Agenda item

Change of use of dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to HMO (Use Class C4).

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 of dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to HMO (Use Class C4) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted no external works to the dwelling were proposed and that the proposals were felt to be in line with policy.  She noted no objections from statutory or internal consultees, except from the City of Durham Parish Council who objected to the loss of a family home, leading to an imbalance in the community, and with detrimental impact upon residential amenity, and stating one room did not appear to meet Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS).  She noted an update to the number of letters of objection, now 89, compared to 86 at the time of the publication of the report, including a letter from the Local MP, Mary Foy. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in respect of Part 3 of Policy 16, the percentage of Class N Council Tax exempt properties within a 100-metre radius of the property was 6.9 percent, less than the 10 percent threshold.  She explained that while Officers took into account the points raised by the objectors, it was still felt the application was in accord with CDP Policies 16, 29 and 31 and did not represent an over-proliferation of HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupation) in the area.  She added that the new parking standards had been adopted and for a 4-bed property, it would be expected that there would be three spaces provided.  She explained that for this change of use application, it would not be expected for the applicant to create an additional parking space, adding that details relating to cycle and bins storage would be secured via condition.

 

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

 

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the Parish Council joined with the huge numbers of residents and Local Member of Parliament in strongly objecting to the proposals.  She noted that all would know that the Council’s measure of studentification was woefully inadequate and that student numbers were far greater than stated.  She added that the use of a 100-metre radius did not work in the residential areas off the A167 which, in practice, operate as a series of small local communities.  She noted that using information based on individual streets provided a better means of assessing the experience of local people.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker explained there were 60 houses in St. Bede’s Close and that eight were student houses, equating to 13 percent.  She noted that was an unbalance community, contrary to Policy 16, and added that Members had the opportunity to fix that issue, noting that the proposed development conflicted with a number of policies.  She explained that Section 2 of the Framework required that strong, vibrant and healthy communities were supported by ensuring that sufficient number and range of homes were provided to meet the needs of present and future generations.  She added that this was especially important, in the context of the University’s recent statement indicating that there was sufficient student accommodation.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the loss of affordable homes and the encroachment by HMOs encouraged existing residents to move out and deterred future residents from moving in.  She explained that one family on St. Bede’s Close had faced a 50 percent increase in their rent, with the reason give being ‘prices have risen substantially because of inflation and local student rentals’.  She added that the family had managed to negotiate the additional cost to a 30 percent increase, however, at the cost of a change in tenancy to a short-term let. 

 

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that more secure family housing was desperately needed, not less and added as regards the particular importance of ensuring provision for families to restore and sustain community balance, as outlined in the Neighbourhood Plan, Theme Four.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker explained the Parish Council felt the application also fell short of Neighbourhood Plan Policy S1 (a) and (c) as it did not ‘conserve the significance of the setting, character, local distinctiveness, tranquillity, and the contribution made to the sense of place’.  She added that Neighbourhood Plan Policy H3 required developments ‘sustain and make a positive contribution to the character and quality of the area’, with the Parish Council noting they did not feel that was the case in this instance.  She noted that Neighbourhood Plan Policy S1(m) was relevant when considering the other consequences, including car parking, the run-down nature of many HMOs, noise and lifestyles not reflective of residential areas.  She added that such applications introduced a transient population with limited ties to the local community, challenging the wellbeing and amenity of long-term residents.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker added that the Parish Council felt that the development would not ‘…function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short-term, but over the lifetime of the development’, as per NPFF Paragraph 130(a).  She added that CDP Policy 29 stated that all development proposals must achieve well designed buildings and place which have regard to supplementary planning documents and other local guidance documents where relevant.  She noted that the attic was missing from both the existing and submitted plans, possibly because it did not have Building Control consent.  Parish Councillor S Walker noted that a drawing entitled ‘Total Floor Area’, showing the attic room, was used to provide a total area for the building.  She added that the applicant stated the room would not be used, in which case the area should not be included.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker noted there was a problem in terms of the proposed plans and fire safety, adding that escape routes should not pass through an area of risk.  She noted that, in this instance, the means of escape from the first floor was via an open tread stair leading directly into the living room below, not a place of safety.  She added there was a significant risk of a fire starting in the living room, cutting off the means of escape from the three bedrooms above.  She noted that travel distances from the furthest corner of all the bedrooms on the first floor to a ‘place of safety’ exceeded the permitted maximum of nine metres, not a well-designed building.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that the application did not comply with the Council’s adopted Parking and Accessibility Standards 2023, which required three parking spaced. 

