Agenda item

Change of use from former nursing home to 2 separate dwellings (use class C3) (retrospective application).

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 Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for change of use from former nursing home to 2 separate dwellings (use class C3) (retrospective application) and was recommended for approval subject to conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as set out within the report. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that there were some trees with Tree Protection Orders in place, however, the works proposed did not impact upon those trees.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Local Member, Councillor C Hood to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor C Hood thanked the Chair and Committee and explained he was Local Member representing Shotton Colliery, South Hetton and Haswell and that it was his first-time attending Planning Committee to object to an application.  He noted he represented his local residents from Haswell and explained the application was only at Committee as a result of enforcement action, with residents having issues in terms of the impact on their quiet, peaceful residential area.  He referred to a presentation slide that set out on the Planning Portal on 7 June 2023 the application referred to one self-contained dwelling.  He noted that Lucan Lodge did not appear to be a residential property, with floor plans referring to a games room, staff room and ten numbered bedrooms.  He referred to s slide showing that the next week, a neighbour notification list only listed seven properties.  He noted that paragraph 32 of the report referred to the proposals being advertised by means of site notice and by notifying neighbouring residents by letter, however, there were 22 letters of objection, and he noted that in fact there had been 33 letters of objection from 24 properties once the application had been known about in the area.  He added that the Local MP, Graeme Morris had provided his support for residents in respect of their objections.

Councillor C Hood noted that only after all those objections had been received had the latest plan been submitted, with bedrooms being relabelled as ‘storerooms’, however there was still a room designation as a ‘staff room’.  He explained that one of the main concerns of those objecting was the noise and disturbance from the use as an Air BnB and availability via Booking.com.

He noted that the website advertised the property as ‘perfect for group trips, hen dos…’.  He added that therefore the application was to create one property, Lucan Lodge and there was no mention of the other property being residential, rather the plans stayed the same, with a staff room.  He noted that the proposals were contrary to NPPF Section 8, Paragraph 92, in terms of healthy, safe and inclusive communities, which set out that applications should not undermine community cohesion, as well as 93(b) and 94 in terms of social and environmental benefits.

Councillor C Hood added that CDP Policy 6 referred to new development not detracting from existing development and that relationships should be taken into account, and that there should not be a significant increase in terms of size.  He noted policy also referred to development not having an adverse impact upon the health and wellbeing of those in the surrounding area, and that development should be appropriate and sensitive.  He noted that he, and residents, would be happy to see two residential properties, noting the report referred 16 times to residential use, with paragraph 91 referring to the fact that should the application before Committee be agreed, there could still be use as holiday lets, as per the advertisements referred to previously.  Councillor C Hood reiterated that the plans referred to staff rooms and numbered bedrooms, and asked how Members would feel if the property was next door to them.  He reminded Members of the ongoing enforcement case and added that the Committee could put hundreds of residents at rest by refusing the application as it was contrary to NPPF and CDP policies.  He reiterated that he would ask Members refuse the application, and that the applicant make the properties into residential properties.

The Chair thanked Councillor C Hood and asked Shelly Bright, local resident, to speak in relation to the application.

S Bright explained her father lived close to the property and explained that residents from Pesspool Avenue and Blossomfield Way had suffered disturbance from the properties Lucan House and Highfield House which had been operated as a holiday let business.  She noted residents had issues from parties, overflowing outside, and noted the detrimental impact since 2017, with the evidence passed to the Council being the reason the application was before Committee.  She added that residents would be grateful if the applicant split the properties into two residential properties, however, they felt it would be highly unlikely without specific restriction being put in place. 

She asked that conditions be placed to guarantee there was not use as a holiday let.  She noted the applicant had noted ‘…I’ve decided to close my business…’ however, only this last Friday, there had been loud noise and disturbance from the property, the disturbance having been acknowledged.  She reiterated there was a worry from residents as regards large groups using the property as a holiday let.

She noted she would ask that the cease of trading be noted in the minutes of the meeting, and that the Local Planning Authority put measures in place to prevent lettings in future.  She noted that currently it hinged upon the good will of the applicant, however, the website was still present advertising the property for let, even after being served notice by the Council.  S Bright noted that should the application be granted, the applicant could do what they wanted, and the disturbance could in fact increase.  She therefore asked that the Committee take all of the objections into consideration and ask that anything that could be put in place to prevent this from happening be put in place.

The Chair thanked S Bright and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor C Kay noted the impassioned plea by the local resident, with residents wanting to protect their residential amenity.  He noted that the report referred to ‘shall be in line with approved plans’ and asked for additional information.  The Senior Planning Officer noted it would be for the list of approved plans to be included on the Decision Notice, the floor plans for two dwellings.  Councillor C Kay asked if the Committee could ask for a condition asking for strict adherence to approved plans, and if not in accordance, then strict enforcement action must be undertaken.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that, as with any condition to be imposed, any breach would be breach of the condition notice and added that what was proposed in terms of conditions was what the Local Authority could approve, in terms of two residential developments within a sustainable location.  He noted that the current use was an unauthorised use as a short term holiday let, as opposed to use as a hotel, and short term holiday let falls within the C3 use class as a dwellinghouse, and therefore if granted C3 use, there would be no control in terms of such short term use.  He added that while the applicant assured that there would be no further use as a holiday let, there was a condition relating to a management plan for the properties, prior to any first use as a short-term holiday let.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that Members may wish for a condition to restrict use, however, he reminded Members that any condition imposed must meet the test to be a valid condition, and reiterated that the proposed condition within the report stated that should there be any use as a short term holiday let, the Council would required adherence to a management plan, else there would be enforcement.

