Agenda item

Construction of two storey side extension, additional off-street parking and change of use of the existing dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a HMO (Use Class Sui Generis) - Resubmission.

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 application was for the construction of two storey side extension, additional off-street parking and change of use of the existing dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to an HMO (Use Class Sui Generis) – Resubmission, and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Patrick Conway, representing Belmont Parish Council, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted the Parish Council strongly objected to the application and wished to clarify several points.  He noted that Paragraph 4 of the Officer’s report correctly stated the Parish Council had exercised its statutory right to call-in the application, however, the Local County Councillors had also called-in the application after careful consideration.  He noted Paragraph 31 of the report referred to the submission from Belmont Parish Council, and he would add it would have also been helpful if it had included the policies that the Parish Council felt the application was contrary too, namely CDP Policies 16, 21, 29 and 31 and Part 2 of the NPPF.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that NPPF Part 2 referred to sustainable development, and suggested that replacing family homes with HMOs, with a transient population only being resident 33 to 34 weeks a year was not sustainable development and did not contribute a strong economy with HMOs being Council Tax exempt.  He added that in terms of any contribution to the environment, over the last three years there had been a steady increase in the number of HMOs in the area and there had been a visual impact on the area, with many HMOs in a detrimental state, and with more waste.  He noted the pressure on local communities, the application being the third within the street, next door to a seven-bed HMO.  He noted the applicant’s reliance on the Article 4 Direction, however, that aspect of Policy 16 did not trump other policies within the CDP, such as maintaining mixed and balanced communities.  He noted that Belmont Parish Council would wish for a review of CDP Policy 16 and the 100-metre radius used for calculating the percentage of Council Tax exempt properties up to a 10 percent threshold.  He added this issue was raised during Neighbourhood Plan discussions.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that Durham University noted there would be around 800 fewer students next year and that numbers would be around 21,400 by the end of the decade.  He noted that the methodology of the 100-metre radius did not take into account situations such as this where there were three HMOs within a few metres, with 13 to 14 bed spaces, not in the spirit of the CDP.

 

He noted CDP Policy 21, and the traffic generated from an HMO and compromise to public safety and issues with parking from some many HMOs.  He noted CDP Policy 29 and the removal of C3 housing stock.  He explained that and Independent Review by Belmont Parish Council, as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process noted serious issues with the CDP up to 2030, in respect of the Housing Needs Assessment, with HMOs leaving properties empty for substantial parts of the year.  He added that once properties were altered to create large HMOs, they would not likely be turned back to family homes.  Parish Councillor P Conway noted CDP Policy 31 and explained that a cluster of three HMOs would impact upon residential amenity in terms of increased noise, movement of vehicles.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted the Parish Council strongly suggested that Members refuse the application, and with NPPF Paragraph 19 noting to take into account local views and reminded Members that residents had their rights and that planning decisions were not merely an administrative process for an applicant to go through.  He noted that Members would look carefully and exercise their judgement and reject the application.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked Councillor E Mavin, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor E Mavin thanked the Chair and Committee and noted they were well aware of the proliferation of HMOs in his Electoral Division.  He noted it was increasingly difficult for people in the area to get on to the property ladder.  He explained that the University had noted they had sufficient accommodation for students, and he noted that what was needed was more family homes to help support and sustain local communities.  He noted the transient population of students was challenge, not contributing in terms of CDP Policy 29(a) and being contrary to CDP Policies 29 and 31.  He noted those policies were not optional and must be met in full.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application as it would unbalance the community and negatively impact upon the neighbourhood contrary to CDP Policies 29 and 31.

 

Councillor L Brown left the meeting at 12.00pm

 

 

The Committee Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of Councillor C Fletcher, Local Member.

 

“I wish to formally object to this planning application.  Too many of our family homes are being extended and their use changed in order to increase rental income.

 

Whilst I can understand the motivation of landlords, residents tell me the impact for their community is felt strongly because of the additional parking, the changes to our physical environment by extensions and the change in dynamics from long term neighbours who get to know each other to a transient, nomadic community. 