She noted that the applicant claimed that two spaces were provided, however, there were none as neither the garage or the driveway were of compliant size and could not be counted.  She explained that this did not meet the criteria of Paragraphs 51(a) or 81 within the Officer’s report, or even Paragraph 83 which referred to previous parking standards. 

 

She added the Parish Council were baffled by Highways’ failure to raise an objection because ‘…there would be no change in the number of existing and proposed bedrooms in the property.  On this basis, there would be no material change resulting in a proposed impact on the local highway’.  Parish Councillor S Walker noted the Parish Council felt that was irrational and bore no relation to the reality experienced by residents.  She added that it was not the bedrooms that drove cars, rather the adults living in a property, with a family likely to have two, whereas an HMO would have four independent adults.  She noted that Policy 31 stated that development would be permitted where it could be demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact on health, living of working conditions.  She added that had not been demonstrated.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker added that the development certainly did not ‘contribute positively to an area’s character, identity, townscape and landscape features’, as per Policy 29(a), nor did it help ‘to create and reinforce locally distinctive sustainable communities’.  She added that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity, contrary to CDP Policies 29 and 31, the Framework paragraph 130(f) and Neighbourhood Plan Policies S1 and H3.  She noted that as she had stated previously at Committee, those policies were not optional or aspirational, and they must be met in full.  She added that those policies required any development was an improvement and it was felt what was proposed was not.  She concluded by asking, or behalf of the Parish Council, herself and the others that lived in the area, that Members refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked a local resident, to speak in respect of the application, noting slides would accompany her presentation.

 

The local resident thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak in objection to the application.  She explained she lived with her husband and sons in the adjoining property to 33 St. Bede’s Close, and had done so since 2013.  She noted that the St. Bede’s Community was made of 60 family homes, in a great location for schools, however, stressed that the community was much more than just that. 

 

 

 

She noted St. Bede’s neighbours were active in community life, with examples including: volunteers for children and toddler groups at St. John’s Church, a help to so many young mum’s including herself; joint celebrations, with reference to a slide showing the 75^th Anniversary of VE celebrations in 2020; charity initiatives; a multicultural mix, with 8 nationalities in the area.  The local resident added that for her and her husband not having any family around them, it had been their neighbours that had helped them when they first moved to the area, became parents and they tried to do the same for other residents.

 

The local resident explained the reason why residents were objecting was that the community was a small one, with 60 homes, of which eight were already let out to students, that representing 13 percent of all homes.  She added that residents are actively targeted by property agents which want to resell their homes for student lets or rentals.  She explained that some local residents had already moved within the city, from May Street and Laburnum Avenue, as a consequence of students moving into those streets, and residents feared that history was to repeat itself.  She noted that student properties on St. Bede’s Close, and in general, were poorly managed and look in disrepair and would refer to slides highlighting this.

 

The local resident noted that the St. Bede’s Community was connected to one of the busiest roads in Durham, the A167, and reiterated eight properties already were let to students, as shown on a map slide, with both those Licensed HMOs and other properties known to be occupied by students.  In reference to the difference between well maintained family gardens and homes and student properties, The local resident referred Members to photographs comparing a few examples of family homes and student properties, noting the latter had many issues including: rotting window frames; doors having been replaced after falling out; a fallen fence that had not been replaced; unkept gardens; rubbish piling up regularly; drains issues at No.50 and a consequent leak to the neighbouring property.  She noted the issue at No.50 had occurred 9 times since February 2020, reported to the landlord, however, left for weeks at a time to resolve.

