Agenda item

Change of use form 3 bedroom residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to a 4 bedroom small HMO (Use Class C4) with extension to driveway and provision of cycle storage.

                The Planning Officer, David Richards 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 3-bedroom residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to 4-bedroom small HMO (Use Class C4) with extension to driveway and provision of cycle storage and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer explained as regards the proposed extension to parking to provide an additional space and noted a typographical error on the title of a slide showing proposed layouts.  He explained that there had been no objections from Environmental Health, subject to conditions, and that Highways had noted no objections, subject to the extra parking as mentioned.  He added HMO Data had noted the percentage of Class N exempt properties, including the application property, within a 100-metre radius would be 5.4 percent, below the 10 percent threshold.

The Planning Officer noted objections from Belmont Parish Council, and seven letters of objections from residents, with a summary of concerns set out within the Committee Report, including: over-proliferation of HMOs; impact upon amenity; loss of family homes; transient nature of students tenants; no need demonstrated for additional student HMOs; highway safety and parking; impact upon biodiversity in terms of loss of garden space.  The Planning Officer note that the application was in line with Policy 16 in terms of being below the 10 percent threshold, and Officers felt the application was also in accord with Policies 29 and 31 of the CDP and relevant parts of the NPPF and therefore the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set out within the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor P Conway to speak in respect of the application.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted Belmont Parish Council and local residents objected to the application, for many of the same reasons as listed for the previous two applications.  He reiterated that residents’ views were material and that while there were many comments on the Planning Portal, many people he had spoken to had noted they did not see the point in registering their objections as there felt there were no taken into account and that the only factor considered was the 10 percent threshold in relation to Policy 16.  Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the Parish Council felt that there was more than simply Policy 16 to consider, with other CDP Policies and the NPPF.  He noted that other policies had been used by the Committee to defend a refusal reason, and those options were open to the Committee.  He explained that Aspen Close considered of only seven properties in a small cul-de-sac, noting that Policy 29 noted to only allow development in there were no unacceptable impacts, such as in terms of highway safety. 

He added there were numerous examples of highway safety issues that had been uploaded to the Planning Portal within objections to the application.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that in respect to Policy 16 and Article 4 Directions, at a meeting of the Belmont Parish Council, a DCC Officer had noted that Policy 16 was only one policy amongst others. 

He added that reference had been made to decisions by Planning Inspectors, however, he was not sure if Inspectors fully appreciated the context of specific local configurations, or whether they had a chance to visit sites themselves.  He felt that it would be beneficial for Inspectors to visits sites, and that Local Residents and Local Councillors could also attend to help inform on local matters.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted this was another case of clustering of HMOs and ‘sandwiching’ and another case where, as a small cul-de-sac, where the 100-metre radius was not a suitable measure.  He noted that requests to look at Policy 16 had been resisted since 2016, and now in 2024 the Parish Council requested an immediate review of Policy 16, reiterating that this had been refused by DCC.  He added that in the meantime more HMO applications were being submitted and Belmont Parish Council and residents continued to register their objections.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application as it was contrary to several policies, and that the Committee instigate a review of Policy 16 with immediate effect and not wait for the review of the CDP.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked Local Members for their comments on the application.

Councillor C Fletcher noted all three Local Members were in objection to the application, reiterating that there were only seven properties in Aspen Close and that impacts upon a small cul-de-sac were magnified.  She added that when she had recently visited a resident living at Aspen Close, she had been unable to park in the Close, instead she had to park at Hawthorn Crescent.  She added that one of seven properties in the Close equated to 14 percent of properties.  She added that behind Aspen Close there were a number of bungalows provided by the Durham Aged Minerworkers’ Homes Association (DAMHA) to the rear of Aspen Close at Whitwell Court, adding all those residents were elderly.

Councillor C Fletcher noted the properties at Aspen Close were small, three-bed semi-detached properties, and the conversion to four-bed HMOs would result in ‘shoeboxes’ that only provided income for landlords and did not address local needs. 

