Agenda item

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

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 for change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to small house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) including driveway widening, 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 Belmont Parish Council had objected to the application, citing the over-proliferation of HMOs, impacts upon amenity, the transient nature of student tenants and lack of evidence of need for such HMOs.  She continued, noting that Councillor C Fletcher had objected in principle, being the loss of a family home.  She explained that the Highways Section had noted the application was in compliance with the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in terms of the parking and garage arrangements.

 

The Planning Officer noted HMO Data noted that there were 2.9 percent Council Tax exempt properties within 100 metres, increasing to 6.2 percent if considering unimplemented consents.  She noted there had been no objections from the Arboricultural Officer, Ecology and Environmental Health, subject to the conditions set out within the report.  The Planning Officer explained there had been two further letters of objection received since the publication of the agenda papers, noting 12 letters of objection, including from the City of Durham Trust.  She added a summary was included within the report, with issues raised including: an existing high concentration of HMOs in the area; parking; impact on the character and appearance of the area; impact from noise on neighbours; impact on the environment, with HMOs and their gardens often being less well maintained; impact upon the community from the loss of a family home; loss of Council Tax revenue; and no evidence of need, especially given spaces being available in nearby purpose-built student accommodation (PBSAs).

 

The Planning Officer noted that the application for change of use was acceptable in principle, with the application being compliant with Policy 16 as there was less that 10 percent Council Tax exempt properties within 100 metres, being 6.2 percent including unimplemented consents.  She noted that as the application was considered acceptable in terms of Policy 16, it was noted there was not an over-proliferation of HMOs and that there was not an adverse impact in terms cumulative impact upon residential amenity.  She added it was felt there was sufficient amenity space internally and externally to meet the needs of potential occupiers.

She noted that the proposals were acceptable in respect of visual amenity and impact on the character of the area and reiterated the proposals were compliant with the Parking SPD in terms of parking, highway safety and cycle parking provision.  The Planning Officer noted no other issues, adding that the application was exempt from BNG requirements, and therefore was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out within the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor P Conway to address the Committee.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway thanked Members for again listening to the objections from the Parish Council and over 30 local residents.  He reiterated that the views of local residents were material and needed to be taken into account.  He noted the Parish Council felt there were sufficient grounds within Policies 21, 29, 31 and 35 to present a robust challenge to the application.  He noted that we all found ourselves in a vexed position, and while well-meaning, Policy 16 was clearly no longer fit for purpose.  He added that the application was also contrary to the NPPF’s environmental, social and economic aims, again a material consideration. 

 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted the proposals were to replace a family home with a HMO with a transient population, with no Council Tax revenue being generated by the property and with no contribution to the local community.  He added that now clusters of HMOs were emerging, with Policy 16 referring to ‘sustainable communities’.  He noted one simply needed to view the comments on the Planning Portal to find numerous examples of the negative impacts of HMOs on our communities.  He noted that one resident’s comments had been to say that families had moved away, houses had been sold, divided into shoeboxes designed to cram in as many students as possible.  He added the resident had also stated that they had felt that the application had not offered any benefits for local residents, the city or indeed students, with the only people benefiting being the landlords.

 

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that residents felt that the only conversation was around the 10 percent threshold and reiterated that there were numerous objections from residents in terms of HMOs, including this specific application.  He added that the Parish Council would continue to represent the view of local people, however, those people were finding it difficult to keep faith, given there were other policies within the CDP and NPFF that could be used to refuse such applications.  He asked that the Committee reject the application.

 

The Chair thanked P Conway and asked Local Members to speak in respect of the application.

