Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) with alterations to existing bay window.

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 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 dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) with alterations to existing bay window and was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out within the report. 

The Planning Officer noted that HMO Data confirmed that including the application property, the percentage of Council Tax exempt properties within 100 metres would be six percent.  She added if other pending applications for HMOs at 1 and 3 St. Monica’s Grove were approved, the percentage would be nine percent.  She noted 54 letters of objection had been received, including from the Local MP, Mary Foy.

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

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the Parish Council joined with the huge numbers of residents and local MP in strongly objecting to the proposal and urged that Committee Members refuse the application today.

She noted that the Parish Council believed that the application did not meet the intent of Policy 16 and that further grounds existed in relation to the wider planning objectives that support the refusal of the application.  She noted that starting with Policy 16, it was known that the Council’s measure was woefully inadequate and in fact student numbers were far greater than stated.  She added that the use of the 100m radius related poorly to the way communities operated in practice.  She noted that the use of information based on individual streets provided a better means of assessing the experience of local people.  She noted that for Lyndhurst Drive there were 13 houses: 1 registered HMO, with No.5 and two unregistered but equally relevant HMOs which is over 30 percent.  She noted that was unbalanced and unacceptable.  Parish Councillor S Walker explained it was a worth noting that Lyndhurst Drive backed on to the 1 and 3 St Monica Grove development which would in effect act as a small, conjoined PBSA, occupied prior to finishing flouting the planning conditions, with the chance of them being enforced seemingly increasingly vanishing.

Parish Councillor S Walker added that the proposed development was also in conflict with the other policies, including Section 2 of the NPPF which required that strong, vibrant and healthy communities were supported, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations.  She added that any further erosion of the balance of affordable residential locations, any further encroachment by HMO properties and further loss of housing stock was likely to persuade existing residents to move out and future residents may be reluctant or unable to move in.  She added that our children could not afford to live where they were raised.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the DCNP carried considerable planning weight, with the objectives under Theme 4 including: to change the imbalance towards student accommodation back to a sustainable, balanced community.  She noted that there was now an imbalance towards student accommodation with the various problems that caused, alongside the need to provide more family housing.  She added that the particular importance of ensuring provision for families with children was to restore and sustain community balance, inclusiveness and sustainability, notably regarding school places and children's and parents' facilities.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that the application also fell short of DCNP Policy S1, sections (a) and (c), because the application did not, to quote, “conserve the significance of the setting, character, local distinctiveness, tranquillity, and the contribution made to the sense of place.”

She added that DCNP Policy H3 required a development to “sustain and make a positive contribution to the character and quality of the area”.  She noted DCNP Policy S1(m) was relevant when considering the other consequences for what was a small cul-de-sac, including car parking, the run-down nature of many of the existing properties and gardens, levels of noise, footfall and lifestyles not reflective of residential areas.  She noted the application introduced a transient population with limited ties to the local community, strongly challenging the well-being and amenity of long-term residents.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that, furthermore, the development would not:

a. …function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development., with CDP Policy 29 stating that all development proposals must achieve well designed buildings and places which have regard to supplementary planning documents and other local guidance documents where relevant, and:

e. provide high standards of amenity and privacy, and minimise the impact 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 noted that equally, CDP Policy 31, relating to Amenity and Pollution, stated that development would be permitted where it could be demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact, either individually or cumulative, on health, living or working conditions.  She added that one would argue that had not been demonstrated in this case, and asked why were so many people present at Committee on a workday morning if their lives were not so unacceptably impacted by what was being allowed to happen in Durham City.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained the Parish Council were concerned that the present proposals would result in a further imbalance in the community and would have a detrimental impact on 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.  She added those aligned with DCNP Policies S1 and H3 and reiterated that all other those policies carry as equal weight.  She noted that, as with any other local development plan policy in the determination of this application, they were not optional, aspirational or nice to have, they had to be met in full.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that it was felt that the development certainly did not, to quote Policy 29(a), “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.  She explained that all of those policies were in effect asking the Committee to ensure that any new development was an improvement.  She noted the proposals were not an improvement and therefore she would ask on behalf of the people who live in the areas, like those in the Chamber to refuse the application and not make Durham a worse place to live.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked local resident, Heather Shaw to speak in relation to the application.  The Chair noted there were accompanying slides to the presentation.

