Plans for an HMO in Durham City have been refused by the council in the same week that two other HMOs were approved in the area.

Durham County Council turned down the application to convert a semi-detached house in Gilesgate into a six-bedroom HMO, citing concerns about the impact on community cohesion.

The council noted that the presence of other HMOs in the area, along with the proximity of bungalow-style homes for non-student residents, influenced the decision.

Proposed changes included reconfiguring the interior, widening the driveway to accommodate more cars, and installing cycle and bin storage facilities.

However, the council highlighted that these changes would likely increase noise and disturbances, negatively affecting non-student residents.

This was seen as contrary to local policies aimed at maintaining community balance and reducing noise pollution.

Most read

Our flash sale is still on – 40% off an annual subscription. Get unlimited access to local news, enjoy our ad-free mobile and tablet app and read the replica of the paper on your device. Subscribe before it's too late!

The council's data indicated that, if all unimplemented HMO applications were completed, the percentage of HMOs within 100 metres of the site could rise to 6.2 per cent.

Although this is below the 10 per cent threshold, the concentration remains a worry for the local community.

The council's refusal aligns with objections from Belmont Parish Council, who argued that the area's community stability was threatened by the high concentration of HMOs.

They also raised concerns about increased parking problems, noise, and the loss of family housing.

The parish council also pointed out that Durham University has stated there is an oversupply of student accommodation.

However, the applicant contended that the change of use would comply with local policies, as the number of HMOs in the area is below the 10 per cent threshold.

They planned to manage the property through a specialist student accommodation agency, Harringtons, and had a management plan in place to mitigate potential disturbances.

Despite these arguments, the council upheld its decision to refuse the planning application.