 

Councillor C Fletcher noted that she would echo the comments from the Parish Council and echo the sentiments of residents.  She explained she knew the area very well and that the issue of the application had been causing great concern to resident families in the area.  She noted numbers 5 and 9 Monks Crescent were student HMOs, effectively sandwiching number 7, which was currently up for sale as the resident no longer felt it was a residential area.  She explained that numbers 5 and 9 Monks Crecent had stood empty for a year, which had impacted upon the look and fell of the area.  She noted, again similar to the previous application, as the property backed on to three bungalows, it would not actually be possible to reach the 10 percent threshold, given how unlikely it was that those bungalows would be converted to HMOs.  She added if you considered the number of properties within the street itself, rather than a 100-metre radius, then it would be three properties from nine, representing 33 percent of properties.  Councillor C Fletcher noted that 33 percent in this respect felt like contravention of Policy 16 and unfair to residents and students too, with ‘shoebox’ rooms.  She noted the applications offended our local communities.

 

Councillor L Mavin noted she agreed 100 percent with the comments from the Parish Council and Councillor C Fletcher, adding the 100-metre radius considered within Policy 16 not working, especially in this case.  She noted there were numerous local concerns and the application fell well short in terms of the NDSS.  She noted that policy required at least one double sized bedroom to allow for reconversion back to a family home, and that there was a minimum requirement of 123 square metres, with the actual space available of 103.5 square metres being 19 percent less than standards.  Councillor E Mavin added that he would urge the Committee to take note of the objections raised by the City of Durham Trust when considering Policy 29, being well designed, and the Parking SPD in terms of amenity standards to meet the existing and future residents’ needs.  He asked that Members refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked the Local Members and asked A Gemmill, representing the City of Trust, to speak in relation to the application.

 

A Gemmill thanked the Chair and Committee and explained he, as one of its Trustees, was speaking on behalf of the City of Durham Trust.  He noted that the application sought to turn a three-bedroomed family home, without extension, into a six-bedroomed HMO, the property requiring to be licensed and comply with the Council’s “Standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation”.  He explained that the introduction to the standards, as set out on the projector screen for Members’ information, pointed out that they had been formally adopted, and that they set out minimum requirements to ensure the health and welfare of occupants.

 

A Gemmill noted that Part 2 of the document set out minimum room sizes for bedrooms, kitchens, etc, but also stipulated the number of shower rooms and WCs to be provided, based on occupant numbers.  He noted that for six occupants, two shower rooms or bathrooms must be provided, together with 2 WCs.  He emphasised that a key requirement was that the WCs must be provided in rooms that were separate from the shower rooms.  He noted thus four separate rooms were needed for this application, whereas the proposed plans provided only two, each housing a shower and a WC.  He noted this represented a significant loss of amenity.

 

A Gemmill added that the standards did allow that the requirement to be waived, in exceptional circumstances, however, it was felt there was absolutely nothing exceptional to consider at this stage, since nothing had yet been implemented.  He noted that the application was simply the case of a developer attempting to cram in as many bedrooms as possible in order to maximise rental profit.  He explained that the City of Durham Trust believed that this lack of compliance alone provided grounds for refusal, but for two reasons Members were unaware of the issue.

 

A Gemmill explained that normally the Council’s Environmental Health HMO Team was included in a list of consultees who are invited to comment on the acceptability, or otherwise, of an HMO application.  He added that the HMO Team was expected to advise on the relevant requirements contained within the Standards and to draw the attention of the Case Officer to any deficiencies in the proposals.  He noted that in this case however, the HMO team was not consulted.  He notes the City of Durham Trust was concerned that the resulting lack of advice may have compromised evaluation of the application and hence the resulting recommendation for approval.

 

A Gemmill explained the second reason Members were unaware of the issue was that, despite the Committee Report acknowledging submission of the City of Durham Trust’s letter, its objection was not included in the summary of public comments received or addressed in any of the evaluation relating to Policy 29.  He noted that was partly why the Trust felt the need to speak at Committee, to ensure that Members were aware of their concerns.

 

A Gemmill referred to Paragraph 66 of the Committee Report and noted Members would see that it confirms the NDSS to be appropriate for assessing the suitability of internal space in the context of CDP Policy 29(e).  He added that the City of Durham Trust had measured the overall internal area and found it to be 103.5 square metres.  He explained that the most appropriate NDSS requirement was 123 square metres for a six-bedroom, seven-person dwelling, therefore the shortfall in overall area was some 15 percent, which could hardly be described as ‘slightly below requirements’.  He noted another way to put it was that, as has been observed earlier, the property would need to be 19 percent larger to comply with standards.