She reiterated that there were concerns in relation to parking, adding that the applicant had referred to the garage as parking, however, the garages on Aspen Close were too thin for most modern cars, and would likely only accommodate the smallest of electric vehicles and therefore would not meet the requirements of the Parking SPD.

Councillor C Fletcher noted that the residents of Aspen Close were frustrated that there would be disruption within their quiet street from students, however, noted there would be disruptions other than noise.  She noted that the development was not justified and that the current resident of the property had wished to live there long-term and had been given a s21 Eviction Notice to make way for a student HMO.  She reiterated the point made previously that there were unused bed-spaces at the PBSA at Ernst Place and that there was the new 140-bed PBSA at Regatta Place, on the site of the former Majestic Bingo Hall.  Councillor C Fletcher concluded by asking the Committee to refuse the application being contrary to Policy 31 and the Parking SPD.

The Chair thanked Councillor C Fletcher and asked C Jary, local resident in objection, to speak in respect of the application.

C Jary noted the phrase ‘a good team on paper, but sport is played on grass’ and how that seemed to apply to CDP Policy 16.  He noted that while the proposed development may only have a minimum impact upon the large number of the population outside of Aspen Close, there would be a large impact upon local residents.  He noted 29 Hawthorn Crescent had recently been approved to be converted to an HMO and explained that there was only one more house, number 27 Hawthorn Crescent, before turning on to Aspen Close.  He added that the first house in Aspen Close, number 2, was directly opposite number 3 Aspen Close, therefore there was not three houses between the two HMOs as recommended to stop “sandwiching” or clusters of HMOs being in close vicinity to each other.  He noted that while under 10 percent as per the 100-metre radius calculation, one property from seven represented 14 percent of Aspen Close, thus demonstrating the policy was not fit for purpose.

C Jary explained than an HMO would generate additional traffic on Aspen Close and Hawthorn Crescent, noting many young children playing in the Close, and there already being issues in terms of parking.  He noted the proposals included plans to rip out the garden and include two parking spots, and with the garage and existing space.  He noted the impracticalities in terms of the use of the garage and movement of cars to allow for parking within the curtilage, likely leading to the Close being blocked if any cars needed to reverse, and to lead more vehicles parking on Hawthorn Crescent.  He added the proposals would also result in the loss of on-street parking provision. 

He reiterated that a lot of children played in the area and that the proposal would impact on them.  He concluded by noting that the 10 percent threshold within Policy 16 had been put in place to protect residents and not landlords.

The Chair thanked C Jary and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Elmer asked the Highways Officer to comment on the safety and parking concerns raised, including as regards the width of the garage.  The Principal DM Engineer explained the difficulties when considering such change of use applications.  He noted for the existing C3 use, then two spaces would be considered acceptable, including a garage and a driveway.  He added for the proposed 4-bed arrangements, then one additional parking space was required by the SPD and therefore the proposed provision of an additional space met the requirements.

Councillor K Robson noted that, once again, the Committee were in a situation where they were not happy, however, as there were no reasons to refuse the application, they would need to approve.  He moved approval, as per the Officer’s recommendation.  The Chair noted the motion required a seconder.  Councillor K Shaw noted he shared the sentiment of Councillor K Robson in that concerns could be raised, and Members may agree, however there were not grounds available for Members to refuse such applications.

Councillor J Elmer noted a point raised several times was the call to overhaul Policy 16, he noted he would agree with the call by Belmont Parish Council to review the Policy as soon as possible, perhaps via an SPD.  The Chair noted that Members’ frustrations in relation to policy, and noted he would raise the issue and he would encourage other Members to raise the matter themselves in addition.  He added, however, that the Committee needed to make a decision on the application before them.

Councillor K Shaw clarified that he had not seconded the motion put by Councillor K Robson.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that a seconder was required, or a rival motion be moved and seconded.  The Chair reiterated the Committee needed to make a decision on the application.  Councillor A Surtees asked if the Chair could second a motion.  The Chair noted he could, and the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) added that while not usual, there was no legal reason to preclude the Chair from doing so.  The Chair noted he would second the motion for approval, and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

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