 

We welcome students in Durham City – they make up 50% of our population during term time. However, we rarely get to know them as they move from term to term and year to year. The primary schools are seeing reduced pupil numbers because families are pushed out to the villages by student landlords purchasing the homes designed for families.

 

I believe that this application does not meet Policy 16 which states that the council should promote and preserve inclusive, mixed, and balanced communities and to protect residential amenity.

 

The university has advised that student numbers will be reducing (expected to be 800 less students this year), not increasing and that there is no need for further student accommodation at this time within the city and surrounding areas.  We have a housing shortage in the city for residents. This application contravenes Policy 29 for sustainable design.

 

We have empty C4 houses already in the Gilesgate area and this development is not sustainable. Is this simply going to be another empty house in a residential street with a neglected garden affecting the morale of residents?

 

The SPD for parking means that 4 secure parking spaces should be provided for this house. I do not consider that this is being provided.

 

Therefore for the reasons stated I strongly urge the officers to reject this development and insist that this house remains a dwellinghouse”.

 

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Rowland Stubbs, and Jane Robson, Local Residents in objection to the application, to address the Committee.

 

R Stubbs noted a safety issue in terms of the proximity of two HMOs, up to 11 individuals and very narrow road of only 4.93 metres wide, with partial parking on the pavement.  He noted that numbers 50 and 51 Prebends Field were on a tight bend and there was no footpath on one side, only a narrow grass verge.  He noted that pedestrians were often blocked and likely they would need to use the road to get past, and with cars coming from three directions he felt it was an accident waiting to happen.  He noted that therefore the application should be refused on safety grounds.

 

J Robson noted that unlike student properties within the city centre, properties further out at Gilesgate Moor would attract car owners, and there would be at least three cars on the road, with four in curtilage.  She noted issue with the proposed layout and that public road space would be used.  She reiterated the point made by R Stubbs that the road was very narrow and people used Dean’s Walk and Prebends Field to avoid speed bumps and parents regularly used the road as route into Durham linking to the public right of way to Kepier Wood, Dragonville.  She noted the additional pressure on parking from the HMOs in the area, which may not be appreciated by looking at plans alone.

 

The Chair thanked R Stubbs and J Robson and asked Garry Hodgson, Agent for the Applicant, to speak in favour of the application.

 

G Hodgson noted he was disappointed that the application was before Committee, noting it could have been dealt with by delegated authority, had it not been called-in and it suggested a significant lack of trust in Officers' ability to come to a fitting conclusion.  He noted that CDP Policy 16(3) was unambiguous in where the development of HMOs was acceptable, in areas where within a 100-metre radius the percentage of Council Tax exempt properties was under a ten percent threshold.  He noted it was 6.7 percent in respect of the application. 

He noted that therefore the principle of change of use was acceptable.  He noted the consequence of the HMO policy, so that there was not further HMOs within the city centre area.  G Hodgson noted that Belmont Parish Council did not understand policy and generalised assertions about the proposal’s impact were unsupported by objective analysis and could be seen as unreasonable behaviour by the Inspectorate if that transcribed to the reasons for refusal and the decision was appealed.

 

G Hodgson refuted that there was no need for HMOs and noted that the Council had an obligation to consider need in its policy monitoring and noted that the latest report stated: ‘The target specifies that it is related to the identified need, however, at this point in time there is no assessment of identified need for HMO bedspaces’.  He noted that if Policy 16 was having an adverse impact on the housing stock where there is an insufficient supply of HMOs to meet the existing and future demand of students and non-students, then Policy 16 should be considered 'out of date' and a determination made in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF.

 

G Hodgson noted that while Members were not bound by their Officer’s recommendation, he noted they should pay heed to their professional assessment.  He noted there was need, the principle of development was acceptable and requested that Members approve the application.

 

The Chair thanked G Hodgson and noted reference to highways and parking issues by the speakers and asked the Highway Development Manager, Phil Harrison if he wish to comment.  The Highway Development Manager noted he did not have anything to add to the report and would answer any questions from the Committee.