A Gemmill noted that supported the City of Durham Trust’s view that the proposals represented significant over-development of the property.  He noted that finally, once again, Paragraph 67 of the Committee Report confirmed that the property must comply with DCC’s HMO standards.

 

A Gemmill noted that it had been suggested that compliance with HMO standards was not a Planning matter per se, however, the wording of Policy 29 effectively conferred on the adopted HMO standards, a status equivalent to an SPD.  He added that, as such, according to Policy 29, compliance with HMO standards must be considered as a Planning issue, particularly in terms of amenity.  He noted that accordingly, he would ask Members to consider the points made by the City of Durham Trust as grounds for the refusal of the application.

 

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

 

G Swarbrick noted the point raised in terms of the only beneficiary to such HMO applications were landlords, however, the NPPF noted that planning should look to meet housing needs, that of all people including students.

 

Councillor C Kay left the meeting at 11.26am

 

G Swarbrick noted that CDP Policy 16, together with other policies, were taken into account, however, the test within Policy 16 was the 10 percent threshold, considering Class N Council Tax exempt properties within a 100-metre radius of the property.

 

Councillor C Kay entered the meeting at 11.27am

 

G Swarbrick noted the neighbouring property had been approved and reminded Members of previous decisions of the Planning Inspectorate, noting that other than letting boards, the HMO properties were the same as any other property, and did not represent a detriment to residential amenity or the character of the area.  He added there was sufficient parking provided, in line with the SPD.  G Swarbrick noted that NDSS need not be applied rigidly, and that the Applicant had signed up to the Durham Student Landlords Scheme and provide a Management Plan for the property.  He noted that accordingly, the proposals were in line with Policy and therefore, in also considering recent Appeal decisions, he would ask the Committee to approve the application as per their Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor B Kellett left the meeting at 11.30am

 

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

Councillor J Elmer noted he felt the application was significantly different to the previous application, and noted he had listened as regards the ‘sandwiching effect’ as described by the Local Member, and the resident that had decided to sell up and move out, as well as the argument in relation to the bungalows backing on to the property, reducing the number of potential HMOs to be counted within the 100-metre radius.  He noted successful HMO applications were creating local densities that were having an increasing impact upon our communities.  He noted he felt that Policy 16 was less robust, and that the impact upon community cohesion needed to be taken into account.  Councillor J Elmer noted that there were also concerns in terms of the calculations relating to NDSS, adding that if it did not comply then it was surely in breach of policy.  He noted that a lack of WCs and bathrooms meant it did not seem that the property could be licensable and was not in line with Policy 29 in terms of being ‘properly designed’.  Accordingly, Councillor J Elmer proposed the application be refused as it was contrary to Policies 29 and 31 of the CDP.

 

The Planning Officer noted the comments in relation to the clustering of HMOs and a ‘sandwiching effect’.  She explained that a recent Appeal decision in relation to 4 Monks Crescent had taken those factors into account, with the two properties opposite.  She added that while some weight had been given, it had been concluded that as the percentage of HMOs within 100-metres was less than the 10 percent set out in Policy 16, the application did not represent an unacceptable impact or harm in terms of noise and disturbance.  The Planning Officer noted that NDSS did not need to be applied rigidly, however they did represent a guide.  She added that the bedrooms did meet the required space standards, with the overall living accommodation requirements being only slightly less that guidance.  She noted that the proposals feel in between five-bed, six persons being 110-123 square metres, and six-bed, seven persons being over 123 square metres.  She added it was felt more appropriate to look at the 110-123 square metre example, and therefore at 105 square metres, the area was only slightly less that the 110 square metres as set out.  She noted that while there had been an omission in consultation with the HMO Licensing Team, the bedrooms met with NDSS, and the Applicant would have to go through the necessary process with that Team should the application be approved.  She noted she had spoken with the HMO Licensing Team separately as regards the issue raised relating to WCs, and while they confirmed that the ordinary requirements were for two bathrooms and two WCs, they would not refuse a licence on that basis, namely separate WCs.

