Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4).

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper 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 Principal Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was a change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that when visiting the site, Members had noted that works to install additional parking had been completed.  He noted that the percentage of HMOs within a 100-metre radius of the property was 1.2 percent and including two unimplemented permissions for HMOs at 5 and 9 Monks Crescent increased the percentage to 2.4 percent.  He noted that with those two, and the proposed permission, that would result in a 3.4 percentage of properties within 100 metres.

The Principal Planning Officer noted seven letters of objection to the application, and objections from Local Members and Belmont Parish Council had been received, with Local Members and a representative from the Parish Council being present at the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer concluded by noting that while the objections had been taken into account, Officers felt the application was in line with policies and did not represent an adverse impact upon residential amenity or highway safety and therefore was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Patrick Conway to speak on behalf of Belmont Parish Council.

Parish Councillor P Conway thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that the longstanding issue of the proliferation of HMOs was once again back in front of Members.  He noted that the Parish Council, and Local Members, were increasingly being asked about the issue from local residents.  He noted that the issue was a judgement call, especially in respect of Policy 16.  He explained the applicant has referred to a ‘tipping point’, with Policy 16 setting out the 10 percent threshold, however, it was becoming apparent more and more that this was less useful as a metric.  He noted that when Planning Officers were invited to a meeting of the Parish Council, they had said that Policy 16 was only one policy amongst many others within the CDP. 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the applicant had not stated that there was any need for such HMO provision, with the University having already stated that there was no further HMO need in Durham City.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the NPPF set out that social, economic and environmental impacts should be taken into account, and the Parish Council felt there should be further discussion on those areas. 

He added that the Parish Council felt that those elements had not been demonstrated and that therefore the principle should be questioned.  He referred to residential amenity and explained that a small cluster of HMOs within an area of family homes, with a bedroom on the ground floor opposite a family home, would have an adverse impact.  He noted that student properties were often untidy and their gardens unkempt, another impact upon residential amenity.  He added that while there would be parking provided on-site, it was known that the increase in visitor vehicles and movements associated with an HMO were noted, especially with the property in question being located close to a junction.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that local residents were concerned as regards the sustainability of a balanced community, and in keeping homes affordable in their neighbourhood for future generations, as set out within the developing Neighbourhood Plan.  He reiterated that CDP Policy 16 was only one of a number of policies for the Committee to consider, and he would say that judgement could be made to reject the application based on policies and the reasons stated.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked Local Member, Councillor L Mavin to speak in respect of the application.

Councillor L Mavin thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that the current 100 metre radius, as set out within Policy 16, did not work in situations such as the application before Members, a cul-de-sac.  She explained that 28 properties were in the cul-de-sac and noted that with numbers 5 and 9 Monks Crescent already being HMOs, the application would in fact take the number to three out of 28, representing 10.7 percent, over the 10 percent threshold and contrary to Policy 16.

Councillor L Mavin noted that the encroachment of HMOs would encourage people to move out of the area, accelerating the unbalancing of the local community.  She noted that it was essential to maintain that balance and students were by their nature transient and not part of the local community.  She added that there would be detrimental impact upon residential amenity, contrary to Policies 29 and 31 of the CDP and she would urge the Committee to refuse the change of use of the property to an HMO.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Mavin and asked Gary Swarbrick, Agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

G Swarbrick noted the concerns raised by the Parish Council and Local Councillors and reminded Committee that Policy 16 referred to a 10 percent threshold within 100 metres of an application property.  He noted that 10 percent was therefore the defined ‘tipping point’ in policy and as stated by the Officer, that 10 precent had not yet been reached. 

He noted that this 10 percent threshold was that which had been endorsed by the Planning Inspector in his endorsement of the CDP.  G Swarbrick noted that demonstration of need was not a material planning consideration and therefore the application could not be refused on such grounds.  He noted that as the application, and including permissions not yet undertaken, did not reach the 10 percent threshold of HMOs within 100 metres, by definition, there was not an over-proliferation of HMOs, and any refusal on those grounds would be contrary to policy and previous permissions granted, especially those where the percentage was greater than in this case, though still below the 10 percent threshold.

G Swarbrick noted that the location of the property, on the outskirts of the city, were such to be more attractive to students wanting a quieter location, with those wishing for more a ‘party’ atmosphere likely to chose other areas.  He noted that notwithstanding this, there would be clauses within tenancy agreements as regards standards of behaviour, and the University too had codes of conduct for students, and the Police and Council had powers to act in cases of anti-social behaviour as necessary.  He added that while the concerns were noted as regards the possibility of anti-social behaviour, it would need to be demonstrated to be taking place, not just as a possibility.

G Swarbrick concluded by noting that there was sufficient parking provided, the property was in a sustainable location, and that the NPPF stated that overturning Officer’s professional recommendation should be ‘rare and exceptional’, therefore Members should approve the application.

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

Councillor A Surtees noted that objectors within their submissions had stated there was a covenant on the property and requested details of how such covenants work.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that while there may be a covenant in place, such were a separate issue to planning permission and would be private law matter, outside of the planning process.  However, in terms of how they would usually work, the burden would attach to one property, the benefit to another and it would therefore be up to the property with the benefit, to enforce any breach.

