Agenda item

Sub-divide dwelling (C3) into 3no flats (Part Retrospective).

The Planning Officer, Michelle Hurton 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 to sub-divide dwelling (C3) into 3no flats (Part Retrospective) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted the application was within the Durham City Conservation Area and referred the Committee to internal layouts, adding there were no external changes to the property.  She explained that the rooms met the nationally described space standards (NDSS) and a cycle and bin storage was provided.  She noted there had been no objections from the Council’s Highways or Environmental Health Teams, subject to conditions.  The Planning Officer added that there had been one letter of support and 25 objections received, with objections including from the local MP Mary Foy, Neville’s Cross Community Association, City of Durham Parish Council and City of Durham Trust.

The Planning Officer noted the application was acceptable in principle in relation to the relevant policies, as set out within the report.  She noted the applicant provided evidence that the University had been consulted.  She reiterated that the rooms met the NDSS, bin and cycle storage was acceptable and as there were no external alterations, there would be no impact upon visual amenity or the Conservation Area.

The Chair thanked the 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 the Parish Council would wish to comment on some matters prior to the meeting, namely several changes the Parish Council had not been made aware off, and extra information that had not been made available to view the previous week.  She noted the information was three letters from Estate Agents, back dated to March.  She added that these types of issue did not appear to be one-offs and asked the Chair to note the points raised in terms of timely information being made available.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the application stated there were two in-curtilage parking spaces provided, however, that was not the case and in fact it was one space and the garage, and asked how those would be divided between three flats.  She added that the Council’s Highways Section had noted there were no issues, however, the Parish Council were aware of the price of parking permits on the black market with many offered on social media.  She added there was the additional issue of deliveries to the property.  She noted some ‘errors’ that had been completed by the Agent, and therefore asked that, if the Committee were minded to approve the application, that the permission be tightly conditioned such that it did not become an House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). 

Parish Councillor S Walker noted the application was part-retrospective, however, the layout and inclusion of effectively four bedrooms and two kitchens looked like an HMO and therefore a condition should be applied preventing it becoming one in future.  She added that in respect of the Parking and Accessibility Standards SPD, there was not the minimum requirement in terms of in-curtilage spaces and there should be three EV charging points, one per flat, provided.  She added therefore the application was not meeting the requirements of County Durham Plan (CDP) Policies 29 and 31 and the Parking and Accessibility Standards SPD.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that assuming there would be three flats, the shower room in Flat Two was effectively in a cupboard and therefore failed CDP Policy 29 in terms of well-designed buildings.  She added that it was effectively the loss of another family home, with three flats not being suitable for families.  She added that sustainable development must meet the needs of the present, with the application taking away a family home.  She noted the ground floor flat was marketed as being in close proximity to the University Science block and noted no quantitative need had been demonstrated, only qualitative.  She explained there was a lack of children in the local area to fill the local schools and there was both a qualitative and quantitative needs for family homes.

Parish Councillor S Walker concluded by noting that the application failed to meet Parts 2 and 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as well as Policies 21, 29 and 31 of the CDP and Policy D4 of the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) and urged the Committee reject the application.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked the Agent for the applicant, Sachin Parmer, to speak in support of the application.

S Parmar noted there were a number of objections to the application, however, he highlighted that HMOs were not unique to Durham and that Article 4 Directions were in place within many cities around the country. 

He reminded the Committee that the NPPF encourage mixed use and that planning decisions should not control the type and background of the people that may wish to rent a property.

S Parmar explained that the application was not for an HMO, it was for three flats, as explained within the Planning Officer’s report and presentation, and the use class was C3, dwellinghouse.  He added that the only current occupier was a young professional and noted the proposals were for three flats and that the applicant would not have been able to get a mortgage for an HMO.  He added that if potential occupants were to be students, it was likely they would be post-graduate students.  He explained that their research in terms of a bespoke housing needs assessment had confirmed that there was a lack of this type of one and two bed flat, with Estate Agents confirming there was this demand.

S Parmar added that the Council’s Highway Section had raised no objections and there was in fact a lower reliance on motor cars, the property being close to transport links in a very sustainable location.  He added his client was local, and that while there was a school nearby, the property had been on sale for a long time, and was purchased at auction, else the property would have been vacant.  He noted that it was a logical development, with the smaller units being better suited for the housing market.  He concluded by urging the Committee to go with the recommendation of their professional Officers and approve the application.

The Chair thanked S Parmar and asked the Planning Officer for any comments on the points raised by the speakers.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that he would pick up the comments from the Parish Council in terms of late documents and information being made available.

The Chair asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Elmer noted the comments from the Parish Council in terms of the parking available, with three flats and two parking spaces, in contravention of the Parking and Accessibility Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and asked for clarification.  The Principal DM Engineer, David Battensby explained the existing property had two parking permits, as it was within a Parking Control Zone.  He added that the changes to the property did not constitute additional parking permits.  He continued, noting that the property was the same as any other property which may have three or more vehicles, and it would be for the occupants to agree between themselves and not a planning issue, with two permits now, two for the future.

Councillor J Elmer asked whether there was a requirement for in-curtilage parking.  The Principal DM Engineer noted that it would not be physically possible at the property, and as the property was within the parking control zone, then permits were issued, adding that if any in-curtilage parking were to be provided then this would be balanced in terms of the number of vehicles.  Councillor L Brown asked whether the garage counted as in-curtilage parking.  The Principal DM Engineer noted that often old garages did not meet the requirements of the SPD, being less than three metres by six metres, however, the number of permits would remain the same.

Councillor L Brown noted the single-track road with a turning circle leading up to the property was often blocked and asked that if approved, then an 0800 start-time was conditioned, as the area was residential.  She noted that the application was the first of two set of flats on the agenda, adding she felt they were a way of getting around planning policy.  She noted it would be nice if the flats were affordable, to help those working within the City, in hospitality for example. 

Councillor J Elmer noted that if the property was an HMO then it would not be approved as it would be over the 10 percent threshold, and therefore there was not an issue in terms of it becoming an HMO.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that for an HMO being considered under CDP Policy 16.3, then it would fail under that policy as HMOs within a 100 metres radius would be greater than the 10 percent threshold.  He noted this application referred to Policy 16.2.  He added a condition restricting change of use was not required as it would require further planning permission in any case, therefore such a condition would fail the condition test.  Councillor L Brown asked for clarification.  The Principal Planning Officer noted restricting use by condition was not required as a change of use would require a separate planning permission.  Councillor K Shaw asked if such a change of use application was made, would the matter come before Committee for consideration.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that such an application had the potential to be called-in to Committee.

Councillor J Elmer noted the flats could be rented out to students and therefore he felt it was a clever way around a push for family housing.  He noted this was something to be addressed with a refresh of the CDP.  He moved approval of the application.  Councillor D Oliver seconded the proposal.  The Chair noted all Members were aware of what the application represented.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions set out within the report.