 

The Chair asked for confirmation that the HMO Licensing Team had stated they would not refuse a licence on the basis of not having separate WCs, the Planning Officer confirmed that was the case.

 

Councillor B Kellett entered the meeting at 11.37am

 

Councillor A Surtees noted that each application was looked at on its own merits, adding there would be impact on the strength of community cohesion and there were the issues raised in terms of rooms and sizes.  She added she therefore would second Councillor J Elmer’s motion for refusal.

 

Councillor A Bell noted he felt the points raised by Councillor J Elmer were valid, however, he felt the Planning Officer had explained as regards the issues raised.  He noted that the 10 percent threshold was that set out in Policy, and it was the measure we applied, as well as what Inspectors expected and therefore would be happy to move approval of the application.

 

The Chair noted there had been a lot of reference to Policy 16 and the 100-metre radius rule and that perhaps the number of bungalows within the proximity had an impact and that the application should be treated differently, however, he felt that the Policy could not help Members in this case.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that in a previous case the Committee refused planning permission for an application where the percentage of Council Tax exempt properties within 100-metres was less than 10 percent, as the Committee considered the small, close-knit areas cul-de-sac street arrangement to be such that despite being compliant with policy 16 of the CDP, to grant planning permission would still unbalance the community and be detrimental to residential amenity.  He added that while that appeal had been allowed, costs were not awarded against the Council.  The Chair asked if that referred to number 4 Monks Crescent.  The Planning Officer noted that the Inspector had taken into account comments and had afforded them minor weight, adding that the experience of one HMO was not the same as another HMO, and that the impacts were similar to that of a family home.  She added that the Inspector had concluded that any ‘tipping point’ in terms of the balance of communities was the 10 percent as set out within Policy 16.  She noted that in terms of limited evidence on the impact upon community cohesion, the Inspector had allowed the appeal.

 

The Chair asked as regards impact in terms of there being less than the 10 percent Council Tax exempt properties within 100-metres.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that where below 10 percent, the Inspector had noted there was impact, however it was limited as the percentage of properties was under the 10 percent threshold.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted different opinions at Appeals and added that the 10 percent threshold should not be a straitjacket where such HMO applications were clustered in small areas and that the impact would validate refusal.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the 10 percent threshold was set out in policy and that if the application was compliant in that regard, there would be a need to understand what the reasons were that Members wished to refuse the application on. 

Councillor K Shaw noted that he felt that the proposed HMO being next to bungalows was such that there was a valid reason in terms of impact.

 

Councillor J Clark noted the issues raised as regards the 10 percent threshold and that those would be considered when the CDP was up for review.  She noted the information of the sizes of rooms and overall space, and it appeared that the issues were being dismissed by Officers whereas she felt those issues compounded problems with the application, with sizes not as they should be.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that information had been provided on two guidance measures, and that HMO Licensing had their requirements, and Planners looked to apply NDSS.  He reiterated that the bedroom sizes met NDSS, and there was only a marginal shortfall in terms of overall space, with Officers feeling the provision was adequate.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he was still of the view that the 10 percent threshold was not fit for purpose, noting a number of situations similar to this application where a number of bungalows where further development, or use as HMO or family homes would not be possible.  He felt there was sufficient argument in the case of this application to refuse and take the matter to appeal to push the Inspector.  He added he took exception in terms of the comments from the Applicant’s agent, adding there was evidence of oversupply in terms of the number of student bed-spaces and that the only benefit was to landlords.  The Chair noted there was evidence in terms of the number of empty student bed-spaces and HMO properties.  The Chair asked the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) for further advice.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he had listened to the reasons that had been put forward for refusal from several Members.  He explained he had extreme concern in relation to Councillor J Elmer looking to disregard Policy 16 as he felt it was ‘not fit for purpose’.  He emphasised that Policy 16 was part of the adopted CDP and while it may not be what some Members wanted it to be, it was the policy that was in place.  He reiterated that he would urge caution in terms of any refusal in respect of need, with need not being a criterion within Policy 16.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted Members had referred to their concerns in terms of amenity impact, and the implications of bungalows in the area and it may be that a reasonable refusal could be framed in terms of impact on the specific surroundings in this application.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted that when looking at the area via Google Street View, there appeared to be six bungalows opposite at Pilgrims Way and within Monks Crescent, noting an impact upon parking with potentially up to six vehicles.  She added it was not known as regards any additional needs those occupying the bungalows may have, and reiterated she felt there would be impact upon community cohesion. 

