Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) including single storey rear extension, cycle parking and bin storage.

The Planning Officer, Mark Sandford 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 some 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 house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) including single storey rear extension, cycle parking and bin storage and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Planning Officer noted that the application had been called into Committee by the Local Members, adding that if the extension had been slightly smaller in height, that element of the application would have been permitted development.  He explained the rooms met the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS).

 

The Planning Officer noted the Highways Section initially objected when proposals were for a five-six bed HMO, however, with a revision to fewer bedrooms, namely three, they no longer objected.  He explained that the City of Durham Trust objected to the six bed proposals, and cited issues including NDSS and noise.  He noted that the Council’s HMO Licensing Team had noted the proposals did not require an HMO licence, and it had been confirmed that the percentage of HMOs within a 100-metre radius was 8.2 percent, and along with a new application ongoing for 42 Bradford Crescent, would still be below the ten percent threshold set out in CDP Policy 16.

 

The Planning Officer noted that Environmental Health offered no objections, subject to conditions, and Durham Constabulary had offered no objections, putting forward some advice in terms of such applications.

 

It was explained there had been 42 letters of objection from members of the public, and objections from Local Members and Mary Foy MP, with the main concerns raised relating to overconcentration of HMOs, loss of family homes and lack of demonstrated need.

 

The Planning Officer noted that the application was in line with CDP Policy 16, met the requirements in terms of the NPPF and NDSS and was in accorded with the Residential Amenity SPD and therefore was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out within the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out statements on behalf of the Local Members, Councillors E Mavin, L Mavin and C Fletcher.

 

The Committee Services Officer read out the statement on behalf of Councillors E Mavin and L Mavin:

 

‘As County Councillors for the area, Eric Mavin and I, Lesley Mavin, wish to formally object to this planning application, change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to HMO (C4) including single storey rear extension, cycle parking and bin storage.

We believe it contravenes the following policies of the CDP for the following reasons:

 

Policy 16

This states that the council should ‘promote and preserve inclusive, mixed and balanced communities and to protect residential amenity’.

 

There have recently been over 12 planning applications for conversion from C3 to C4 on Bradford Crescent, and nearby streets, and this clearly influences the balance of the local community in relation to both residents and students.

 

The university itself has stated that there is no need for any further student accommodation within the city and surrounding areas. As there are also 800 fewer students this year, this need is even less.

 

This concerns sustainable design, and we argue that removing more C3 housing stock, of which there is already a significant shortage, from a community where there is already unused, empty C4 houses, the viability in the area as a sustainable community will be reduced.

 

Policy 31

This relates to amenity and pollution, and again we argue that by creating a cluster of HMOs in a single area the occurrence of transient anti-social noise within the street will increase which will in turn negatively affect the character of the area and the amenity of its residents.

 

Policy 21

This policy requires that all new developments ensure that any vehicular traffic generated by new developments do not cause an unacceptable increase in congestion or air pollution and that severe congestion can be overcome by appropriate transport improvements  This planning application  relies on the unrestricted on street parking on Bradford Crescent and states no further parking spaces would be needed  Suitable car parking spaces have not been provided  Bradford Crescent is also a local bus route and an access to a local school, already causing parking and obstruction issues.

 

We also share and support the concerns raised from the adjoining property, number 60, regarding privacy, party walls, waste, parking and noise.

 

We are requesting for these reasons this application be refused’.

 

The Committee Services Officer read out the statement on behalf of Councillor C Fletcher:

 

‘As a County Councillor for the area I wish to object to the planning application to create an HMO at 31 Bradford Crescent.

 

I am objecting to this application, because as a local County Councillor for the Belmont Division in City of Durham (covering Gilesgate, Gilesgate Moor, Belmont and Carrville) I represent local residents in the community. They are telling me “We need to protect precious family homes; we can no longer sacrifice more.”

 

Policy 16 of the County Durham Plan states the council should “promote and preserve inclusive, mixed and balanced communities and to protect residential amenity.” The residents support this view but are frustrated at what they see is the saturation of their street by developer landlords who don’t care about their community, or even the students that will live in the HMOs.

 

Whilst I accept that the current method of calculation means this application does not exceed the 10% limit of C4 properties in a 100m radius (this will make it 8.2% according to the HMO Data Consultee), I am arguing that it will have a serious impact on the quality of life and sustainability in this residential street.

 

A key factor in the 8.2% is that immediately behind 31 Bradford Crescent is Kenny Place, a discreet community of its own, with bungalows for elderly residents. The ground level of the bungalows is below the ground level of the Bradford Crescent houses and the front doors will look up to the extension planned and will be intimidating to the older people who like to sit outside their bungalows.

 

Between nos. 21 – 75 Bradford Crescent (a total of 65 houses), there are 9 houses which are C4. This makes a total of 13.9%. This is why residents are concerned their residential street is saturated with student accommodation. Whichever direction they look they see student HMOs.

 

This application contravenes Policy 29 by reducing sustainable housing. Alterations are hard to undo and experience has proven that, once family houses have been altered to accommodate an HMO (moving internal walls and layouts, changing outhouses and garages to bedrooms) it is expensive and difficult to revert the houses back to a family home.

 

I believe that this application should be considered within the spirit of the NPPF.

 

 

 

This confirms that the planning system should contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Built into the NPFF is a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being.

 

Paragraph 9 of the NPPF confirms that planning decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of an area.

 

Durham County Council Parking and Accessibility SPD (2023) 4.1 states that “Developers are expected to provide an adequate amount of safe parking which is appropriate in scale, location and reflects the context of the development. Adequate parking provision for residents and visitors improves road safety and limits harm to residential amenity from parking on pavements and verges.”

