Agenda item

Change of use of ground floor office (E) to a 2 bedroom flat (C3) for student accommodation including replacement of 1no window for 1no door and window to rear.

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 for change of use of ground floor office (E) to a 2 bedroom flat (C3) for student accommodation including replacement of 1no window for 1no door and window to rear and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted that the property was not listed, however, was a non-designated heritage asset.  She added that all the proposed bedrooms met NDSS and cycle storage would be provided.  She explained there were no objections from the Highways Section, Design and Conservation or Environmental Health.  She noted that the City of Durham Parish Council had objected to the application, as had the City of Durham Trust and St. Nicholas’ Community Forum, with their objections as set out within the report.

The Planning Officer noted that it was felt the application was acceptable in terms of planning policy, room sizes met the NDSS and did not impact residential amenity.  She added there was no impact upon highway safety and the minor external changes maintained the character of the Conservation Area and therefore reiterated that the application was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Carole Lattin, representing the City of Durham Parish Council, to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor C Lattin thanked the Chair and Committee and noted the objections from the Parish Council were a rerun of previous issues.  She noted that the Parish Council were fully aware of the key challenges the city faced and the DCNP had looked to address some of those issues, for example community issues, sustainability of local schools and shops.

Firstly, Councillor C Lattin asked whether the property was an HMO or a dwellinghouse.  She explained that there had been a  four-bed HMO application withdrawn previously, however, the idea was clearly still on the applicant’s mind as the current application had a clear internal layout that could easily be amended to give a four-bed arrangement, with bedroom one consisting of two rooms with an interconnecting door.

She asked that the HMO application be considered under CDP Policy 16.3, and as the property would be over the 10 percent threshold, with data suggesting an HMO figure of 28 percent in the area, then the application would be in conflict with policy.  She asked if the application was not an HMO, then what would the use be.  She added that the application stated C3 use, however, within the description there was reference to student accommodation.  She noted paragraph 66 of the report set out that the proposals ‘cannot strictly be considered to amount to purpose-built student accommodation’, however, purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) was set out within the CDP as ‘accommodation built, or converted, with the specific intent of being occupied by students, either with individual en-suite units or sharing facilities’.  Parish Councillor C Lattin noted that the applicant had stated the accommodation was for students and therefore if the property was not an HMO, then it was at a minimum a PBSA, and therefore should be considered under CDP Policy 16.2.  She added that Policy 16.2 (a) stated there was a requirement to demonstrate need, noting that demand was not the same as need. 

Parish Councillor C Lattin explained that the Parish Council strongly disputes the applicant’s comments in respect of need, as set out within their submission in objection, adding that the University clearly stated that the number of students had reduced already, and would reduce further in the next academic year.  She explained there was already a significant surplus of student bed spaces, therefore there was no demonstrable need.

Parish Councillor C Lattin noted the residential amenity was considered within (d) and (e) of CDP Policy 16, as well as within Policies 6, 29 and 31.  She added the Parish felt the report focussed upon the impact of a dwellinghouse rather than the impact of students.  She noted that the Article 4 Direction that had been made acknowledged the impact of student imbalance, and with a 28 percent level of student properties within 100 metres of the application property, then there would be clearly an impact upon the quality of life of the other, non-student properties in the area.

Parish Councillor C Lattin reiterated that the Parish Council felt the application was contrary to CDP Policies 6, 16, 29 and 31 and therefore should be refused.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor C Lattin and asked Janet George, representing St. Nicholas’ Community Forum, to speak in relation to the application.

J George explained she lived quite close to the application property and reiterated the point raised by the Parish Council, that the property would be for students. 

She emphasised that the applicant had initially tried to obtain permission for an HMO, adding that with 28 percent of properties within a 100 metre radius and with around 50 percent in the slightly wider area, there was a desperate need for more long-term residents to be given the chance to live there.  She explained that Estate Agents and the student newspaper both confirmed that there were a number of vacant student bed spaces.

J George explained that St. Nicholas’ Community Forum was part of the University’s community and residents’ forum and understood from the University that student numbers had reduced from 22,130 to 21,600 this year, adding that there would be a number of students that would live away or be on placement.  She added that the University had noted there were around 1,000 empty bed spaces for 2024/25.  She noted further PBSAs had been approved and therefore there would be even more capacity with developments at the Prince Bishops Shopping Centre and the College of St. Hild and St. Bede. 

J George noted that therefore there was not a need for further student properties, rather there was a need for more long-term residents to balance communities and to support local shops, schools and facilities.  She added that families were unable to get on to the property ladder as student landlords were able to move quickly with cash to secure any property that comes on to the market.  She noted the number of Council Tax exempt properties was in effect a £11 million loss of funding to the Council.  She added that the County Council and Parish Council picked up a lot of additional costs in terms of absentee landlords.  She noted a recent example where she had tried to speak to a landlord for over three weeks as regards rubbish at a property.  She concluded by emphasising the need to keep properties for local residents.

The Chair thanked J George and noted the point raised in terms of 1,000 empty bed spaces.  He asked the Planning Officer as regards whether the property, whether it was and HMO or PBSA.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the application sought use as flats, in C3 use for any occupant.  Any change to C4 use could then be controlled in its own right.  The Chair asked if there was no consideration of need in this context.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that consideration of need was for applications considered under Policy 16.2, however, Officers were satisfied as regards this type of accommodation in this part of the city.  Councillor L Brown asked for clarification regarding whether the policy in play was Policy 16.2.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that was the case.