 

The local resident referred Members to a further slide, highlighting parking issues, noting that not only ‘home’ students could own cars, but also international students, and showed an example of parking at 33 St. Bede’s Close which blocked her drive, and another example of four student cars parked at 50 St. Bede’s Close, where a family home would normally have one or two cars.

 

 

 

 

The local resident noted the applicant had responded in their statement to objections received and wished to address the points raised.  She noted the phrase ‘responsible landlord’ had appeared frequently in the statement, however, the landlord had not once checked with neighbours if there were any issues, nor had they responded to any messages. 

 

She reiterated there had been parking issues and rubbish collections were regularly missed, with piles being deposited outside.  She added the property was run down and did not provide the highest standards of safety.  She referred to photographs of the property in 2021-22, when it was well-maintained, and noted that now there was a fallen fence, moved by herself as it had presented a danger to her children.  She noted leak at the rear of the property, getting bigger and bigger and not fixed.  The local resident noted those were the reasons why residents did not believe the property should be granted an HMO licence. 

 

She concluded by asking Members what kind of community they would want their children and grandchildren brought up in and highlighted a picture of the viaduct area of the city from the past, with street parties, and present day, empty.

 

The Chair thanked the local resident and asked the applicant, Dr Nan Hu, to speak in support of her application.

 

Dr Hu thanked the Chair and noted the many residents in attendance interested in the matter.  She noted she would wish to provide clarity and assurance on several key matters for both the Committee and the community.  She continued noting she was a diligent and responsible landlord and noted that issues with other student properties as described and several of the photographs in the slides did not in fact relate to her property.  She explained that she had a gardener that cut the grass each week and a photograph shown to demonstrate parking issues within the objector’s presentation was in fact of a taxi picking up students who were going home, hence the luggage as seen, and that the ‘blocking’ of the road had been only temporary.

 

Dr Hu noted she would ensure her tenants would not cause a disturbance, and there would be consistent communication with them to be peaceful and respectful of neighbours.  In respect of the concerns raised regards parking, Dr Hu noted she understood, however, to address those concerns, two in-curtilage parking spaces were to be provided, which was noted as being sufficient as the majority of students did not own a car.  She added that if the Committee deemed it necessary, she would be happy to create an additional parking space.

 

In respect of the bedrooms and noise control, Dr Hu noted she was willing to implement improvement, including sound insulation if required.  She hoped she had been able to provide some assurance that she was a responsible landlord and would hope the standard of tenants would align.  She added she was open to suggestions from the Committee and would meet any requirements.  She thanked Members for their time.

 

The Chair thanked Dr Hu and asked if Officers could respond to the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Principal DM Engineer explained that it was acknowledged that as families grow and expand, with that being an expectation for a residential property, the number of vehicles can increase up to the number of bedrooms for a property and potentially more if work vehicles are parked overnight.  He noted that the parking standards looked for a balance, however, in this case there were no extensions or increase in the number of bedrooms, and therefore it would not be appropriate to retrospectively apply the parking standards.  He noted the applicant had mentioned adding an additional space by widening the drive which would be beneficial and welcomed, however, he felt from a Highways perspective, there were no grounds to object to the application as it was.

