Agenda item

Retrospective application for increase in height of flat roof/fascia to front and side of property and new uPVC windows.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Penman 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 a retrospective application for increase in height of flat roof/fascia to front and side of property and new uPVC windows and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer referred Members to photographs of the streetscene, noting a number of various types of extension to properties in the area.  She explained that Belmont Parish Council had objected to the application, having a detrimental impact in terms of design and amenity.  She added there had been eight letters of objection from the public, with the main issues set out within the report, including: poor design, not in keeping with the area; windows added to create extra bedrooms, the property being advertised as a six-bed property; no proof from internal layouts that the rooms meet NDSS; and issues in respect of bins and the drains.

The Planning Officer noted that the property already had permission as a small HMO, noting that up to six-bed was therefore acceptable in terms of use, as permitted development rights had not been removed with the previous granting of permission for C4 use.  She added that the development was not incongruent with other developments in the area, and the impact upon neighbouring properties, nor the issues raised in terms of layout, parking or drainage, were not sufficient to sustain a refusal reason.

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

Parish Councillor P Conway noted the retrospective nature of the application and added the issue had been ongoing since July 2022 and the change of use application.  He explained that Belmont Parish Council had been contracted regularly regarding the implementation of that permission. 

He noted that there had been verbal assurance from DCC Officers that the implementation would be in accordance with the conditions set by the July 2022 application, however, now there was a retrospective application and hence why the Parish Council asked for the application to be considered by Committee.  He added it was remarkable that the application was not table to be considered by Members prior to call-in.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the Parish Council wish for all residents’ views to be heard within the planning process and due to the number of objections and representations to the Parish Council then it was felt that the application should be brought to Committee.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that it was accepted that the permission for HMO use had already been granted.  He noted that had permitted development rights included the changes such that a retrospective application had not been required, then the Parish Council would not have called-in the application.  He added that while the Parish Council were volunteers and not planning trained, they had noted the retrospective nature of the application.  He noted that it was felt that the applicant should have been aware of the requirements of the July 2022 permission, with a basic professional competence in understanding the permission.  He added that the windows were not as per the July 2022 permission, with a bathroom overlooking a neighbouring property. 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted the fascia height was also at variance with the July 2022 permission, and the number of bedrooms had increased from four to six, as advertised.  He asked why the applicant had not applied for a six-bed permission in July 2022, which would have required four in-curtilage parking spaces.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted the proliferation of HMOs was of great concern and reiterated that the application was retrospective, the changes from the July 2022 permission having already been done.  He added there was a lack of trust in terms of the applicant and their intentions, noting a year ago the Parish Council had requested to meet with the applicant in order to had regular meetings as regards issues that may arise.

Parish Councillor P Conway concluded by reiterating the issue was not in respect of HMO status, rather that residents’ views be taken into consideration and given the concerns that the four-bed property could become a six-bed property, ask that the permission and conditions of the July 2022 permission be fully adhered to.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked Fred Smith, local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

F Smith noted that the photographs that had been shown on screen gave a false representation of the fascia that was in place at the property.  He added that the front had been blocked by a van for two months during development.

F Smith thanked Members for the opportunity to speak and thanked the Parish Council for calling the application to Committee.  He urged that the Committee refuse the application, with the drawings being of a ‘house that never was’, the property being a six-bed HMO, shown as a four-bed on the drawings, having been changed from a three-bed residential property.  He noted that therefore it effectively had never been a four-bed property.

F Smith noted that on 6 November 2023, Enforcement Officers had spoken with the developer as regards rectifying the issues with the windows and door, however, on 16 December 2023 an application was submitted and validated, including incorrect drawings.

F Smith noted that policy stated that applications should enhance the neighbourhood, and the Officer’s report stated that NPPF Part 12 referred to achieving well-designed places, with the Government attaching great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design being a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning.  He explained that the fascia in place was not good, did not fit with the roof line and appeared to be an error.  He added that Officers made light of the issue with the windows, stating that the window was ‘…slightly further to the rear of the property, it is not considered that it will result in significant additional overlooking…’.  He noted that the report neglected to see that it was of course possible to see both in and out of a window, and that therefore it was visible from No.8, approximately seven metres away, resulting in a loss of privacy.

F Smith noted original Drawing 1240 had been submitted as part of the July 2022 application, and Drawing 1240/3 showing the new windows ready for converting rooms to additional bedrooms. F Smith noted it was for the Committee to decide on the application.

The Chair thanked F Smith and asked G Swarbrick, Agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

G Swarbrick noted that permission for use as an HMO had been granted in July 2022.  He added that the current application was only matter being considered and was for minor exterior alterations.  He noted that there was a slight shift to the window, which would have been permitted development.  He noted that the other issues were also minor, and the Officer had stated they did not represent and unacceptable impact upon residential or visual amenity.  He added that the fascia met with building regulations and again did not impact.  He noted the variety of extensions and alterations on Rowan Tree Avenue and therefore the property was not out of keeping with the built environment.  He added that therefore he would ask that permission was granted.

The Chair thanked G Swarbrick and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor L Brown asked for clarification in terms of any breach of conditions in respect of the previous application.  The Planning Officer noted the works had not been completed fully in accordance with the plans, and therefore the retrospective application had been submitted, as before Committee.  Councillor L Brown noted that she felt the applicant, with their experience, should have know as regards the window and not breached the Residential Amenity SPD.  The Planning Officer noted that noted the slight change to the bathroom window, now clear, however, it was offset and did not amount to a significant change and was not in breach of separation distances.  Councillor L Brown noted that paragraph 46 of the report stated the window was ‘…believed to serve the stairs/landing…’ and asked for clarification if that was indeed the case.  The Planning Officer noted Officers were satisfied that was the case.

Councillor J Elmer asked, if the July 2022 application had been for a six-bed HMO, whether all the rooms would have met the NDSS.  The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper explained that would be difficult to say, as no such six-bed HMO application had been made.  Councillor J Elmer noted that if a six-bed large HMO application had been submitted, it would have been a very different consideration and he felt the applicant would have been well aware of what the final layout would be, misleading the planning department.  He asked whether the planning department had been misled, and would a six-bed HMO have more impact in terms of community cohesion.  The Planning Officer noted that small HMOs were up to six-bed, and would have been assessed as a small HMO, just with two more bedrooms.  Councillor J Elmer asked if a Licence was required.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that if a property did or did not require an HMO Licence was outside of planning.  Councillor L Brown noted a licence was required for six-bedrooms or more.

The Chair noted that a motion was required to be put, one way or the other.

Councillor D Oliver noted that he was happy to move approval, adding he felt the Committee’s hands were tied.  He was 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.