 

The parking guidance states that “Where a garage is not provided, alternative secure provision must be made.” 

 

The development at 31 Bradford Crescent will increase the size of the house from 2 to 3 bedrooms. It is thus required within Table 5 of the SPD to accommodate a minimum of two cars securely within the curtilage. As there is only on-street parking for this property it is not possible to park two cars securely.

 

Parking is already at a premium along the length of the road with cars parked both sides and it can be difficult to find space on an evening or weekends. Residents are concerned that this HMO fails to provide any of the required in-curtilage car spaces.

 

Durham University has reported publicly that there is sufficient housing stock for all students who need it. They stated “In 22/23 the University had a total of 22,131 students, of which 21,341 were full-time. Total student numbers for 23/24 are released after the 1 December census date. However, there has been enough accommodation in the City for everyone who wanted it this year - there were rooms in HMOs still being advertised in September, and the University has a normal number of void rooms across its estate. In 24/25 planned total student numbers are expected to be lower than in 22/23 and 23/24. As such, we can say with confidence that there is enough student housing in Durham City to meet demand.” 

 

I cannot see that this application brings any improvement to Bradford Crescent, Gilesgate or Durham. I can see no demand for it and no reason why this residential street should lose yet another family home. On behalf of the residents of Bradford Crescent and Gilesgate I ask that you reject this application’.

 

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Gary Swarbrick, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

G Swarbrick thanked the Chair and Committee and noted recent approvals for similar HMOs, including at 58 Bradford Crescent, and appeals that were dismissed in terms of NDSS and bedrooms, not an issue in this application.  He added that the Planning Inspector, when looking at the application for 58 Bradford Crescent had noted that application had been in line with CDP Policy 16 and acceptable in terms of parking and highway safety.

 

G Swarbrick noted that the current application included a limited extension, and the Officer had noted the application was in accord with CDP Policies 16, 29 and 31.  He reiterated the Planning Inspector’s view of applications being in line with those aspects, in terms of residential amenity and highways.  He noted the percentage of HMOs within a 100-metre radius was less that the ten percent threshold and noted that therefore the application should be approved as there were no reasonable grounds to withhold approval.

 

The Chair thanked G Swarbrick and asked Officers if they wished to address the points raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, J Jennings noted that the objectors had stated there was no need demonstrated for the proposed HMO, however, Part 3 of Policy 16 of the CDP did not consider need, rather the ten percent threshold was used to monitor the situation in terms of HMOs, as endorsed with recent appeals decisions referred to, with the Planning Inspector in one case noting that need was not required to be considered, and there was the opportunity for properties to revert to family homes.  She noted the other considerations were as set out by the Planning Officer in his report.

 

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

 

Councillor A Bell noted that the Committee had struggled with many HMO applications, then the CDP had been adopted, and now a number of appeals decisions had come through from the Planning Inspector.  He noted that he would therefore take on board those professional opinions and move approval of the application.

 

Councillor P Jopling queried the need for such HMOs, with the University having several hundred units available for students at the moment.  She noted she could not see why applications were coming forward when there was existing accommodation available.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that while there may be some beds available in University Colleges, that itself was not reason for refusal, and was for market forces to consider.  The HMO part of Policy 16 was designed to control the supply of HMOs by monitoring it against the percentage threshold.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted the Committee had considered many similar applications and noted he felt it was the purpose of planning to allocate by aligning provision with need adding he felt the Committee found itself in a very strange position that it had gravitated towards in terms of HMOs.  He noted that the application represented the loss of a family home, and there was evidence that the had been impact upon families in terms of student HMOs, students being transient by their nature.  He added he agreed with the comments from Councillor E Mavin and L Mavin and noted that not all appeals decisions on HMOs had gone the applicants’ way, with around half being upheld.  He proposed that the application be refused, based on Policy 31 and the negative impact upon amenity for surrounding residents.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he felt an element of déjà vu in respect of many similar HMO applications coming before Committee.  He noted he appreciated the comments from both sides, both residents and applicants, however, he would always point to the relevant policies.  He added he understood those application that had been refused previously and therefore tested via the Planning Inspector, however, it was clear to him that the Council should not be refusing applications for HMOs when under the ten percent threshold, as a measure of the impact of HMOs on an area.  He added that therefore he would be supportive of the application, especially given the details of appeals decisions.

 

The Chair noted that Councillor J Elmer had referred to Policy 31 as a refusal reason, however, those grounds had been rejected by the Inspector at appeal.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that one of the appeals dismissed by the Inspector on such grounds had been a very different case, being the change from a six-bed to ten-bed HMO, and there had been evidence in terms of crime reports in the area.  She added that an appeal for an HMO close to the current application had been allowed at appeal, with the Inspector agreeing with the ten percent threshold as set out in the CDP.  Councillor L Brown noted she understood that those appeals decisions that had been upheld were being challenged.  She asked, if Members were minded to approve the application, that construction commenced at 0800, rather than 0730 as it was in a residential area.

 

Councillor R Manchester noted he would second Councillor A Bell’s motion for approval. 

He noted from his time on the Committee that Members were acutely aware of the impact of such HMO applications on communities, however, he did not feel it was possible to refuse such HMO applications on amenity grounds without any additional information specific to that application, else it would be effectively a ban on all HMOs.  Councillors A Bell and R Manchester agreed to the amended start time for construction being 0800.

 

The application had been moved for approval by Councillor A Bell, seconded by Councillor R Manchester and upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions set out within the report, with amendment to Condition 5 to the start time for construction works, from 0730 to 0830.