Agenda item

Change of Use from 6 Bed dwellinghouse to 2no. 2 bed flats (amended description 09.02.2023).

The Principal Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings 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 dwellinghouse to 2no. 2 bed flats and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

 

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

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that, once again, Members were facing the dilemma surrounding student accommodation.  He reminded Members that, two weeks ago, they had been considering applications from outside the city centre.  He noted that at Committee today, Members were looking at the very heart of our city, which was already saturated with Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).  He added that the city certainly needed no more HMOs, and the Committee therefore must decide if yet further saturation was merited, with the Parish Council believing that it was not.

 

He noted that the particular property in the application had been a problem for some considerable time, as the residents would explain during their opportunity to address the Committee. 

He explained that various attempts had been made by the applicant to convert the family home into an HMO.  He noted that those attempts had been refused and, on two occasions, the applicant had taken the matter to Appeal, losing on both occasions and for good reason.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that yet, throughout that period, the applicant had continued to rent the property. 

He added that indeed, not so long ago, it was found that 24 Nevilledale Terrace had become what was described as “a large cannabis farm” run by a group of Albanian tenants, much to the excitement of the Police and the despair of the local residents.  He suggested that the incident may offer an insight into the applicant’s rather relaxed management style, which, as Members would recall, was also seen recently at 1 Larches Road and 41 Fieldhouse Lane.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted the Officer’s report compiled evidence in support of the applicant, however, set against that were the real experiences of the residents living there, the real impact on their lives in an area crowded with HMOs and with the general conduct of such a large gathering of students in their midst.  He noted that everyone agreed that there was no room for any more HMOs at this locality, which explains why HMOs were now appearing en masse in the areas bordering the city centre.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland asked, faced with that situation, how an applicant could create yet another student house on Nevilledale Terrace?  He noted that one way would be to split your property into C3 flats and bypass the C4 planning barrier.  He added that the pretence offered was that those flats were desirable and would somehow be occupied by serious students who had taken a vow of silence, or for the flats to even be occupied by upwardly mobile young professionals leading a monastic life.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted that idyll would not be the outcome, and everyone knows it.  He added that furthermore, residents believed, based on experience, that the property, once out of sight and with minor internal modifications, could simply become another HMO.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that the reasons to refuse the application were embedded a group of environmental policies stretching from the NPPF to the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP).  He noted he had discussed those in much greater detail two weeks ago and would not repeat them, however, the central and consistent theme of all of those important policies was that development must “add to the overall quality of the area”.  He added that experience had shown that these HMOs and their artificial affiliations do the opposite.  He noted that the reasons for refusal were also embedded in Policy 16.2, Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), and (g), all outlined within the Officer’s report.   

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that, as Durham University’s own figures already showed, the need for additional student accommodation in Durham City, as claimed by the applicant, did not exist and the application therefore failed to satisfy Policy 16.2 Paragraph (a). 

 

He added that concerning Paragraph (b), the applicant’s planning statement simply disregarded that requirement by stating “The proposals relate to the provision of 2 No. flats and, as such, it is not considered that formal consultation with the relevant education provider is proportionate in this instance.”  

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that, when correctly read, Policy 16.2(b) was blind to the size of the scheme in question, and it was clear that consultation was required, and it was not up to the applicant to disregard that requirement within the Policy.  He noted there has been no formal consultation, as required, and the application therefore failed Policy 16.2 Paragraph (b).

 

In relation to Paragraph (c), although the small-scale nature of the proposal would not give rise to any measurable negative impacts on the wider commercial position of the city, Parish Councillor G Holland explained that planning permission at Committee today would set a dangerous precedent and encourage similar applications elsewhere.  He added that indeed there was already another application in the pipeline nearby.  He noted that the applicant had also failed to demonstrate compliance with Paragraphs (e) and (g) of Policy 16.2 and DCNP Policy S1(m).  Parish Councillor G Holland explained that both policies had already been seen as relevant by Appeal Inspectors in terms of amenity impacts, and, as one Inspector put it, detrimental to the “quality of life and community cohesion for surrounding residents in contravention of Policy 16, 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan and paragraphs 92 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

 

Parish Councillor G Holland concluded by noting the Parish Council believed that the application would set a dangerous precedent and failed to address any of the key points relating to access and amenity, and it was in clear conflict with aspects of CDP Policies 16, 29 and 31 and DCNP Policies S1 and H3 and that the latest attempt to turn this particular C3 dwellinghouse into a pseudo-C4 dwelling should again be refused.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked Joan Adams, local resident, to speak in respect of the application.