H Shaw explained she lived in Lyndhurst Drive, a small cul-de-sac and was a mother, a wife, friend and neighbour to those who lived in the enclosed and friendly community, the very nature and character of which was in great danger.  She noted that granting any planning application required an acceptable impact upon any street in terms of: character; appearance; residential amenity; and safety.  She added that whilst some may state that the impact of the application would be acceptable, that definition was essentially flawed.  She noted that it would only be acceptable for those who did not live in Lyndhurst Drive, the street which she and those she represented loved and lived in.

In respect of the spread of HMOs, she referred Members to a slide showing a 100-metre circle and explained as regards, including the application site, the HMO density being over 10 percent, seven out of 67 properties, above the level allowed in CDP Policy 16.  H Shaw noted Members may ask what the difference between the red dots and the blue dots was shown on the slide.  She explained it was fundamentally none, an HMO was defined as a house of multiple occupants not whether council tax was paid, a position Sunderland Council agreed with.  She added that the impact of an HMO was the same, irrespective of its classification and therefore the application should be refused.

H Shaw noted that focusing on Lyndhurst Drive alone, our smaller enclave, if approval was granted, four out of 13 houses in Lyndhurst Drive would be HMOs, 30.8 percent.  She added that 40 percent of the population would be students, 16 of 40, and noted that was not a balanced or sustainable mix and reiterated that in Lyndhurst Drive residents already had considerably more than the Policy allowed.  She noted that three HMOs being granted in less than six months would not make for sound planning, with the density of HMOs within our street being unacceptable, therefore the application should be refused.

H Shaw noted that in terms of appearance, she referred to slide showing an existing student property and explained that was how HMOs were and how landlords who see Lyndhurst Drive as a business making opportunity directly impacted upon the appearance of a residential street.  She asked if Members would wish to live next door to such a property, she noted her neighbours Don and Susan had to.  She explained that the granting of an HMO at 5 Lyndhurst Drive, immediately next door to an existing HMO, would lead to an understandable dread that in effect it will be an HMO for 11.  She noted that as Rise Letting Agency described and advertised the viaduct area, perhaps the two houses together will also become ‘party central’.  She asked again if Members would wish to live next door to such as property, noting other neighbours including Richard, Helen, Tom and Hilary would have to.  She added that the appearance within our street was far from acceptable.

H Shaw noted that her and her neighbours, like everyone else, purchased their houses in a family area, with the necessary amenities for a high standard of family life.  She noted that they respect and nurture the character and were protective essence of the street, actively engaging with and caring about each other on many levels, for example: at every get together we look forward to Salvo’s tiramisu; we are able to ask for an ingredient Sainsbury’s doesn’t have; we can borrow a ladder with Richard.  H Shaw noted that student HMOs, which did not engage with the community undoubtedly generated increased refuse, disturbance, more traffic generated by deliveries, visitors and the like and more noise.  She noted that who had not been woken up by students during unsociable hours making a racket in the street.  She noted some might say the answer was to close your window on a hot night, however, she though not as it was not the right way to live and the residential amenity within our street was far from acceptable.

In terms of congestion, H Shaw noted Lyndhurst Drive had no links to other streets, it was a distinct location in and of itself.  She noted that the street already was in effect an overflow carpark for Durham Johnston.  She noted that the road was meant to be a turning circle, however, the road was a bottleneck with frequent parking on both sides of the street where there was no off-road parking had on multiple occasions prevented access for bin collection.  She added that Ambulance Services have had to park at the bottom of the street for the previous occupant of 5 Lyndhurst Drive, indeed ambulance services had to knock on doors for vehicles to be moved.  H Shaw noted that loss of amenity was intolerable and unsafe, noting that there had been accidents immediately in front of 5 Lyndhurst Drive, with delivery drivers knocking down Salvo’s wall and Christine’s car being damaged.  She reiterated that the safety within our street was far from acceptable.

