Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to small house in multiple occupation (HMO) (C4) including single storey extension, bin and cycle storage 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 from dwellinghouse (C3) to small house in multiple occupation (HMO) (C4) including single storey extension, bin and cycle storage to rear and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted the removal of a wall to allow for additional in-curtilage parking, and cycle and bin storage to be provided and noted the bedrooms met NDSS.

She explained there had been no objections from the Council’s Highways Section, however, there had being objections received from Belmont Parish Council and Local County Councillors.  She added their objections had included the number of HMOs being greater than 10 percent in the area, a number of empty HMOs demonstrating there was no demand or need for further HMOs, impact in terms of increased anti-social behaviour, impact upon parking.

The Planning Officer noted that while HMO Licensing was not required, information as regards standards had been shared.  She added that Class N Council Tax exempt properties within a 100 metre radius was 7.8 percent, with an unimplemented permission for 20 Laurel Avenue, if implemented, taking the percentage to 9.8 percent, still below the 10 percent threshold.  She added Environmental Health had no objections subject to the inclusion of sound proofing.  She concluded by noting there had been eight letters of objection, as summarised within the report.

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

Parish Councillor P Conway thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that, as the report noted, the application was outside of the Parish boundary, however, it was within the Neighbourhood Plan area, and in meetings in which the Plan was being discussed, the issue of HMOs in this area had been raised.  He noted that local views should be taken into account in determining planning applications, highlighting that all three local County Councillors had submitted their objections to the application.

Parish Councillor P Conway explained the application was contrary to CDP Policies 16, 21, 29 and 31 and Parts 2, 5, 8 and 9 of the NPPF.  He added the Parish Council noted it was a matter of judgement and referred to appeals decisions which were felt to have been given undue weight.  He noted that previous appeal decisions were not more significant that relevant policies and noted paragraph 84 of the report noted each application should be looked at on its own merits.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the Parish Council did not wish to add to the work of Council Officers, however, the Parish Council supported the local County Councillors and local residents in their objections, as there were still a number of substantial material issues. 

He noted the NPPF objectives in respect of sustainable development, supporting social, economic and environmental issues.  He added that HMOs replaced family homes and brought a transient population, only resident for 32 weeks of the year.  He added that local residents should not be subsidising the profits of landlords, and noted the students themselves did not contribute to the local community.  He added that in terms of HMOs, it was felt at best questionable to leave to market forces in respect of properties in the area, adding that data suggested that there would be in excess of 10 percent HMOs if rounding up figures. 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted CDP Policy 16.3 did not mention a three year time limit on HMO permissions, and therefore this application, if approved, would be in excess of 10 percent.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted CDP Policy 21 in respect of vehicular traffic and safety.  He explained the proximity of the application property to the local school, and as regards the very narrow carriageway in the area, often with vehicles parked straddling the footpath.  He added that even with three parking spaces in-curtilage, there would still be impact upon parking in the area, effectively creating a chicane.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that in respect of residential amenity, noting the change from six-bed to four-bed in order to meet NDSS, however, paragraph 67 of the report noted that overall floor area was less than required by approximately 12 percent.  He added paragraph 61 referred to the rear extension window impact upon residential amenity.  He noted that CDP Policy 29 in respect of sustainable design, the application did not meet the requirements in terms of floor space or the window and therefore could be refused on that policy.  He concluded be reiterating that the Parish Council felt the application was contrary to CDP Policies 6, 21, 29 and 31 and the NPPF and should be refused.

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 I, Lesley Mavin, wish to formally object to this planning application, DM/24/00695/FPA - Change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to small house in multiple occupation (HMO) (C4) including single storey extension, bin and cycle storage to rear 21 Laurel Avenue, Sherburn Road Estate, Durham, DH1 2EY.

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 are 51 properties within 100m of the application site of which five benefit from a class N exemption or 9.8%.  There is also one unimplemented consent – number 20 - which brings the total to 11.7%.  It would seem this application therefore 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.  There is now an oversupply as evidenced by the number of empty out of town HMOs last academic year.  The oversupply will be worse in Durham once the PBSAs with unimplemented planning permissions are built, especially the one at the old Majestic.  This means the loss of another family house that may possibly lie empty, rotting away instead of being a family home of which there is a shortage in Durham City because of the granting of planning applications like this.

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.  This application relies on the unrestricted on street parking on Laurel Avenue.  Suitable car parking spaces have not been provided Laurel Avenue has a local school, which already causes parking and obstruction issues.  We are requesting for these reasons this application be refused”. 

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

G Swarbrick reiterated that the application was for a four-bed HMO, and noted the concerns raised as regards the proliferation of HMOs. 

He emphasised that CDP Policy 16, with its 10 percent threshold, was in place to maintain a balance within communities.  He noted the issues within the viaduct area of the City, however, the situation was not the same within the application site area.  G Swarbrick noted that a number of appeal decisions endorsed this position, where the percentage of HMOs was less that 10 percent, then this did not impact upon residential amenity.  He added the only visual difference from a residential property would be a small lettings board, that would not detract in terms of visual amenity.

G Swarbrick noted that in respect of NDSS that the property could have had the same number of occupants under C3 use.  He added that the modest single storey extension helped in terms of additional space, without impacting upon neighbouring properties in terms of dominance or overlooking, and in fact could be permitted development.  He added the Highways Section had been satisfied with the proposals.  He concluded by noting that while some may not wish for an HMO in the area, the application was not in conflict with CDP policies and therefore he asked that the application be approved.

The Chair thanked G Swarbrick and asked the Officers to clarify in terms of the percentage of HMOs in the area.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted Policy 16.3(a) included a 10 percent threshold for Class N Council Tax exempt properties within a 100 metre radius of the application property.  He added that currently that percentage was 7.8 percent, and if including an unimplemented permission for an HMO next door, the figure would be 9.8 percent.  He noted that all planning permissions had a three-year time-limit in respect of implementation, however, assuming the other property’s permission was implemented then the percentage would still be below the 10 percent threshold.

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

Councillor J Elmer asked if the room sizes were such to meet the NDSS, else would the application not be in breach of CDP Policy 29(e).  The Principal Planning Officer note the rooms met the NDSS and therefore was compliant with policy.

Councillor L Brown noted that while the property being converted to an HMO would not breach Policy 16 in terms of a 10 percent threshold, one would agree that the ‘HMO bubble had burst’, noting two in that area not being let and with 270 properties being available in the area, according to a newsletter.  She added she had seen a number of HMOs for sale, offered with reduced rents, as well as a lot more PBSA bed spaces being in the pipeline. 

She added that as landlord increasingly ‘felt the pinch’, the number of complaints as regards unkempt gardens was increasing.  Councillor L Brown asked that, if approved, a later start time of 0800 for construction would be included.  The Chair noted he agreed with the points made by Councillor L Brown.

Councillor R Manchester moved approval of the application, including the proposed change to construction start time by Councillor L Brown, he was seconded by Councillor D Oliver 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 the start time for construction works, from 0730 to 0800.