Councillor L Brown noted the Agent had referred to Policy 16, and that the application was compliant.  She reiterated the point made by the Parish Council, that other policies existed within the CDP, most notably Policies 29 and 31.  She added that while on site she had noted that 7 Monks Crescent had been sold it being in between 5 and 9 Monks Crescent, those properties already having HMO consent.  She noted that the likelihood was an HMO application for that property may follow in due course.  She asked as regards cycle storage if the garage was to be converted to a bedroom. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the expectation was for cycle storage in the garage in perpetuity, to be secured by condition, with no change to that unless a further application in that regard was submitted and approved.

Councillor L Brown noted that construction seemed complete from the site visit, and asked if floorplans could be checked in terms of conversion back to a family home.  She reiterated that Policies 29 and 31 should be given more prominence. 

Councillor J Elmer noted he felt that consistency with previous decisions was important, and recently the Committee had refused some HMO applications where Members had felt the application was contrary to Policy 31 in terms of impact upon residential amenity.  He noted he felt this type of application would impact on residential amenity, in terms of noise and untidy properties, wherever there were family properties.  He noted that another factor was the transient nature of students, not integrating into communities.  Councillor J Elmer noted the comments from the Parish Council in terms of there was no need for further HMOs, however, there was a demonstrable need for more family homes.  He added he disagreed with Officers in respect of need not being required to be taken into account, adding that surely it was for the Planning Committee to consider what was needed in terms of balance within a community.  He noted he felt Policy 31 provided sufficient weight in order to refuse the application.

Councillor P Jopling noted that there would be impact in terms of continually approving HMO applications.  She added that developers would continue to buy and convert properties to HMOs, to the detriment of those looking for a family home.  She noted that HMOs were known to be generally not kept to a high standard and she felt parking would become an issue over time.  She noted she was not minded to support the application.

Councillor D Oliver noted the sense of déjà vu in respect of another HMO application before Committee.  He added that, to be consistent with other decisions, there were not sufficient reasons for refusal. 

In respect of previous decisions by the Committee to refuse HMO applications, Councillor D Oliver asked if there had been any determinations or information from the Planning Inspectorate that may be relevant.  The Chair noted he had visited Grey College recently and they had a number of unoccupied rooms available.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that six applications were at the appeal stage with the Planning Inspectorate.  He noted the appeal closest to resolution was that relating to The Larches, however, that referred to a large HMO development, different in scale to the application before Committee. 

He noted that while Members may have some concerns in respect of Policy 16, and the 10 percent threshold and how it was applied in situations, such as cul-de-sacs and the impact upon balanced communities, there were other policies within the CDP and Members could refer to other policies, noting Policies 6, 29 and 31 had been referred to within comments.

Councillor E Peeke noted that she would second Councillor J Elmer if he was proposing refusal of the application.

Councillor D Oliver noted he was not confident in a refusal, and asked if deferment to await appeal decisions was an option.  He noted that the evidence in terms of impact were clear and set out in a policy that seemed sensible in aiming to reduce overall impact.  He noted he would be minded to go with the Officer’s recommendation.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted the refusal motion and asked if Members could drill down to explain what exactly they felt was contrary to Policies 29 and 31 in this case, and what evidence base was being referred to in terms of sustainability of such refusal reasons.  Councillor J Elmer noted Policy 31 referred to residential amenity, and this would be impacted upon in terms of noise and anti-social behaviour and thatthe untidy nature of student properties, would negatively impact upon the cohesion of the local community.  He noted the evidence was that of Local Members and Committee Members over the last 10 years looking at such HMO applications within the city and surrounding suburbs. 

The Principal Planning Officer asked for some specific reasons, noting those provided could be said of any HMO development, not just the application being considered.  Councillor J Elmer noted that it was based upon the Committee’s experience of these specific types of HMO applications.  Councillor P Jopling noted that if you looked at Durham City, where former social housing had been converted, there was clear evidence of overloading of students.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that he felt any refusal on such grounds would struggle to be substantiated at appeal.  Councillor J Elmer noted he felt that it should be tested at appeal. 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) reiterated his concerns and added that there was the potential for costs to be awarded against the Authority in respect of such testing.

The Chair noted that many streets within his Electoral Division were considerably over the 10 percent threshold and while not directly comparable to areas in the suburbs, there were a number of recent decisions for refusal by the Committee.  Councillor L Brown noted she agreed with the Chair and Councillor P Jopling and added that if we were able to take a Planning Inspector to such areas, they would find it beneficial. 

Councillor D Oliver asked again whether deferral was a useful option, given he felt refusal was a concern at any appeal stage.  The Principal Planning Officer noted one of the previously referred to appeals was for non-determination, and therefore it would be likely a similar situation should the application be deferred.  He recited the Committee’s previous refusal reason, as referred to by Members, adding that reference to Policy 6 could be removed if Members did not feel it was relevant in this case.  Councillor J Elmer agreed and noted his motion for refusal as per his previous statement and using the refusal reason recited by the Principal Planning Officer.  It was noted he had been seconded by Councillor E Peeke and 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 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.