Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a small house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) including single storey rear extension, cycle parking and bin storage.

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 (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) including single storey rear extension, cycle parking and bin storage and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Planning Officer noted that the application had previously been dismissed at Appeal, with the current application now having increased width of some rooms such they now met nationally described space standards (NDSS), the sole reason for dismissal at Appeal.  She added this also included the required soundproofing.  She noted there had been objections received from Belmont Parish Council, as well as from the three Local County Councillors, with issues including the increase in the number of HMOs without there being any clear need, as well as here being existing student provision, including for postgraduates at Ernst Place.  The Planning Officer noted no objections from the Highways Section, with HMO Licensing noting no requirement for a licence, albeit provided information on required standards.  She noted that HMO Data noted that including the application there would be 8.2 percent Class N exempt properties, rising to 9.2 percent if one unimplemented approval was taken into account, both being less than the 10 percent threshold within Policy. 

 

She added that there had been no objections from Environmental Health, and two public objections had been received, citing concerns relating to residential amenity, highway safety and parking, impact upon the character of the area, that student HMOs did not contribute in terms of Council Tax and that the HMO data was not good and did not take into account the actual position on the ground.

 

The Planning Officer concluded by noting that the application was acceptable in principle as it was in line with Policy, and in also taking recent appeals decisions into account, the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out within the report, noting that there was not requirement for BNG.

 

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

 

Parish Councillor P Conway thanked the Chair and Committee and noted there were several concerns that the Parish Council and local residents had in respect of the application.  He noted that while not within the Belmont Parish area, it was within the area that would be covered by the developing Neighbourhood Plan for Gilesgate and Belmont, being led upon by the Parish Council.  He noted that the Committee were well aware of the unrest within the city as regards the issue of HMOs, with many residents feeling there was scant regard for their concerns.  He noted that the Committee Report made it appear as if the only issue with the application had been with the extension size, whereas the 56 objections to the initial application demonstrated the scale of opposition to the proposals.  Parish Councillor P Conway added that there was the impact upon the character and appearance of the area, exacerbating the problems young families were experiencing in trying to get on the housing ladder.  He noted there was a knock-on effect in terms of the numbers at the local school, impacting its viability.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the proposals were at variance with the environmental, social and economic aims of the NPPF, namely Parts 2, 5, 8 and 9.  He explained that replacing a family home, occupied 52 weeks a year with a transient population, occupying for only 30 weeks per year was a detriment to the area.  He noted that with no Council Tax being paid, in effect local residents were supplementing student landlords, and many residents felt the application was also contrary to CDP Policies 21, 29, 31 and 35, as per their objections to the original application.  He noted that those residents’ concerns were as material as Policy 16 and that Belmont Parish Council were informed by County Council Planners at one of its meetings that ‘all CDP policies were relevant, not just Policy 16’.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that planning was a matter of judgement and in considering Policies 21, 29, 31 and 35, as well as the NPPF, the Parish Council and residents were at variance with the Officer’s report and those opinions should be taken on board.  He added there was clear disagreement in terms of Policy 16 and the 10 percent threshold, noting many instances where properties were being used as an HMO without permission and hence the figures were incorrect.  He noted specifically 78 Bradford Crescent being an HMO and asked whether Planners had visited the property to see if it was being used as an HMO.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway concluded by noting that the Parish Council and residents felt there was evidence of so-called ‘sandwiching’ of HMOs and that this was an issue that other Local Authorities were taking into account in their decision making, and therefore that, in addition to the other points raised in concern, should be taken into account and the application be refused.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked the three Local Members to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor E Mavin noted that three of the four applications on the agenda represented HMO applications within his electoral division.  He added that the Committee were well aware of the impact such application had, undermining communities and preventing people from getting on to the property ladder.  He noted the strength of feeling in terms of the number of objections from local residents to the initial application and reminded Members of the recent protests prior to Full Council and debate relating to HMOs.  He concluded by noting it was felt the application was contrary to CDP Policies 16, 29 and 31 and therefore he would ask that the application be refused.  Councillor L Mavin supported those comments and endorsed what the Parish Council and Local Residents had said in objection to the application.