 

The Chair asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor A Bell asked as regards Policy 16 and the number of properties and percentages quoted by residents as compared to those within the Committee report.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that figures had been rechecked prior to the meeting and the figure was 6.9 percent Class N Council Tax exempt properties within a 100-metre radius of the application property, less that the 10 percent threshold.  In terms of comments that the policy was not fit for purpose, the Principal Planning Officer noted that it was the policy that was agreed and discussed at length during the examination in public of the CDP.  She added it would include any properties with students, Class N exempt, not just HMOs.  Councillor A Bell noted that the numbers different from those quoted by residents.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated the Council figures were for all Class N exempt properties, not just HMOs.  Councillor A Bell asked where the two additional properties referred to by objectors factored in.  The Principal Planning Officer noted properties those referred to by objectors were within the street, however, were not within the 100-metre radius considered by policy.

 

Councillor C Kay noted 60 properties at St. Bede’s Close, with eight of those being student properties, however, only 6.9 percent were Class N exempt within 100 metres of the application property.  He noted he wondered whether tenants or the landlord would pay any Council Tax in some cases.  He noted he felt the 100-metre radius considered in the policy was flawed.  He noted he felt these types of application were the thin end of the wedge, and he felt it was similar to other recently considered applications.  The Chair noted that it was an issue to be looked at when the CDP was reviewed, however, noted that in itself was not grounds for refusal, the application being shown to be in line with Policy 16 as it stood, with the 100-metre radius being considered.

 

Councillor D Oliver thanked all the speakers and noted his sympathy with residents in terms of the ongoing issues described as an impact of other HMOs.  However, he noted he was struggling to see any reasons relating to the property in question in terms of refusal.  He asked if there was any local authority or national data that showed the impact on residents of the impact of HMOs, though he would be loathed to apply such to HMOs en masse.  In relation to parking, he noted the property was approximately one mile from the Cathedral and therefore students would likely walk into the city centre.  He reiterated that any local authority or government data on HMO impact may be useful, if not available now, for future reference.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that research had been undertaken which had informed the 10 percent threshold value within Policy 16, that being the amount, or tipping point, over which it was felt there was an impact, and this approach is adopted with the CDP.  While she understood the reference made by the Parish Council and residents as regards the student properties within the larger street, it was not the methodology adopted by Policy 16, reiterating the threshold of 10 percent Class N Council Tax exempt properties is measured within the 100-metre radius of the application site and that this is the consistent method applied to all applications. Undertaking this measurement on a street-by-street basis would be difficult to apply consistently across the whole Article 4 area.  She added that while a large number of HMOs could override the character of an area, however, there were not sufficient in number in this instance, being less than the 10 percent threshold.  She noted that any future applications would approach that 10 percent value, and once above, any applications would be recommended for refusal.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that Durham University and Durham County Council issued a joint statement yesterday noting that there was adequate provision of student properties to meet the numbers of students.  He added he felt the purpose of planning was to ensure provision aligned with need, and rather than to leave it simply to market forces, it was for Members to temper.  He felt this application was the polar-opposite of need.  He continued, noting that NPPF Part 16 which noted that the support of Government was for the supply of housing such that the needs of specific groups were addressed.  Councillor J Elmer noted the 6.9 percent value from the 100-metre radius considered by Policy 16. 

He noted that the policy consistently undercounted the numbers of students, with cases where one resident was a worker, then the property would not be counted as a student HMO, or a landlord could be paying the Council Tax bill.  He noted that while it would only take a few incorrectly counted properties to take the percentage over 10 percent, he would not be objecting to the application on the grounds of Policy 16.

 

 

Councillor J Elmer noted his concern as regards the issue of fire safety raised by the Parish Council and would like further comments from Officers in that regard.  He noted that one of the bedrooms did not meet the NDSS and therefore asked if there would be condition that room could not be rented out. 

 

He noted that the Committee had considered a few similar applications recently, where Members had refused on the grounds of the impact upon residential amenity.  He appreciated the applicant’s comments in terms of tackling issues, however, a transient population would impact upon community cohesion and, accordingly, he would therefore move refusal of the application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the issues in terms of fire safety would be picked up via other legislation, such as building control regulations, though not HMO Licensing as it was less than five bedrooms.  She added that the small room was shown within the presentation as a study room and whilst it would not meet NDSS standards, it would meet licensing standards. However, a condition is included to restrict to four occupants, therefore one for each of the bedrooms that meet NDSS standards.