Councillor R Manchester noted that his concerns as regards conditions had been answered, however, he would be interested to understand the applicant’s opinion if the Committee were minded to restrict the use of the properties. 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways), Laura Ackermann noted that the condition within the report was a far as it was felt Officer could go in terms of use and would ask for more information from Members as regards any condition restriction use, should they wish to include such a condition.

Councillor L Brown asked as regards sustainability, and distance to the nearest bus stop.  She also asked as regards, if approved, whether a construction management plan could be included to protect residential amenity as the properties were in a residential area.  She noted as regards a robust management plan, and the comments from the Principal Planning Officer and Councillor R Manchester and suggested that if legislation did not prevent such short-term letting, then during any review of the CDP, that would be a matter that should be on the agenda.

Councillor J Elmer noted the brief reference to car parking, and asked as regards the impact of hen and stag parties, with vehicles presumable spilling over on to the neighbouring streets.  He added that proposals looked like a hotel, and asked as regards the difference between a hotel and a holiday let.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that use as a hotel would require a change of use and noted that as referred to be Councillor L Brown, the issue of short term holiday lets was at the forefront of many Local Authorities discussions as well as national discussions, and the Council would assess any decisions against caselaw as required.  Councillor J Elmer noted that the lack of clarity was exactly what was allowing the proliferation of such short-term holiday lets.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that there could be enforcement as previously referred to.

The Senior Planning Officer noted the nearest bus stop was approximately 465 metres away from the application properties.  Councillor C Hood noted that the bus stop referred to had been defunct for around 20 years, with the nearest stop being at Church View, around half a mile away.

Councillor K Shaw noted that the proposals were for two dwellings, on four bed property and one five bed property, he asked, given the reference to staff rooms and numbered bedrooms, how up to date were the plans submitted.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that essentially the applicant had moved in, retaining the care home layout.  She added that issues relating to the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) had been put to the applicant, and it was noted that the five-bed property was the main residential property, with the smaller four bed having been let, with the numbered ‘bedrooms’ being in fact storerooms. 

Councillor K Shaw asked as regards the protection within the condition.  The Senior Planning Officer noted there was protection, and that the issues in terms of noise and disturbance were being overcome by having two residential properties, with control via the management plan.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that short term lets were in the C3 use class, and therefore placing the properties in that use class meant there could be control via a management plan, as per the included condition.  He added that Members could also add a condition, should they wish, in terms of restricting use such to not allow short term holiday let, should they feel there were impacts from that use as a short-term holiday let.

The Area Planning Manager, Sarah Eldridge noted that there had been Government consultation over the summer as regards short term lets, and the overall impression was that such short term lets would eventually have their own separate use class, similar to how C4 use class or Article 4 Directions had been used, or for specific restrictions in terms of that use class.  Councillor L Brown noted that such would not be retrospective.

Councillor K Shaw noted that as enforcement action had not appeared to restrict the use as short term holiday let taking place in this instance, on that basis how could the Authority control that use going forward.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted that C3 use was for residential dwellings, and that as part of any enforcement, the Council could ask to regularise any use by way of an appropriate planning application.  She added the application was for C3 use, under which short term holiday let was included, though not specific for such holiday let use.

Councillor L Brown noted the additional information from Councillor C Hood as regards the nearest bus stop and noted that therefore the application was contrary to Policy 27(c) in terms of sustainability.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that regardless of the nearest bus stop distance, the application was still felt to be within a sustainable location.

Councillor D Sutton-Lloyd asked as regards the options in terms of restricting the use of the property to residential.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the options were as per the report, with the condition requiring a management plan prior to any use as a short-term holiday let, or for a condition to restrict use so such short term holiday let was not permitted, based on adverse impact upon residential amenity.  He asked, if the latter was the case, if Members could drill down into their reasons.  Councillor R Manchester noted he would wish for restriction of use as noted by the Officer, with the reason being the impact in terms of noise, as demonstrated by previous use as a short-term holiday let, whereby there was disturbance to nearby residents. 

He proposed that the application be approved, subject to an additional condition restricting use that the properties not be used as short-term holiday lets.  Councillor L Brown asked how Officer felt in terms of such an additional condition holding up at any appeal.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that would have the right to appeal, and Officers would defend the inclusion of the condition for the reasons stated by the Committee.

Councillor C Kay noted that he felt the applicant would not ask as regards a condition specifically restricting use.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that should Members be minded, a condition could be included to restrict use such that the properties could not be occupied as short-term holiday lets.  Councillor C Kay noted he would be happy with such a condition.

Councillor R Manchester reiterated he would move approval of the application, subject to a condition restricting use against any use as a short-term holiday let.  The Principal Planning Officer asked if that was for both properties, of just the second dwelling.  Councillor R Manchester noted it was for both dwellings.  Councillor K Shaw noted he would second the proposal, with the condition regards a construction management plan being added as per Councillor L Brown’s suggestion.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that as the application was part retrospective, and the works would be predominantly internal he noted Officers felt a construction management plan was not required.  Councillor L Brown noted at least works should not be audible outside of the building.  Councillor C Hood asked for clarification, should the Committee decide to include a condition restricting use, then that condition could be enforced, if C3 use was granted.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted that any condition could lead to enforcement should there be a breach of the condition notice, she asked that Officers be delegated to agree sufficiently robust wording as regards such condition. 

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions within the Committee report and an addition condition as set out below:

The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied as short-term holiday accommodation defined as occupation by any persons for less than 90 days, under any circumstances.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan and Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.