Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) including formation of new parking area to front, cycle parking, bin storage and associated alterations.

Councillor J Elmer raised as a point of order, noting he felt the next two items for change of use to homes in multiple occupation (HMO) should be considered together as the issues with both of them impacted on each other.  The Chair noted they were separate Planning Applications for separate sites and therefore were listed to be heard separately.  The Lawyer, Planning and Highways reiterated the point made by the Chair, separate applications and therefore separate items for consideration.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the applications had been submitted separately and the Local Authority did not have the ability to combine the applications, however, there would be some elements of duplication between the two applications.

Councillor L Brown noted her dissatisfaction with the wording in both of the reports, namely: “it is not considered that the introduction of a single additional HMO in this location would result in a level of cumulative impact that would be detrimental to residential amenity”.  She noted that in this case there were two HMOs being proposed.  The Lawyer, Planning and Highways reiterated that there were two separate applications, and there would only be two after the first application, should it be granted.

The Principal Planning Officer 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 dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) including formation of new parking area to front, cycle parking, bin storage and associated alterations and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as detailed within the report. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the Article 4 Direction in place which removed permitted development rights in terms of change of use for HMO, and noted the application was at Committee as it had been called-in by Local Members, Councillors E Mavin and L Mavin.  He noted that the percentage of HMOs, using Council Tax exempt properties, within 100 metres of the property were 2.6 percent, rising to 6.9 percent if previously approved HMO application not yet taken forward were included.  He added if both 37 and 38 Moor Crescent were granted permission, the number would rise to 8 percent, still below the 10 percent threshold within policy.  He concluded by noting the condition limiting the number of occupants contained a double negative and, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, that would be amended accordingly.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Councillor L Mavin, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor L Mavin thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that she and Councillor E Mavin formally objected to the application.  She noted that Councillor E Mavin and herself would not normally contest HMO applications when in line with CDP Policy 16, however as stated in the Committee Report, the proposal was for an additional HMO in an area already with a number of existing HMOs the issue was that of cumulative harm.  She noted the report stated there was not the over-proliferation of HMOs and stated a single HMO.  She reiterated that this was a pair of HMOs, and the cumulative impact was the issue that needed to be considered.

Councillor L Mavin noted the points raised by Councillor L Brown and the Principal Planning Officer that there were two HMO applications before he Committee today, and she noted that other properties at 15, 18, 45 and 110 Moor Crescent had been converted to HMOs.  She added that numbers 37 and 38 Moor Crescent were within a cul-de-sac, and both being converted to HMOs would mean over 10 percent of the cul-de-sac would be HMOs.  She added that the 100 metre radius considered when assessing HMOs was arbitrary and did not take the local layout and context into account.  Councillor L Mavin noted that should the application be approved, there would be a reduction in residential amenity for the neighbouring properties and the character of the areas would be adversely impacted, including issues such as parking.  She reiterated that the percentage of HMOs within the cul-de-sac would be greater than 10 percent if the applications were approved.

Councillor L Mavin concluded by noting that she and Councillor E Mavin felt the applications were contrary to Policy 21 in terms of sustainable transport, 31 in respect of residential amenity and the NPPF and they would strongly suggest that the Committee refuse the applications.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Mavin and asked Parish Councillor Patrick Conway to speak of behalf of Belmont Parish Council who had registered their objection to the application.

Parish Councillor P Conway thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that Belmont Parish Council were against the applications in principle, noting they felt that the two applications for HMOs should have been considered together.  He noted that in both cases the Parish Council had wrote to the Planning Department asking that the applications were taken as one item at Committee.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that for the residents of Moor Crescent, for this case, there were particular circumstances.  He noted that the NPPF states that one must take as a material consideration the particular circumstances of an area.  He noted that notwithstanding the Article 4 Direction and CDP Policy 16 relating to student properties, it should be noted that the 100 metre radius considered was arbitrary and did not look at clusters of HMOs that were created.  He added that the Officer’s report included phrasing such as “in judgement”, “broadly acceptable”, and “considered on balance”.  He noted that Belmont Parish Council think those statements were contestable and noted there was no evidence that the applications represented sustainable development.  He noted that occupancy of 30 weeks per year did not meet the sustainable criteria within the NPPF and reiterated there was no evidence in terms of environmental sustainability or in respect of climate change, such as the installation of heat pumps.

Parish Councillor P Conway explained that in relation to parking, the application would require 4.8 parking spaces, rounded up to five and the proposals did not meet that criteria or include any electric vehicle (EV) charging point.  He added that any visit to the site on an evening or weekend would show vehicle congestion, contrary to the CDP.

