# 119 Bradford Crescent, Gilesgate, Durham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster
- **Authority:** Durham (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6004850
- **Application reference:** DM/25/03413/FPA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Flexible C3/C4 (small student HMO) use under GPDO Class V, with single-storey rear extension (letter materially identical to 6004494, same appellant and inspector)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(2)(a), DP3(3)
- **Development plan policies:** County Durham Plan 2020 Policies 6, 16, 29, 31
- **Main issues:** mixed and balanced communities, living conditions
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, article-4, non-determination, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-substantially-outweighed, concentration-policy, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Flexible C3/C4 student HMO in a mid-terrace house in Gilesgate under an Article 4 Direction. Dismissed. The latest data put the 100 m concentration at 10.4%, just over the Local Plan's 10% "tipping point". The inspector found a failure of DP3(2)(a)'s "mixed and balanced communities" principle and gave it substantial weight, because DP3(3) says such proposals should be refused. That, with moderate harm to living conditions, substantially outweighed very modest benefits under S4 (DL ¶¶26–27).

## What made the difference
The most recent twice-yearly council tax snapshot moved the site over the 10% threshold, and the inspector held that even a modest exceedance undermines a tipping-point policy (DL ¶17). DP3(3) then turned a local concentration policy into a national "should be refused" ground carrying substantial weight.

## Policy findings
- **DP3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** fails "mixed and balanced communities"; DP3(3) says such proposals should be refused, so substantial weight (DL 26)
- **CDP 16(3): conflict (significant weight).** student-exempt + unimplemented HMOs within 100 m = 10.4% (April 2026 data) against 10% "tipping point" (DL 14-19)
- **S4: fail.** very modest benefits substantially outweighed; moderate harm to living conditions (DL 21, 24-27)

## Key facts
- Article 4 Direction removes C3 to C4 PD rights (DL 6)
- Updated council tax data moved concentration from 6.5% to 10.4% (DL 14)
- Non-determination appeal; parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2-5)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004850
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/77859a9c-81aa-4ca2-911f-69c8c5fd8e96

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004850.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.