 

Councillor J Elmer reiterated he would propose refusal of the application, being contrary to Policy 29. 

 

The Chair noted Councillor J Elmer had raised the issue of need and press release from the University and Council which suggested there was sufficient student accommodation and asked the Planning Officers for their comments.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that strategic policy looked at need, in terms of local housing needs assessments, and the press release related to Part 2 of CDP Policy 16 which related to Purpose Build Student Accommodation (PBSAs) which required a demonstration of need.  She added that, however, Part 3 of Policy 16, which was relevant in the case of this application, did not require a demonstration that there was a need for further HMOs, of need requirement, rather applications assessed against this part of the policy are required to meet the 10 percent threshold as previously explained.

 

 

Councillor S Deinali noted that the Committee appeared to be in a similar position to that it had found itself in at the last few meetings, and as had been explained and shown, there was a need to protect balanced communities and therefore she would second Councillor J Elmer’s motion for refusal, adding she also felt the application was contrary to Policy 31.

 

Councillor D Oliver asked if there was any feedback from the Planning Inspectorate in terms of those recent refusal by Committee that had been taken to appeal.  The Chair noted that he understood a few of the decisions were being appealed by their applicants. 

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted a couple of appeals had been submitted, with one relating to The Larches for a large HMO was a few months into the process, with a report to be brought back to Committee in due course.  She noted that number of other decisions from recent Committee meetings were also being appealed, however, they were only at a preliminary stage.

 

Councillor D Oliver reiterated that he had a great deal of sympathy with residents, however, he was struggling to extrapolate their specific experiences to wider student properties.  He noted he had concerns in terms of any decision that would contravene Policy 16 and noted that if Members were being asked to overturn an Officer recommendation he would ask for clarity in terms of policy.  He noted he would be minded to accept the Officer’s recommendation, however, he would listen to the comments from Members.  The Chair noted Policies 29 and 31 had been referred to by Councillors J Elmer and S Deinali as policies they felt the application was contrary to.  Councillor J Elmer noted the non-permanent residents not developing long-term relationships with neighbours.

 

Councillor C Kay accepted what Officers had said, however, Members were lay-people, and provided the steer as regards a decision, with valid reasons, and felt it was for Officers to provide details.  The Chair noted he felt Councillor J Elmer had explained his reasoning.

 

The Area Planning Manager, Sarah Eldridge noted that Officers were asking for the narrative around what Members felt the impact on residential amenity would be, with Officers to add any technical wording as necessary, however, for Members to be clear why they felt an application should be refused.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted that while he was very sympathetic with the residents and their anecdotal evidence, he felt it was not clear in relation to this case specifically.  He noted that while his electoral division was outside of the sphere of gravity of the University, he noted that should an application in his area be recommended for refusal on the grounds of ASB there would be a need for clear evidence of that ASB. 

He added he felt there was not sufficient strength that any refusal would hold up at appeal, and added he worried that there could be a number of the recent decision upheld by the Inspector at appeal and we would be ‘back where we started’.  He added he felt there was no other choice in terms of the application.  The Chair noted that those appeal decisions would no doubt inform decision making going forward. 

 

Councillor C Kay noted he has sat on Planning Committees of various forms since 1987, hundreds of meetings, and noted that he felt that Members should not be frightened of the Planning Inspectorate adding that democracy was why Members were in the Chamber and they were there to make decisions on the applications put before them.  The Chair agreed with Councillor C Kay and thanked him for his service.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he agreed with Councillor C Kay and noted he felt residential amenity, social cohesion were not easily measurable metrics, however, were material considerations.  He added he felt Policy 29 gave more flexibility in those areas in terms of stronger reasons for refusal.

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 residents within the local area from increased noise and disturbance. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan.