Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) including alterations to rear conservatory, raising of roof height of two-storey side extension, alterations to door and window openings, and formation of car parking area to front.

                The Senior Planning Officer, George Spurgeon 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 dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) including alterations to rear conservatory, raising of roof height of two-storey side extension, alterations to door and window openings, and formation of car parking area to front and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

                The Senior Planning Officer noted Belmont Parish Council had objected to the application, with details set out within the report and a representative being registered to speak.  He noted no objections from the Highways Section, Environmental Health or HMO Licensing Team.  He noted HMO data showed that within a 100-metre radius, 5.6 percent of properties were Class N Council Tax exempt, below the 10 percent threshold.  He explained 10 letters of objection had been received from local residents, with their concerns relating to social cohesion, anti-social behaviour, parking and highways issues and lack of need among other issues as set out within the report.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that as the development would not exceed the 10 percent threshold as set out in policy, it therefore was not felt that the development would impact upon community cohesion, and the application would not prevent any change of use back to a family residential property in future.  He added that in respect of residential amenity, the property was proposed to change from four-bed to five-bed, and there would be a tenancy management plan in place.  He concluded by noting the proposals did not represent the over-proliferation of HMOs in the area and as was in line Policy 29 and 31 in addition, the application was recommended for approval.

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

Parish Councillor P Conway explained the Parish Council objected to the application after receiving many representations from local residents, which were material and that had to be taken in account within decision making.  He noted the Parish Council felt the application was contrary to CDP Policies 16, 21, 29 and 31m as well as parts 2, 5, 9 and 9 of the NPPF. 

He noted recent appeals decisions in relation to HMOs, however, the Parish Council felt undue weight was being given to those appeals decisions, noting Inspectors made independent decisions, not bound by previous decisions.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the proposals replaced a family home used 52 weeks a year with a property only used up to 37 weeks a year, and with a loss in Council Tax.  He noted that effectively the residents were sustaining transient occupants that did not contribute to the local community.  He added that HMO properties within the Gilesgate Moor area were generally in poor condition.  He noted that he Council often referred to CDP Policy 16 as a ‘tipping point’, however, it also contained narrative which included ‘safe and inclusive communities’.  He explained there were a few issues with the application in this regard, including that a housing assessment carried out as part of the neighbourhood planning process for Belmont Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan had shown there was a need for an additional 300 family homes in the next 10 years.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the Article 4 Direction had been helpful, however, it only made reference to a 100-metre radius and did not take into account specific situations or configurations, such as this cul-de-sac, where issues with HMOs could be compounded.  He reiterated previous comments at Committee that Belmont Parish Council would ask for a review of the 100-metre radius rule.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted there had been no objections from the Highways Section, however, paragraph 92 of the report referred to impact upon neighbouring properties and it was felt that this new application should meet the usual requisite standards. 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted Policies 29 and 31 included reference to air quality, with Environmental Health noting some concerns.  He added Durham University had stated they were expecting 800 fewer students in the next academic year, and we relooking to stabilise their numbers around that figure.  He noted there were a number of void properties, and spaces available within purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA).  He noted at a meeting at Gilesgate Moor, looking at the development of a new Neighbourhood Plan, the area not being covered by the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan, HMOs had been raised as the primary concern.  He added that Neighbourhood Plan policies would look to address HMO issues.  He noted a number of residents that were unable to attend the meeting had submitted their objections in writing to the Planning Officer.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out a statement on behalf of Local County Councillors E Mavin and L Mavin.

“As County Councillors for the area, Eric Mavin and Lesley Mavin, wish to formally object to this planning application, DM/24/01143/FPA  Change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to small house in multiple occupation (HMO) (C4) including alterations to rear conservatory, raising of roof height of two-storey side extension, alterations to door and window opening and formation of car parking area to front 29 Hawthorn Crescent, Gilesgate Moor, Durham DH1 1ED

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’.

Due to the proliferation of HMOs within this area, we feel this application fails to satisfy Policy 16 3 b, 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.

