Agenda item

Conversion of lower ground floor and part of the ground floor from retail (E) to form 1no small HMO (C4).

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 the conversion of lower ground floor and part of the ground floor from retail (E) to form 1no small HMO (C4) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted the context of the site within the Conservation Area and setting of the World Heritage Site of the Castle and Cathedral.  She noted no objections from the Highways Section and added there had been objections received from the City of Durham Parish Council.  She noted their objections were summarised within the report and a representative was at the meeting, however, their main concerns related the sizes of bedrooms No. 2 and No.3, light, bin storage, need and fire escape meeting requirements.

The Planning Officer noted the Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Licensing Team had noted the property did not require a licence, and HMO Data noted 67.7 percent HMOs within a 100-metre radius.  She added there were no objections from the Environmental Health or Design and Conservation Teams. 

She explained there had been a letter of objection from the City of Durham Trust, referencing Nationally Described Spaces Standards (NDSS) and fire safety.

The Planning Officer concluded by noting that the application was acceptable in principle and subject to s106 contribution and conditions as set out in the report the application was recommend for approval.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor G Holland, speaking on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council, to address the Committee.

Parish Councillor G Holland thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that when the Parish Council called the application to Committee it was based on the Parish Council’s past experiences with the provision of HMOs in our city.  He added that in this particular application, there were uncertainties in the documents available to the Parish Council, relating mainly to the NDSS and HMO regulations and their interpretation.

He noted that 37-38 Silver Street was yet another proposed HMO conversion adding that, in principle, the Parish Council supported this type of development over the shop as it helped to prevent the ongoing loss of vital family housing in the city, and it also made effective use of little used rooms in an area where the business rents were very high.  He noted that fundamentally, it made commercial sense and the Parish Council supported it. 

He added that this meant that, in such localities, a few of the normal constraints of Policy 16 could be set aside, however, other policies could not.  He noted that relaxing one policy did not mean that one should let everything go or accept second best, the duty of care remained the same.

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that, in judging applications such as this one, one relied upon CDP Policies 29 and 31 and any potential harm caused to the living conditions of future occupants.  He added that outweighed any private benefits that a change of use would achieve.  He noted that, in particular, Policy 29 stated that “all new residential development will be required to comply with the NDSS”.  He added that, to the Parish Council, it seemed that, far too often, for the sake of convenience, that basic tenet had been set aside.

It was explained that the Parish Council noted that, whereas it meets the NDSS in terms of its Gross Internal Area, the proposed internal space sizes for Bedrooms 2 and 3, as shown on the plans and elevations, seemed barely satisfactory. 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that, as measured, the Design and Access Statement showed Bedroom 2 with an internal floor space of 8.83 square metres and Bedroom 3 with an internal floor space of 8.65 square metres, however, there were no room dimensions indicating how the measurement was made.  He added that nor did the Statement explain whether those dimensions included the adjoining en-suite to each bedroom.  He explained that, furthermore, the internal corridors within each bedroom should not have been included within the calculation, and that essential details were simply missing and as a result, the Parish Council concluded that the size of the proposed bedrooms could only provide minimal living conditions for no more than three future residents.

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that, to add confusion, the Officer’s statement in paragraph 102 of their report that “standards used to assess amenity under policy 29e of the CDP are not used rigidly” and in paragraph 103 that “the rigid application of NDSS is not considered appropriate” was far from reassuring.  He added that, to the Parish Council, not rigid meant flexible, with planning regulations therefore becoming no more than arbitrary guidelines.  He asked where it was stated that the NDSS did not apply fully to HMOs? 

He continued, explaining that the introduction to the NDSS stated quite clearly that it was “suitable for application across all tenures” and the application was new residential development, and therefore the regulations applied.

In terms of the living environment, Parish Councillor G Holland explained that the Design and Access Statement offered the comforting sentiment that “all rooms have high levels of daylight”.  He added that was odd, given the small size of the windows, all facing North West.  He noted that indeed, the inadequate ventilation and light to some of the rooms had not been addressed and was unacceptable.  He added that although not directly a Planning matter, it was up to Building Control to evaluate and approve, as set out in paragraph 128 of the report.  He highlighted that the Council’s own HMO standards must apply and the regular phrase that the HMO standards did not apply because the property did not need to be licensed was not true, the standards applied to all HMOs.

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that, of even greater concern in terms of health and safety, was that the HMO Officer had accepted that each of these small windows would act as the primary means of escape should a fire break out in the kitchen area.  He asked if Officers could explain how those windows could possibly offer a safe and secure means of escape.  He added that there was no clear indication about the arrangements for waste storage and disposal within applicant’s so-called Refuse Strategy. 