 

Councillor C Fletcher noted she did not have much to add to the excellent comments from the Parish Council and Councillor E Mavin and L Mavin, other than to add she felt the application was contrary to Policy 16, if one were to look at the actual properties within 100 metres, such as those at Cunningham Place which were bungalows and therefore not ever likely to become an HMO.  She added that there were 9 HMOs in the area, equating to around 13.9 percent, and reiterated that residents were increasingly feeling ‘sandwiched’ and saturated by HMOs.  She noted Bradford Crescent was a lovely street, which unfortunately was silent during holiday time, as students were no present and there were fewer and fewer families with children as a result, reiterating prior points made as regards the local Primary School.  She asked that application be refused being contrary to Policies 16, 21, 29 and 31 of the CDP.

The Chair thanked the Local Members and asked G Swarbrick, Agent for the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

G Swarbrick noted that as the Committee had heard, the previous change of use application had bee dismissed at Appeal, with the only reason being that of rooms that had not met NDSS on the ground floor, with that issue now having been addressed within the current application through reconfiguration of the ground floor to give a large living area, kitchen/dining room and garden area.  He reiterated that the application fully addressed the sole reason for the dismissal at Appeal and noted that the percentage of HMOs in the area was less that the 10 percent threshold within Policy.  He appreciated the concerns raised; however, it was felt there was an appropriate mix of properties in the areas and therefore was in line with Policy 16.  He added that the application was in line with parking and highway safety requirements, with letting boards in the area meaning that many other properties would appear externally similar.

 

G Swarbrick noted that there was no impact upon residential amenity, the application being in line with Policies 6, 29 and 31 of the CDP.  He reiterated that the sole reason for the previous HMO application being dismissed at Appeal had been addressed and therefore, given no reasonable reason for refusal, he would ask that Members endorse their Officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

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

 

Councillor A Bell noted that, notwithstanding the objections as set out by the Local Members and Parish Council, the dismissal by the Planning Inspector of the previous application had only been on an issue that had now been overcome with the current application.  He added therefore it was highly likely if the application was refused, it would be overturned at Appeal and therefore he would move that the application be approved, as per the Officer’s report.

 

Councillor D Oliver seconded the motion for approval, adding he did understand the issues of over-proliferation of HMOs; however, Policy 16 had been specifically designed to protect against such over-proliferation.  He noted that the application was compliant with Policy 16 and that given the views of the Inspector, he could see no other view.

 

The Chair noted that the issues raised with the 100 metres rule relating to HMOs would be something looked at within a future review of the CDP. 

 

Councillor J Elmer noted it was very depressing that it could be concluded that there was no overall net harm from these types of application. 

He noted the impact these types of application had on local communities, and the need for family homes in these areas.  He noted it was extremely frustrating.  He noted that out Planning Policies were informed by Government, and that they were pushing us into taking decisions that were not in the benefit of local communities.  He added he felt only landlords were benefitting and there were many young people being pushed into lifelong debt.

 

The Chair noted that while Members may feel they would wish to refuse the application, the Committee had to work with the policies in place.  He noted that while that was perhaps a depressing position, there would be further work as regards the CDP in due course.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he felt there needed to be a balanced approach, and that Policy 16 did provide, if administered properly, the requisite protections.

 

The application was proposed for approval, as per the Officer’s recommendation by Councillor A Bell, seconded by Councillor D Oliver and upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

 

The Chair noted therefore an updated or differing motion would need to be put.

