Two-storey HMO extension at 23 Mistletoe Street, Durham

What was proposed

The application sought a two-storey rear extension to reconfigure the existing small HMO and improve its accommodation.

“Application No: DM/26/00137/FPA Proposal: Two storey rear extension to existing small HMO Applicant: [name withheld]…”

“Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension to the rear of the existing small House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The extension is proposed to facilitate the reconfiguration of the internal layout of the property and improve the quality of the existing accommodation.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey mid-terrace small HMO in a residential area, with a rear yard, within the Durham City Conservation Area.

“The application relates to a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling, currently in use as a small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) and is located within a predominantly residential area on Mistletoe Street in Durham.”

“The property fronts the public footpath and includes a private yard to the rear. Durham City Centre lies to the east of the application site. The property is unlisted but located within Durham City Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Planning history

The report states that there is no relevant planning history for the site.

“There is no relevant planning history for the application site. Planning Policy…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding no conflict with relevant policies, subject to conditions including a maximum occupancy of four people.

“Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 78. The proposals relate to a two-storey extension to an existing small HMO and therefore CDP Policy 16 is relevant.”

“Taking all material considerations into account, including those raised by objectors, the proposals are considered to accord with the aims of local and national policies. There are no material considerations indicating otherwise, and the application is therefore recommended for approval. 81. Whilst the concerns raised by objectors are noted they are not considered sufficient to sustain refusal of the application in this instance for the reasons stated in this report.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The highway, design, ecology and nuisance consultees raised no objection subject to relevant conditions, while the parish council objected.

“Highway Authority (Development Management) – raises no objection to the proposals and whilst they note that the property falls within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), recognise that the changes to the property would not alter the number of parking permits the property would be entitled to. 17.”

“Design and Conservation Section – raise no objections and consider the impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area to be neutral and thus conserving. Precise details of proposed materials were submitted during the application and confirmed as acceptable. 19. Ecology Section– requested a Bat Risk Assessment (BRA), based on the location of the property and scope of works.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Three representations raised concerns about HMO status, additional bedspace, space standards, amenity, storage, construction, environmental effects and fire safety.

“The application has been advertised in the local press, by site notice and notification letters sent to 8 neighbouring properties. 24. A total of 3 representations have been received in response to the consultation exercise, including from The City of Durham Parish Council, The City of Durham Trust and one from a nearby resident all objecting to the proposals. 25.”

“Residential amenity • Property does not meet NDSS minimum gross internal floor area • No details of cycle, car parking or bin storage • The window serving the combined kitchen, lounge and diner would not meet the HMO standards in terms of glazing and ventilation • Fire safety concerns • Impact on neighbouring amenity • Poor maintenance • Disruption during construction phase…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor and a trust representative spoke against the application, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members discussed the existing HMO’s bedroom sizes, the relevance of other regulations, fire safety, residential amenity and the competing planning views.

“With regard to the existing use of the property in planning terms the Principal Planning Officer noted that in the event the Local Planning Authority was considering application for a lawful development certificate, the test would be whether or not on the balance of probabilities the property was used as a four-bed HMO.”

“Councillor D Freeman noted the objections raised in terms of fire safety and asked if Officers could provide any reassurance as regards potential fire risks; was the application safe? The Principal Planning Officer echoed the comments from the Lawyer (Planning and Highways), noting that Building Control and fire safety sat outside of the planning control. He added Officers were satisfied that the proposals were acceptable in terms of residential amenity.”

Minutes

The vote

The approval motion was moved and seconded first, then carried by the committee.

“The Chair noted there had been a proposal for approval by Councillor A Schulman, and a proposal for refusal by Councillor M Wilkes.”

“The motion for approval had been moved and seconded first, and upon a vote being taken it was:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions set out in the officer report.

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

Minutes