The Principal DM Engineer, David Battensby noted that the application was compliant with the Parking and Accessibility SPD, adding that work within the parking spaces was permitted development.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted that Policy 29 noted that applications should not affect community character, and therefore this application was in conflict with that. 

 

Councillor J Elmer noted his concern in terms of ruling out Policy 16, adding the Policy was not only about the 10 percent threshold, but also referred to community cohesion.  He noted he felt it was reasonable to say it was not the best methodology, and that a different approach could be taken to those previous appeals.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he had concern as regards any argument in terms of how the 10 percent threshold was calculated, and that any Inspector would look at a refusal on that basis as a case of the Committee not learning from previous appeal decisions.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the decision on the other application at Monks Crescent had not included Policy 16 within that refusal, as it would have required articulation of reasons why it was contrary.  He reiterated that refusal had cited conflict with Policies 29 and 31.

 

The Chair asked it was possible to frame any refusal in terms of Policy 29, taking into account the particular surrounding area, specifically the number of bungalows in the proximity, and that this would increase the impact of the lifestyle of students.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he would defer to Planning Officers as regards the strength of such an argument.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the opinion of Officers was set out within the recommendation for approval contained within the report.  He noted however, that if Members felt the proximity of the bungalows had an impact, then Officers would look to defend any decision made by Members at any subsequent Appeal.

 

Councillor S Deinali noted she suggested that the application was contrary to Policy 31, in terms of the impact upon community cohesion and amenity.  Councillor C Kay noted he felt Members were ‘dancing around the houses’ and that, as stated by the Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Policy 16 set out the 10 precent threshold that was in place.  He added he felt the Committee needed to move to a vote.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he agreed with the suggestion made by Councillor S Deinali relating to Policy 31, in terms of the impact on residential amenity, community cohesion, and as impacted by the number of bungalows in the area.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) asked as regards the specific impacts upon residential amenity, whether they related to noise, disturbance, increased anti-social behaviour etc.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that was correct, including the impact on the elderly, who were more likely to be impacted from such disturbance and the transient nature of student populations, our elderly population needing good neighbours to help look out for them.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he still had concerns in terms of an evidence base, with other similar HMOs in similar areas having been approved, and with an apparent assumption that student tenants would be badly behaved.  Councillor J Elmer noted that it was the large density of young people in a small area, leading to likely greater impact in terms of noise and disturbance.  Councillor A Surtees noted that there appeared to be around 14 bungalows in the area, and it was more likely that the residents were elderly than not.

 

Councillor C Kay noted that there had been substantial changes over the years in terms of the demographics of those living in bungalows, adding that in conversation with Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in his area, while previously no one under 65 would have been eligible for a bungalow, many now were occupied by younger people and therefore once could not assume all bungalows were occupied by pensioners.

 

The Chair noted there had been a motion for refusal, proposed by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor A Surtees and upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED as:

 

1.    The change of use of the property to a small house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) within this locale would, given the presence of existing C4 HMO uses as well as several bungalow style properties within close proximity to the application property, unbalance the community and result in a detrimental impact upon community cohesion, adversely affecting the amenity of non-student residents, from increased noise and disturbance contrary to Policies 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan.

 

Councillors A Bell and C Kay left the meeting at 12.06pm