# 3 Roosevelt Road, Gilesgate, Durham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster
- **Authority:** County Durham (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6005969
- **Application reference:** DM/25/01397/FPA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to 5-bed C4 student HMO with single-storey rear extension
- **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 Policies 6, 16(3), 29, 31
- **Main issues:** mixed and balanced communities, living conditions
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, student-accommodation, dp3-refuse-trigger, dp3-2-a-mixed-communities, s4-substantially-outweighed, non-determination, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Conversion of a Durham terraced house to a 5-bed student HMO, appealed for non-determination and dismissed. Updated council tax data put student concentration within 100 m at 11.9%, above the plan's 10% "tipping point". This failed mixed and balanced communities and caused moderate noise and disturbance harm. Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).

## What made the difference
The inspector turned a local HMO-concentration threshold into a Framework design refusal. Failing to maintain a mixed community is "contrary to ... Policy DP3(2)(a)", and "Policy DP3(3) ... states that development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles. Therefore, I attach substantial weight to this harm" (DL ¶24). Weighed against "very modest" benefits, this failed S4 (DL ¶¶23–25). Earlier data showing 9.2%, below the threshold, would have produced a different result, so the most recent data decided the case.

## Policy findings
- **DP3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** exceeding the plan's 10% student-exempt threshold within 100 m fails mixed and balanced communities; DP3(3) refusal trigger invoked (DL 17, 24)
- **DP3(3): fail.** "development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles" (DL 24)
- **S4: fail.** very modest benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22-25)

## Key facts
- Student-exempt properties plus unimplemented HMO permissions within 100 m rose from 9.2% (Dec 2025 data) to 11.9% (Apr 2026 data); latest data given significant weight (DL 13-14)
- Article 4 Direction removing C3 to C4 PD since 2016 (DL 6)
- Non-determination; inspector sought clarification of the Council's ambiguous position under Reg 8 (DL 3-5)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005969
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a2e206d8-f6f3-4142-b3cf-3f6aa08df720

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005969.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.