 

J Adams thanked the Chair and explained she was a resident of Nevilledale Terrace.  She emphasised that the proposals undermined the stated aim of the city’s housing policy, which was to create sustainable and inclusive communities. 

She added that the applicant was an investment landlord with a track record of poor property management and had provided no credible, independent evidence in support of the development.

 

J Adams explained she felt the application was a cynical and artificial device to get around existing policies set up to promote and protect mixed communities.  She noted that Nevilledale had 36 other houses, of which only three house young families, with 15 being student lets.  She added that meant 41 percent were short-term, transient tenants who made little contribution to the social mix and harmony of the area.  She noted that residents already had the usual problems of noise, parking, rubbish and vermin associated with such short-term tenants.  She reiterated that there was a need for family houses to be retained, for people who wanted to commit to the community, to sustain it and grow it.

J Adams noted that the owner of 24 Nevilledale had already demonstrated a cavalier attitude to being a landlord and in following essential planning procedures.  She added that the house had been converted, without permission, from a four-bed family home to a six-bed rental and had consistently housed an unauthorised number of tenants.  She suggested that the most significant demonstration of the arm’s-length management style by the owner was that the house had been used as a cannabis farm.  She noted that further supported residents’ doubts about the effectiveness of the management of the property.

 

J Adams concluded by noting that the proposed flats would bring no benefit to Nevilledale Terrace, with no one having spoken in favour of the conversion, the house was still a potential family home and residents urged this Committee to protect it for families of the future.

The Chair thanked J Adams and asked R Cornwell to speak in respect of the application.

 

R Cornwell noted he was representing the City of Durham Trust and the local residents’ association and that the comments from Parish Councillor G Holland and J Adams were fully endorsed by other residents and the City of Durham Trust.

 

He explained that a letter from the Trust challenged the Committee report and drew attention to essential documents missing from the Planning Portal, sent last Thursday, only uploaded to the Portal the morning of Committee.  He added that after that letter was submitted, the missing documents were uploaded by substituting a 17-page document for a five page one.  He noted that the publication date on the Portal was not changed, nor were consultees given the courtesy of a message to say that it had been done, so consultees were unaware.  He added it could only be called underhand at best. 

R Cornwell noted he had a quick look at the new evidence, and he saw that all the testimonies had been selected by the applicant from amongst her own tenants past and present.  He noted that this was not clear from Paragraph 56 of the report before Members and demonstrates why objectors were right to insist on seeing that evidence.

 

R Cornwell referred to the question of supposed need for the development and noted that residents and the Trust agreed with the conclusion in Paragraph 46 of the report which stated that the application should be assessed against CDP Policy 16.2, as student accommodation.  He added that Paragraph 53 gave figures provided by Durham University, however, they relate to the previous academic year.  He noted that at a meeting of Durham University / Residents Forum, held last week, the senior University representative present told residents that the number of students in the coming academic year had now become clear and would be around 800 fewer than in the previous year.  He added that furthermore, a number of recent planning permissions, approved by the Committee, had increased the future supply of student accommodation, including at William Robson House and the former Apollo Bingo site.  He added those were in addition to the approval by the County Planning Committee, at its meeting held 2 May 2023, for an 850-bed scheme at Mount Oswald, 1,207 beds in total.

 

R Cornwell noted that the reduction in student numbers this year, and the increase in future supply provided sufficient headroom that the applicant noted was desirable.  He noted that what the applicant called ‘headroom’ were in fact properties standing empty that could be used as family homes.  He reiterated that the conclusion within Paragraph 58 of the Officer’s report relied too much on statements made by the applicant, without taking an independent view.  He added that the need for more student accommodation had not been established, and that was a requirement of CDP Policy 16.2.  he concluded by noting that, along with the other points made by the previous speakers, the point he had raised made an irrefutable case for Members to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked R Cornwell and asked Officers to comment on the points raised by the speakers, including in terms of the information placed on the Planning Portal.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the concerns raised with regards missing documents, however, clarified that when the information had been submitted, it contained personal information, which required that support officers undertake a lot of work to ensure that all personal information was redacted. The full document contained 17 pages, but the last 12 contained personal information, whilst the first five were suitable for publishing.

