consistent in decision making.  He added the proposal represented a smaller six bedroom HMO and was a more acceptable scale of development than the previous application.  He added that in this case he did not feel the tipping point had been reached and he did not have the same level of concerns as he had for the previous application, therefore he felt the Committee could not refuse the application.

The Chair asked for Officers to address the points raised by the Committee.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the whole property as proposed would meet the NDSS requirements, with the applicant stating that it would meet requirements, the objectors saying that it would not.  She noted that in terms of Licensing requirements, they were the same for five or six bedroom.  In terms of proposed living conditions, it was felt that the proposals were in line with CDP Policy 16 and therefore acceptable in terms of the impact upon amenity.

The Highway Development Manager, Phil Harrison noted that arrangements for parking were the same as if the property was a family home and therefore the same as previously approved when the properties were granted permission.  Councillor L Brown asked if there was a date for highway adoption.  The Highway Development Manager noted that the Section 38 process was ongoing, and he would speak to the relevant Officers and update Councillor L Brown accordingly.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted the differences between this application and the previous application, with the previous application being for the increase from six to nine HMO and the current being for the change of use to a six bedroom HMO.  He added that should the Committee refuse the application as it failed to accord with the requirements of Policy 16, that it would be challenging to defend that position on upon appeal. 

The Chair asked for refusal reasons in relation to the motion put forward by Councillor J Elmer and L Brown.  Councillor L Brown noted she felt the application was contrary to DCNP T1, T2, H3 and CDP Policies 21, 29 and 31.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) asked what specifically was objectionable, which part of the policy was felt to be engaged. 

Councillor L Brown noted that parking problems would be elevated in future, contrary to DCNP policies relating to parking, she noted Policy H3 and CDP Policies 29 and 31 related to impact upon residential amenity, noting that while compliant with Policy 16, she had noted the number of complaints from local residents.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) asked whether it was felt that the application was prejudicial to highway safety or would exacerbate existing issues.  Councillor L Brown noted that there were issues of people speeding up, parking especially give the 850 bed PBSA nearby.  She noted as regards the Article 4 Direction and that there had been an impact in terms of CV, referring to Facebook pages that gave information on where to park in the Mount Oswald development if going into the city, noting that a lot of students parked in the areas.  She added that an additional up to six cars would impact upon the other residents of the area. 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that was exacerbating existing parking and highway safety issues and added he was not sure that would be a sustainable refusal reason and asked for comment from the Highway Development Manager.  The Highway Development Manager noted that issues were currently under the control of the developer and would be for them to address, though once adopted, they would be for the Council to address.  He noted DCC standards was for two parking spaces for a five bed property and that the NPPF set a very high bar and therefore he felt refusal on the parking situation would not hold up at appeal as regards one more space.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that therefore he would advise if Members were to refuse the application they steer away from parking and highway safety and look to other residential amenity impacts.  Councillor L Brown noted that it was always possible to see which properties were student properties and asked if housing legislation was against it was not enforced.  She asked if it was fair for residents to pay a premium for their homes and to have to live with disruption.

The Chair noted that while there may be problems with existing HMOs, it was more difficult to quantify impact from this property as it was not yet an HMO.  Councillor L Brown conceded that this application was slightly different from the last application, however, she had seen so many HMO applications in her Division and many people move out of the area once an HMO is granted next door.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that amenity impact was subjective and for Members to come to a view upon.  He noted that there had to be an assumption that planning and other legislation would work and that a decision on an application should not be on the track record of an applicant or students, rather upon the proposed land use.  He noted that simply stating that students would bring a lifestyle and problems would be a difficult reason to sustain at appeal, however, the decision was for the Committee.

The Chair noted the motion for refusal put forward by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor L Brown and upon a vote being taken, the motion was LOST.

Councillor K Shaw noted that reluctantly, as he felt there were no material policy reasons to refuse the application, he would propose the application be approved.  He was seconded by Councillor A Surtees, who added she too had struggled to find any material reasons for refusal.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

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