Councillor L Brown noted it was difficult to see from the plans and asked whether it was possible for one bedroom to be converted to two bedrooms.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that any sub-division, with three unrelated individuals living in a property, would require a separate planning permission.

Councillor L Brown asked as regards parking permits for this property.  The Principal DM Engineer note, similar to the previous application, that the property was within the parking control zone and that permits would be available, so if two permits previously, then two permits going forward, not more.  The Chair noted that it was his understanding that where office use has been converted to living accommodation, there would be no permits issued.  The Principal DM Engineer noted that businesses would have been able to purchase permits, with any flat above being an existing property with a permit.  Councillor L Brown noted it was not new development, the Chair added it was his understanding that an office would not be able to get a permit.  Councillor L Brown added she would wish for a start time of 0800 for construction, should the application be approved.

Councillor J Elmer explained he was finding it very hard to understand the plans as set out and asked for the plans to be shown again on the projector screen, and for Officers to talk Members through the spaces.  The Plans were displayed on the screen, the Planning Officer noted that the plans were for two bedrooms, with the Principal Planning Officer reiterating that the application was for C3 use, not C4.  Councillor J Elmer asked how the Council would find out whether there was any subdivision and breach of planning permission.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that if any information relating to a potential breach of planning permission or conditions was reported to the Planning Department, Officers would investigate and take action as appropriate.

Councillor J Elmer noted he understood the constraints that Planning Officers worked to, however, from the plans the proposals looked like a four bed flat, being stated as a two-bed flat, and to him it seemed a clear way to obfuscate planning policy.  He added that Policy 16 appeared to be unfit for purpose in terms of stopping the conversions to student use.  The Chair noted he agreed with Councillor J Elmer.

Councillor R Manchester asked for clarity on the need element, whether there was a need for one and two bedroom flats as proposed, as opposed to student HMOs, albeit with the application stating use for students.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that it was not for the planning system to determine the end-user, and therefore would not preclude other renting the proposed flats.  He drew Members attention to the reference to the appeal decision relating to 24 Nevilledale Terrace, where it had been refused as an HMO, then again refused as flats at Committee and then allowed as flats at appeal and reiterated that Officers’ recommendation for this application was for approval.

Councillor J Elmer noted he believed that the proposals were for an HMO, given there was more than two bedrooms, and he would recommend refusal and not allow the application as it was actually an HMO.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter reiterated that, as stated by the Planning Officer, the application was not for an HMO, and if the property was to be used as an HMO in future, that would be a material change of use and would be looked at accordingly.  He added that it was clear what the application before Members sought and it was not for Members to say it was something else.  He concluded by noting that if Members were to assess the application as if it were an HMO and refuse the application he could see no way to defend the decision at any subsequent appeal.

Councillor L Brown asked if Officers knew how many unauthorised HMOs there were in the City, and seconded Councillor J Elmer’s motion for refusal.  Councillor J Elmer noted he felt the application was deceitful in applying for one thing while it was another thing.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that his professional advice was that he strongly believed there would be an award of costs at appeals if the application was refused on the grounds as proposed by Councillor J Elmer.

Councillor D Oliver noted the discussions with interest, adding he felt it may appear to be a slippery way around the rules.  However, he appreciated the advice from the Principal Planning Officer and Lawyer (Planning and Highways) in respect of any appeal.  He noted that the Committee was quasi-judicial and Members therefore needed to make decisions with that in mind.  He added he was reluctant to refuse the application, noting the decision made on the first application on the agenda, and proposed approval as per the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor L Brown asked how many awards of costs against the Council there had been in the last year at appeals.  The Principal Planning Officer noted he did not have the information to hand, the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted at least two cases in the last few months relating to planning appeals.  Councillor L Brown asked if they were in cases where Committee had made the initial decision.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he did not recall.

Councillor R Manchester noted he would second approval of the application, adding while he felt it may be an attempt to get around HMO policies, he wondered if there could be any annual inspection regime that could be put in place, for a period of say three years.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that when applying the test in respect of planning conditions, such a condition would fail in terms of reasonableness.

Councillor L Brown reiterated she felt the application was a way of getting around Policy 16.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted the proposal for refusal, with Members noting they felt the property would be used as an HMO, however, he asked for refusal reasons.  Councillor J Elmer noted he felt that the applicant misled the Planning Department.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that was not a proper planning reason for refusal, Planning Officers had determined that the application was valid and therefore it had progressed to Committee.  Councillor J Elmer reiterated that he felt Policy 16 was unfit for purpose.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) advised that if the refusal reason was that it was believed that the applicant had misled Officers and the Committee, he could see zero prospects of defending the decision at appeal and therefore Members would likely be entering adverse costs territory.

Councillor L Brown noted she felt the application should be refused on residential amenity.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) asked for more specifics.  Councillor L Brown noted in terms of being contrary to Policy 31 in respect of increased noise and disturbance impacting upon community cohesion and similarly contrary to the aims set out within the NPPF.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED as the change of use of the ground floor office accommodation into one two bed flat for student occupation would result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of existing residents through increased noise and disturbance and lead to community imbalance to the detriment of social cohesion in an area with a high concentration of existing HMOs, contrary to the aims of policy 31 of the County Durham Plan and Parts 12 and 15 of the NPPF.