He emphasised that handling the extra output from the HMOs must be managed and maintained correctly.

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that at the very heart of matters, stood the protection of CDP Policy 29 and its associated regulations.  He noted in this case there were also heritage concerns, especially in Silver Street, one of the oldest in the city, with the traditional timber features that exist contributing to the overall historic character and appearance of the host buildings.

He noted that the applicant’s intention to remove the timber framed windows in favour uPVC was justified by the Officer with the comment that “while ordinarily timber would be expected, in this case the windows are within a modern rear basement elevation of low quality”.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted that it was by such slow and measured steps was the historic integrity of our city dismantled. 

In summary, he noted that the Parish Council must treat such applications with caution because inadequate information and the flexible interpretation of planning policies and regulations created uncertainty. 

He concluded by noting the Parish Council trusted that the Committee understood its position and had confidence in the Committee’s ability to make appropriate decisions with regard to this and other such applications.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked the Planning Officer to address the points raised.

The Planning Officer noted that Bedroom No.2 was 9.0 square metres, with Bedroom No.3 being 8.8 square metres, not taking into consideration the corridors within each of the bedrooms, and as single occupancy met the NDSS.

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

Councillor L Brown proposed that, if minded to approve the application, the Committee amend the start time of construction to 0800.  She referred to bin collection from the front of the property and noted a worry as regards timely return following collection.  She asked as regards arrangements with existing students upstairs and noted that it was not preferable to have bins anywhere near to Fowlers’ Yard.  She asked for information relating to daylight and in respect of the safety issues raised.

The Planning Officer noted six bins, to be stored in the same location as previously, slightly extended to also include cycle storage. 

Councillor L Brown asked if there could be a condition in relation to taking the bin back into the storage area after collection.  The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that if the Committee felt there was insufficient information on the matter they could condition as regards further information.  He noted that Officers felt there was sufficient information in this regard and that there was sufficient light.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that any potential issues in respect of the fire escape would be addressed by colleagues from Building Control.  The Chair noted there were already bins from the other student properties and, as a Local Member, he was not aware of any issues at the location to date.  The Planning Officer noted that any conditions the Committee may wish to consider would apply to the application only, and not apply to bin storage arrangements for the first floor HMO accommodation which uses the bin/cycle storage area. 

Councillor L Brown noted she was wary as there would be six bins, she felt a condition as regards emptying twice a week rather than once a week would be beneficial.  The Principal Planning Officer noted bin storage was covered via Condition 4 within the report.  He added that conditions relating to the times and frequency of emptying of the bins would likely fail the condition test, though further information could be sought on arrangements as part of the condition.  Councillor L Brown noted she worried about a build up of food waste, especially in summer. 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted concern as regards the reasonableness of any condition that would specify the number of times a bins would require emptying, adding that concerns regarding bins could be better addressed via management plan.  Councillor L Brown noted that the issue was the Committee would not have sight of any management plan until after a decision was made.  The Chair noted he would not support any move of bin collection, as it would make it more likely to result in bins sitting on Saddler Street.

Councillor J Elmer asked as regards comments from the Design and Conservation Team.  The Planning Officer noted they had no objections, noting the loss of timber framed windows to the rear as the building was not a Listed Building or non-designated heritage asset.  Councillor J Elmer noted that planning policy around ten years ago was such that timber-framed windows were required within the Durham City Conservation Area.  The Planning Officer noted that the window could not be viewed by the public and uPVC was deemed acceptable.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that given the quality of the uPVC type proposed, and the position and vantage, the proposals had been considered acceptable by the Design and Conservation Team.  Councillor J Elmer noted that it was ‘death by a thousand cuts’ in terms of the impact upon heritage in the city.  He asked as regards the fire escape, and whether that would be an issue that Building Control would come back upon. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that any change following this application would require a variation of condition application, with any such future potential application not having weight in relation to the current application.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) agreed with the Principal Planning Officer, noting if Building Control required amendments, they would need to be regularised via a variation of condition application, or relevant process at that future time.

Councillor S Deinali moved approval of the application as per the Officer’s recommendation, including a 0800 start time for works, and for additional information in respect of management plan for bins storage.  The Principal Planning Officer noted Officers would make the necessary amendments to Condition 4 in relation to the bin storage. 

Councillor L Fenwick seconded the motion for approval and upon a vote being take it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report, with an amendment to Condition 4 in respect of further information relating to bin storage, and amendment to Condition 8 in respect of an 0800 start-time for construction work.