 

Councillor C Kay noted he had come into the meeting with an open mind, and initially been minded to support the Officer’s position following their presentation.  He noted that he had listened to the Parish Council and Local Members, with their proposed reasons for refusal, however, he had not heard how they were specifically germane, and he would therefore like the Legal Officer to educate him on that in particular.  He reiterated he had abstained in terms of the previous vote, and had meant no disrespect, however he felt it was a strange position the Committee was in, and he would struggle without some further information.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he would echo his previous comments and while acknowledging the risks of the over-proliferation of HMOs, he believed that on balance the policy relating to a 10 percent threshold was reasonable in terms of the impacts.  He noted the use of the word impact, rather than harm, and that anyone could live in this street, not all the properties were HMOs.  He reiterated his previous comments in terms of the bounds of the Inspector’s decision in relation to the previous application and noted that therefore it was a case of making a decision now, or for months of uncertainty to be followed by a likely cost to the Local Authority.

 

 

The Chair asked if Planning Officers and the Legal Officer could provide some further information that may help Members, reiterating that the only reason for dismissal of the previous application at Appeal had related to room sizes.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that within the Local Plan, Policy 16 was the main relevant policy in respect of HMOs.  He noted the Parish Council had noted that other policies were relevant, such as Policy 31, when looking at aspects such as residential amenity, anti-social behaviour and noise.  He noted that in considering those elements, Policy 16 had a 10 percent threshold, with anything below being considered acceptable and therefore the application was policy compliant.  He noted there had been some discussion as to whether some other additional properties were being used as HMOs, however, Class N Council Tax exempt was the criteria used within Policy 16.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the discussions in terms of the Inspector’s decision relating to bedroom widths, and that Inspectors had considered Council Tax data as being robust.  He added that while that may be an issue to be looked again during any review of the CDP, the application must be assessed again policies in place.  He noted that in respect of the application, significant weight could be afforded in terms of appeal decisions on this property.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he supported the comments from the Principal Planning Officer, and that the previous appeal at the property was a significant material planning consideration.  He noted he had not heard any reasons from the Committee in terms of refusing the application and he was struggling to see any sustainable refusal reasons given the steer in terms of the decision from the Planning Inspector.

 

Councillor J Clark noted she took on board the comments from the Lawyer (Planning and Highways), however, she understood the comments from Councillor C Fletcher in terms of a ‘mistake’ in taking into account bungalows that could not realistically be converted to HMOs.  She noted she felt for residents and had made note of the list of policies they had referred to, however, as the previous application had only failed on the size of bedrooms there was a need to think carefully.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted for clarity that the appeal was regarding non-determination, with the Inspector dismissing the appeal only on the issue of bedroom width, all other aspects being acceptable.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted that the Committee had refused previous HMO applications in terms of the impact on the mix and balance of communities.  He noted that shortly, Durham County Council (DCC) would be in the position where it would need to build twice as many properties, including providing family homes, as a requirement from Government.

He noted the ‘drip, drip’ in terms of the loss of family homes to student HMOs and therefore based upon that need for family homes, he could not support the application.

 

The Chair noted that the previous motion for approval had been voted down, and therefore if a motion for refusal was to be put, it would need grounds that would be defendable at any appeal, with some of the reasons stated by Councillor K Shaw not being within our current planning policies.  Councillor C Kay noted that he was disappointed and felt that was somewhat disingenuous with policies 19, 29 and 31 having been cited by the Parish Council and Local Members.  He added, however, that after listening to the debate further and taking into account the information as regards the Inspector’s decision with the only reason for dismissal of the previous application being addressed within the current application, he would be minded to support the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted that in terms of evolving Government policy there was an additional need for family homes and therefore getting rid of them did not make sense.

 

Councillor A Bell noted, to move progress, he asked the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) to advise the Committee on their options.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted there had been a lot of genuine debate on why Members felt they did not think the application was a good thing, however, there had been no sustainable planning reasons put forward in terms of refusal, indeed there had been no motion for refusal put forward.  He added if Councillor C Kay was now proposing approval, that motion would require a seconder.  Councillor D Oliver noted he would second the motion.

 

Upon a vote being take it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

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

 

Councillor J Elmer requested his abstention in respect of the vote be recorded in the minutes.

 

 

Councillor D Oliver left the meeting at 11.03am