Flexible HMO and dwelling at 43 Oak Avenue, Durham

What was proposed

The application sought flexible C3 dwelling and C4 HMO use for ten years, a rear extension, and cycle and bin storage.

“Full Application Description: Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a flexible use permission as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) and a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) under the provisions of Class V of Part 3 of the GPDO including erection of single- storey extension to rear and provision of cycle and bin storage.”

“Planning permission is also sought for the erection of a single-storey rear extension, which would project from the rear build line by 3m and have a width of approximately 5.7m. The extension would be set away from the boundary with the adjoining neighbour at No. Oak Avenue by 1.9m at its closest point, and 2.3m at the furthest, due to the splay in the boundary line.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a two-storey end-terrace dwelling in a residential area, with no off-street parking and grass and patio areas.

“The application site is a two storey end of terrace dwellinghouse set in a block of four dwellings in a residential area at Sherburn Road, Durham City. The front of the site is enclosed by a low level wall with a pedestrian access and grassed area to the front and a mix of grass and patio hardstanding to the rear. At present the property does not benefit from any off-street parking.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history on the site.

“There is no relevant planning history on this site.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers considered the proposal acceptable and recommended approval subject to conditions, finding no unacceptable effects on community balance, amenity or highway safety.

“When assessed against other criteria contained within Policy 16 and the remaining policies of the County Durham Plan relevant to the application, it is considered that the introduction of a single small C4 HMO utilising Class V of Part 3 of the GPDO to interchange from C4 small HMO to C3 dwellinghouse for a period of 10 years in this location would not unacceptably imbalance the existing community towards one dominated by HMOs, and nor would it result in any unacceptable…”

“The application is therefore considered acceptable in respect of either a C3 of C4 use and therefore, the change of use to the flexible use is considered acceptable.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways identified a parking standards shortfall but no sufficient highway safety impact, while Environmental Health raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Environmental Health nuisance Action Team raise no objection subject to conditions regarding soundproofing and management plans.”

Officer report

Objections received

Three objections raised concerns about parking, residential amenity and the flexible permission’s effect on monitoring HMO concentrations.

“The application has been advertised by site notice and individual notification letters sent to 10 neighbouring properties. Three letters of objection have been received including from Gilesgate Residents Association and the City of Durham Trust raising the following concerns:”

“Parking Issues including lack of parking and the proposal being contrary to the Parking SPD. • Concern raised that there is a clear risk of thwarting the very purpose of the Article 4 Directions through the proposed flexible use permission as both a House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) and as a Dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) and that consideration needs to be given to how the property is recorded when assessing new proposals against the requirements of policy 16 of…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A City of Durham Trust representative and a parish councillor speaking for the parish council, residents’ association and himself addressed the committee.

Members’ debate

Members debated the parking shortfall, highway safety, residential amenity, local road conditions, policy requirements and the relevance of an earlier appeal decision.

“Councillor M Wilkes noted he did not dispute the appeal regarding Frank Street, however, that was a road and a street. He noted that the application before Members was for a cul-de-sac, and on a bank, with ten houses and no spaces for a single parking space. He added that he did not think an Inspector would allow an appeal in this case.”

“The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) asked if that was not just impact upon highway safety. Councillor J Elmer noted that if cars were parked on the pavement, that represented as loss in amenity to residents. The Principal Planning Officer noted the reasons being advanced as being impact on highways safety in terms of the Policy 16 and 21 and the Parking SPD, he asked what Policy Members were advancing in terms of residential amenity impact.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse was moved, seconded and put to a vote.

“Councillor M Wilkes moved that the application be refused, he was seconded by Councillor J Elmer and upon a vote being taken it was:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application because insufficient parking would harm highway safety and out-of-curtilage parking would harm residential amenity.

“The development fails to accord with the requirements of the Council's Parking and Accessibility Standards Supplementary Planning Document and as such fails to provide sufficient parking provision to the detriment of highway safety contrary to Policies 16 Part 3(d) and 21 of the County Durham Plan and Part 9 of the NPPF.”

“The development would result in out of curtilage parking creating significant inconvenience to existing and proposed residents having a detrimental impact to residential amenity contrary to Policies 16 Part 3(e), 29(e) and (f) and 31 of the County Durham Plan and Part 15 of the NPPF.”

Minutes