 

Once the personal information within the document had been redacted, the full 17 pages were made public on the Public Access system. She further clarified that the information had been available over the weekend in advance of the Planning Committee, and the Parish Council would have had access to the document for consideration prior to Committee.  She noted that the applicant had been providing evidence to back up her case in terms of the need for this type of accommodation.  She added that Officers had assessed the evidence and felt that the application met the requirements of Policy 16 both qualitatively and quantitively.  She noted the proposals were not necessarily for students, and reiterated Officers felt the submissions addressed the requirements of Policy 16.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor L Brown noted she had thought she might propose deferral on material grounds, in reference to Paragraph 50, 51 of the report, however, there had been updates and explanation provided.  She noted she felt it should have been highlighted as regards the changes on the Portal.  Councillor L Brown noted that the application at 4 North End had been similar, for two two-bed flats, and had been refused on delegated authority on Policy 16.  She noted that therefore there should be consistency and felt the application before Committee should have been recommended for refusal.  She asked as regards the proposed bin storage, was it expected that residents would walk all the way around the street to get bins to the other side, or rather would they simply be placed to the front of number 24.  She asked as it was new development, would there be parking permits issued, understanding that for development after 2000, permits were not issued.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that, in reference to 4 North End, each application was looked at on its own merits, and that case was different to that before Members at Committee it that in that case, the applicant had failed to set out the case whereas in this instance Officer felt the applicant had.  In terms of bins, it was accepted that there were issues, however, they were not felt to be insurmountable, and there was a condition as regards full details relating to waste, providing an option of enforcement in future should conditions not be complied with.  In terms of parking permits, she would defer to Highways colleagues if required, however, it was her understanding that the applicant was providing one space within the property, via the garage, and another being on-street through an existing permit.  She reiterated that refusal on highways grounds would not be put forward given the highly sustainable location.

 

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he was quite frustrated, with the application appearing to be an attempt by and experienced applicant to circumvent Policy 16, and to have an HMO that had been refused, approved by other means.  He added he felt that this was a weakness in policy and asked questions for the future, however, it would not be to look to Policy 16 to refuse the application.  He added that he felt that Members may feel that the application was contrary to Policy 31 in terms of amenity and pollution, especially following decisions at the previous Committee.  He noted those refusals had not sought to use Policy 16, rather had focused on other policies in terms of the impact on amenity, noise and the number of issues raised by large numbers of students in a high-density area, noise, disturbance, litter, those being real problems for residents.  He noted that view was absolutely consistent with those recent decisions, and therefore he would propose refusal of the application, it being contrary to Policy 31, with the impact of the large density of student lets on amenity and pollution, as well as the need to maintain balance in terms of providing family homes.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he acknowledged the points made by the speakers and Members, however, he had some anxiety in terms of overturning the Officer’s recommendation, given the limited explanation of how it was felt to be contrary to policy.  The Chair noted he too felt that the applicant was looking to circumvent policy, however, he too was finding it difficult to see grounds sufficient to sustain refusal, adding in terms of impact upon amenity, the proposals effectively reduced the number of residents from six to four.  Councillor J Elmer noted that would make the property currently an unauthorised HMO.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that if there was an unauthorised use as an HMO, that was an issue Planning Officers could look at in terms of enforcement action.  She noted the Chair was correct in that a reduction from six to four residents would not represent the same level of concern or impact on residential amenity.  Councillor L Brown noted that until Enforcement found out as regards the actual situation, the application represented an additional four adults.

 

Councillor LA Holmes noted he felt similar to Councillor D Oliver, in that he was struggling to find material planning grounds on which to refuse the application, there being a need for such accommodation for young professionals, he therefore moved approval, as per the Officer’s recommendation. 

 

Councillor L Brown noted that statements from Estate Agents were that students wanted these properties, she added she would second Councillor J Elmer’s proposal for refusal, with the application being contrary to Policy 31.

 

The Chair noted that while the applicant was a well-known student landlord, one could not say who would ultimately rent and live in the property.

 

The Principal Planning Officer checked whether Councillors J Elmer and L Brown wished to refuse the application on the basis of whether they felt a sufficient case for need was demonstrated.  They said they did not wish to refuse on these grounds. They were further queried whether the application be refused due to being contrary to Policy 31 in terms of the impact upon residential amenity.  They acknowledged that they agreed with this.  Councillor D Oliver noted he would second the proposal for approval made by Councillor LA Holmes.

 

It was noted the motion for refusal had been put and seconded first, therefore that motion would be put first.

 

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED as the change of use of the property to 2no. 2bed flats would be attractive for student occupation and would therefore have an adverse impact upon the amenity of existing residents through increased noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and pollution, due to the property being located in an area with a high concentration of student occupied HMOs, contrary to the aims of Policy 31 of the County Durham Plan and Parts 12 and 15 of the NPPF.