 

The Chair thanked the Highway Development Manager and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor A Bell noted the agent for the applicant stated Members had no faith in Officers and explained that Committee Members did have faith in Officers, with the call-in coming from Belmont Parish Council and Local Members.  He noted no objections from Highways following amended plans.  He noted recent appeals decision in relation to HMOs and noted they may help inform Members upon decisions on similar application going forward.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that details of appeals decisions were given at the last meeting, with a number of appeals being where the percentage of Council Tax exempt properties within 100 metre radius was greater than the 10 percent threshold.  He noted the Council had been successful in defending the decisions in relation to those appeals.  He noted applications refused by Committee and approved by the Inspector. 

He noted in total two appeals were for large HMOs, the remainder being smaller three to six-bed HMOs.  He added that need was addressed by the Inspector, noting that no weight should be attached as it was not referenced within CDP Policy 16.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that while Policy 16 was the principal policy to assess HMO applications against, other policies also applied including CDP Policies 29 and 31 and the NPPF.

Councillor J Elmer asked as regards the two large HMO applications that were considered by the Planning Inspectorate.  The Principal Planning Officer noted one appeal was allowed, one dismissed.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he took exception to the first line of the Applicant’s Statement in respect of the disappointment that the application was at Committee.  He noted the Councillors on the Planning Committee were Elected Members and there was a process to allow these types of application to be discussed and he felt it was out of order to suggest application should not be considered by the Committee.  He noted the reference to the impact on social cohesion, likely additional ASB and likely impact on the highway, with parking proposed for four vehicles, though there could be up to seven vehicles, potentially parking such to impact blue light vehicle access along the street.  The Highway Development Manager noted that such vehicles would be able to get past, and if the road was blocked or the verge to the side used, they would represent an offence.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that he would suggest that, if Members were minded to approve the application, that the construction start time be amended to 0800 from 0730.  However, he would propose overturning the recommendation and refuse the application.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he shared the concerns raised by Councillor J Elmer, however, where there was a demonstrated over-proliferation of HMOs.  He noted in this instance the percentage of HMOs was 6.7 percent, below the 10 percent threshold as set out in policy.  He noted he would not want the street full of HMOs, however, we were currently far from that situation and while there would be an impact, each application must be looked at and decided upon based on the threshold.  He proposed that the application be approved.

 

Councillor J Cosslett seconded Councillor J Elmer’s proposal for refusal.

 

The Chair asked Councillor J Elmer on what grounds he was proposing refusal of the application.  He noted he felt the application was contrary to Policy 31 in terms of the impact upon residential amenity.  The Principal Planning Officer asked if that related to noise and disturbance.  Councillor J Elmer noted that was correct.

 

Councillor K Shaw asked as regards the outcome of recent appeals that had used that reason for refusal.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that of the two large sui-generis HMO applications, one was upheld, one was dismissed, both having similar reasons for refusal.  He noted that C4 use was for three to six bedspaces, with the large HMOs being for seven bedspaces or more.  He noted in this case the impact was one additional bed space, and the recommendation from Officers was for approval.

Councillor J Elmer asked as regards costs award for either of those appeals.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that applicants could apply for costs, with the more appeal decision being against the Authority the more likely costs could be awarded, however, it would be on the specifics of each case.

 

The Chair noted that Parish Councillor P Conway had referred to a review of Policy 16 and asked whether this would be addressed at the next stage when looking at the CDP.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that would be led by colleagues from Planning Policy, with Policy 16 to be reviewed as part of the process.

 

The Chair noted he would allow Parish Councillor P Conway to respond.  Parish Councillor P Conway reiterated that CDP Policy 16 should not trump other policies within the CDP and that a review of the Article 4 Direction was important, as linear development of HMOs may not fall within a 100-metre radius and that the Parish Council felt it was too important an issue to wait until a review of the whole of the CDP.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Article 4 Direction was used to remove permitted development rights for change of use from C3 to C4, with this case being for a large HMO, with Policy 16 being the principal policy the application was assessed against, with the 10 percent threshold.

 

A motion for refusal had been proposed by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor J Cosslett and upon a vote being taken it was;

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED as the change in use of the property to a large house in multiple occupation (Use Class Sui Generis) would have a detrimental impact upon community cohesion and adversely affect the amenity of existing residents and the character of the area through increased noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour contrary to the aims of policies 16, 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan and Parts 12 and 15 of the NPPF.