Policy 29

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. Hawthorn Crescent is a narrow thoroughfare where existing on street parking causes problems.  It is unclear from the application how many parking places will be provided within the curtilage of the property in accordance with the Parking and Accessibility Supplementary Planning Document adopted by Durham County Council in October 2023.

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

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Melanie Tyson, local resident in objection, to speak in relation to the application.

M Tyson thanked the Chair and Committee and explained she had lived in the area since 1993 and could see the application property from her home in Aspen Close.  She noted there were several reasons why local residents objected to the HMO application, including that the proposals for five people raised concerns of possible further alterations, such as the relocating the rear doors, and it was felt the application was in preparation for future use, to alter to a 6 or 7 bed HMO.  She noted concern in respect of conversion of the garage to additional bed space, either altered without consent or with a retrospective application.  She added that additional parking issues would be exacerbated by the proposals.  M Tyson noted had health issues that required access in terms of parking, delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles.

M Tyson explained that the conversion of the property to an HMO would result in the loss of a family home forever, with landlords pricing out families in the area.  She noted a loss of biodiversity in terms of the removal of a tree, and issues in terms of internet provision and additional pressure on providers.

The Chair thanked M Tyson and asked Gary Swarbrick, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

G Swarbrick noted the current application was a change of use application for a 5-bed HMO.  He noted that the number of recent appeals decisions were relevant and material.  He noted the Parish Council had raised a number of questions in relation to need, however, under Policy 16(3), that was not relevant.  He added that condition would restrict the number of beds, with any additional beds requiring further planning application.  He reiterated the Senior Planning Officer’s report and presentation, that the percentage of HMOs was under the 10 percent threshold and therefore the application was acceptable.  He added that Planning Inspectors had noted that where under the threshold, there was no impact in terms of the character of an area.  G Swarbrick noted there was sufficient levels of parking, with no objections from the Highways Section, and while residents and the Parish Council did not wish for more HMOs, that did not mean HMOs were contrary to policy, and therefore, without any reasonable reason for refusal, he would respectfully ask that the Committee approve the application.

The Senior Planning Officer noted each application was looked at on its own merit, however, appeals decisions for comparable applications needed to be taken into account. 

He noted four relevant change of use applications that had been where there had been less than the 10 percent threshold and in each case the Inspectors had noted they were in accord with Policy 16 and therefore did not impact upon residential amenity.  He explained that the application before Members was similar in that regard and therefore the information was material.  He reiterated there was a condition to restrict the number to five beds, and if breached, that was an issue for enforcement as required.  He added any sui generis use would require another change of use application.  He concluded by noting parking had been increased by one, and with the inclusion of the garage, and extended width of the drive, would improve parking if permission was granted.

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

Councillor J Elmer asked as regards appeals decisions and whether those referred to were comparable to the current application.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that a large HMO application was dismissed at appeal, relating to The Larches, however, that had been very different to the current application being nine-bed, very different to a C4 use HMO.

Councillor A Bell noted he felt in this case the Committee’s hands were tied and moved approval of the application.

Councillor J Elmer noted he noted the Inspectors’ decisions, however, he noted it was their opinion that those applications did not impact upon the community and was subjective, and that Members of the Committee did understand there was impact from HMOs, with student in those properties not forming relationships within the community.  He noted he fundamentally disagreed with the Inspectors and felt they had got it badly wrong.

Councillor A Surtees asked, relating to the appeals, an appeal relating to 58 Bradford Crescent, seemingly a similar application to the one being considered.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that particular appeal had been dismissed, with one bedroom not meeting national described space standards (NDSS).  Councillor A Surtees noted the appeals report stated that application has been allowed at appeal.  The Principal Planning Officer apologised, that had been a typographical error in the report.

The Chair noted there had been a proposal for approval from Councillor A Bell, adding the Committee were stuck with Policy 16 until any review of the CDP.  Councillor R Manchester noted he would second approval, echoing the comments made by the Chair.

A motion for approval was proposed 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.