In conclusion, H Shaw noted that now Members would understand the anxiety of residents in terms of the prospect of another HMO on our cul-de-sac as being so very real.

She noted that particularly when the applicant was already in contravention of the conditions, using a digger at 3:25pm on Saturday and already altering the bay window, their respect for the planning process had to surely be in doubt.  H Shaw concluded by noting that her community relied on the Committee’s decision and asked that Members did not allow another HMO in our midst that would do nothing but irreparable harm and reject the application.

The Chair asked Councillor L Brown to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor L Brown noted that as it had been said on so many occasions students lead a totally different lifestyle to long term residents, as they were generally only resident for nine months a year and then generally for one nine-month period have no stake in the community within which they live.  She noted Policy 16, with its percentages of Class N exemptions only tells part of the story and sadly its intent to provide balanced communities was falling by the wayside.  She noted that, as previously mentioned, Policies 29 and 31, which dealt with residential amenity should also be considered when looking at the application.  She at that the area was a cul-de-sac where only nine houses were actually in the cul-de-sac, two looking on to Newcastle Road.  She added it was difficult to ascertain how many HMOs there were in the area, as one or possibly two were allegedly unregistered, but certainly rented out and one house had rooms which were sub-let to students.  Councillor L Brown asked Members to bear in mind that an HMO was not necessarily Class N exempt and noted if one member of the household was working, then the property would not appear in the statistics, but was still as student house.  She noted she was adding her objections in sympathy for one of the residents who, if the application was granted, would end up with student houses on all sides.  She added that once again she must ask the Committee to be very careful as regards the consequences of their decision.  She noted a vote for approval would mean one more family house removed from the City’s housing stock.

Councillor L Brown left the meeting at 12.45pm

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

Councillor D Sutton-Lloyd noted the report seemed like Groundhog Day number three and felt there was a need to go back to the Administration as regards the situation in respect of HMOs.  He noted that those in objection had spoken eloquently, and he would move refusal of the application.  The Chair noted that some upcoming appeals decisions may help in terms future decision prior to any review of the CDP. 

Councillor C Kay noted he would not play politics, however, those Members who represented the Administration could be feeding back to see if there could be a change to the planning framework.  Councillor D Sutton-Lloyd noted that was what he had meant when referring to feedback.

Councillor J Elmer noted Members once again were referring to Policy 16, the 100-metre radius and while he understood the rationale behind the rule, it was clear now that many HMOs were not Council Tax exempt and therefore were not being taken into account.  He noted that as the proliferation of HMOs move towards 10 percent, those other policies as referred to during the other HMO items became more and more important.  He noted he was not anti-student, and he was sure that no one on the Committee felt that way either, however, it was important to get the right balance and mix for students too when looking at applications.  He noted that right now, nationally, students were being exploited with a monthly rent akin to the cost of a mortgage in some instances.  He noted he would second Councillor D Sutton-Lloyd’s refusal motion.

Councillor S Deinali noted she supported the proposal for refusal and add in terms of Policy 31, and the impact on residential amenity.  The Chair asked Officers if they had sufficient grounds from the comments from Members.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted there were sufficient points raised.  Members noted they felt the application was contrary to policies 6, 29 and 31, as per the previous applications, with Councillor R Manchester noting with reference to protecting balanced communities.  Councillor S Deinali noted Policy 16 in terms of comments from Councillor R Manchester and the Principal Planning Officer noted that citing Policy 16 in such a way could prove an issue at any appeal of a refusal decision.  Councillor S Deinali noted not to put forward Policy 16 as being a policy that Members felt the application was contrary to.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as the change of use of the property to a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) within this locale (which includes several properties occupied as HMOs but unregistered as being Class N exempt from Council Tax), would unbalance the community and have a detrimental impact upon community cohesion and adversely affect the amenity of non-student residents within the local area from increase noise and disturbance.  Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies 6, 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan.

Councillor J Cosslett left the meeting and

Councillor L Brown entered the meeting at 1.00pm.