In reference to the Article 4 Direction, Parish Councillor P Conway noted that granting the two applications would in fact exceed six HMOs in a 50 metre radius and in fact more if other Class N properties were taken into account.  He explained that the cul-de-sac was a self-contained area, with no throughway, and therefore the 100 metre radius considered for HMOs was an inappropriate measure.  He noted that there was not a demonstrated need for such HMOs and there would be adverse impact upon residential amenity, with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer having expressed concern in their consultation response.  He concluded by noting that other HMO management was questionable and reiterated that the Parish Council felt the application should be refused on Policies 16 and 21 of the CDP as the development did not represent sustainable development and take local circumstance into account.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked Gary Swarbrick, Agent for the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

G Swarbrick noted that as numbers 37 and 38 were separate properties, separate units, they were submitted as separate applications.  He noted that should both be approved the percentage of HMOs within the required area would not exceed the 10 percent threshold as per policy.  He explained that the 10 percent threshold had been agreed by the Inspector when considering the CDP and as in this case the 10 percent would not be breached, the area had not reached that ‘tipping point’.  G Swarbrick noted that the application was for a larger HMO for students and noted that there would be clauses within agreements as regards noise and behaviour, with termination of tenancy where issues are not addressed.  He added that the applicant was a member of a national landlord accreditation scheme and Durham Student Landlord, working with the University, Police and Local Authority in terms of any issues.  G Swarbrick noted that recent similar applications for 1 and 3 St. Monica’s Grove that had been approved by the Committee and that in terms of any highways or parking issues, the likelihood of students having a vehicle were low, however, there was sufficient in-curtilage provision with the Highways Team noting the application was in line with policy and presented no highway safety issues.  He concluded by reiterating the application was in line with Policy and was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked G Swarbrick and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Bell noted he was disappointed with such applications, given the purpose build student accommodation that existed within the city, and the spread out of HMO into the suburbs.  He asked for clarity on the percentages of HMOs within the 100m radius of the application site.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that the current percentage was 2.3 percent, with unimplemented existing planning permissions increasing that to 6.9 percent.  He added that should both applications for 37 and 38 Moor Crescent be approved that would represent 8 percent, still below the 10 percent threshold.

The Chair noted that while 8 percent was less than 10 percent, objectors had made reference to the area being within a cul-de-sac and asked if there was any implication from this in terms of any greater impact.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the policy and the 100 metre radius had been discussed at length by Committee, and noted that any particular circumstance could be material and it would be for Members to decide if they outweighed an application that was policy compliant, noting the pending application for 38 Moor Crescent as the next item of business.

Councillor L Brown noted that the average family in 2021 was 2.4 people, the two properties in question would house 9 people in total.  She asked if Policy 6 applied in terms of a garage being converted.  She asked if Condition 5, if the application was approved, could be changed to have a start time for works of 8.00, and being up to 14.00 on Saturdays.  She asked for the distance to the nearest bus stop and if the parking surface would be permeable.  She noted that, in reference to 1 and 3 St. Monica’s Grove, they were considered at separate meetings of the Committee.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the conditions regarding construction times were the standard ones based upon feedback from Environmental Health.

Councillor I McLean noted comments as regards students looking to rent further out into the suburbs being ‘different’ than those looking for city centre accommodation and asked how this would be ascertained, whether it was they were older, better dressed.  The Chair noted that, as Member for a city centre division, he had not noticed a difference, and asked G Swarbrick for further information.  G Swarbrick noted that there were no specific conditions in place, rather that anecdotally from experience, those students in their second year may wish to take advantage of the night life offered in the city centre, and other students may wish to take advantage of quieter areas.  He noted that in fact he had lived in St. Monica’s Grove, and he had felt the students at that time in the street had been considerate and part of the community, with one having taught his daughter piano, others helping with events at Halloween and Christmas.  He reiterated that there were conditions within student tenancies for termination should students be in breach of those conditions.

Councillor I McLean noted that effectively there was no way to ‘police’ the types of students occupying a property, rather there were processes in place to try to tackle issues that could arise.  He added that there was still an issue in terms of bringing students into non-student areas.

Councillor L Brown asked if properties further out from the city centre were less expensive than those close to the city.  She noted that while G Swarbrick had encountered very conscientious students in his experience, they changed every few years as the students moved through their education and beyond.  Accordingly, it was not necessarily the same individuals each year.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the nearest bus stop was 200 metres away and that Officer felt the location was broadly sustainable.  He reiterated that the HMO data from Council Tax in terms of exempt properties did not specify specific properties, rather gave the percentage of properties within a 100 metre radius.  He noted that the end-user of such an HMO, whether that was an undergraduate, postgraduate was not enforceable and therefore material weight should not be given in that regard.

Councillor L Brown noted that there were other policies other that Policy 16 that could be referred to be the Committee.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that Parish Councillor P Conway had referred to Policy 16 in terms of the Parish Council’s opinion on the applications, however, noted the Committee could look at all relevant policies.  He reiterated, however, that Officer felt that the application was in accord with all the relevant CDP policies and the NPPF.

The Chair noted that a proposal was required to progress the meeting.  Councillor A Bell noted that Officers had been clear in their responses, and he could not see any grounds for refusal so therefore he proposed the application be approved.  Councillor J Elmer seconded the proposal, noting he found it very frustrating that the Committee could not refuse the application, however, he noted for the record that this type of development was not desirable and indeed the University were keen for students to stay within their accommodation.  He noted that such applications impacted upon the settled communities within Durham and while they could not be stopped, they were not wanted.  The Chair noted he agreed with the comments from Councillor J Elmer.  The Principal Planning Officer asked for clarification, whether Councillors A Bell and J Elmer wished for the amended conditions referred to by Councillor L Brown.  They both noted that was the case.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED as per the conditions set out within the report, subject to amended conditions relating to construction times and permeable parking surface.

Councillor A Bell left the meeting at 11.00am