PLANS to boost student accommodation in Durham have been overruled after councillors voted against the advice of their own officers.

Last year, landlords lodged plans for extensions to 17-18 Providence Row in a bid to increase the number of rooms from 10 to 12.

Similar applications to extend houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) have previously sparked debate about the county council’s attempts to control the growth of student digs.

And critics have pointed out that a policy resisting increases in bed spaces – if more than 10 per cent of properties within a 100 metre radius are HMOs – has proved ineffective at managing student growth.

The policy is set to be beefed up as part of the ongoing County Durham Plan process, including setting an upper percentage threshold for areas which already have high student numbers.

However, previous attempts to reject HMO extensions have seen mixed results, with the council recently ordered to pay costs following an appeal decision.

At a meeting of the council’s central and east planning committee, City of Durham Parish Council urged councillors to put the brakes on the Providence Row plans.

Fears included the HMO extensions clashing with policies around creating mixed and balanced communities.

Principal planning officer, Alan Dobie, said while the interim HMO policy was set out with the best intentions, an appeal decision by a planning inspector concluded that the rules were creating a “moratorium” preventing any future extensions.

But reasons for refusal proposed by Lib Dem opposition Councillor Mark Wilkes – including lack of parking and the reduced space for tenants- won support from the committee.

Despite council officers recommending the plans for approval, the plans were refused with a majority vote of 9-5.

Labour Councillor Paul Taylor said: “Durham is not a business opportunity to cram as many people into as many small spaces as possible.

“It’s a city which I would like to see return to being residential again. We can sit and pontificate what the planning inspector is going to say, how much money it’s going to cost and whether they will disagree with us.

“We’re elected to represent the people that put us here, we’re elected to look after our city and protect it.”

He added the HMO extensions at Providence Row were “out of character with the residential area.”

Later at the same meeting, members also turned down another application for a new HMO in Lawson Terrace – which clashed with the council’s interim HMO policy.

This included a change of use from a single house with two bedrooms to student accommodation with four bedrooms.

An applicant statement, prepared for councillors, said the applicant had no option but to convert the home, as estate agents had advised the house was “unsaleable as a non-student option.”

The applicant’s daughter, speaking at the meeting, told councillors the loss of a family home would have minimum impact on the area which was already at “tipping point” due to the levels of  student housing.

She added the property was no longer suitable for her elderly mother with future rental income from student lettings going towards “lost salary” and caring responsibilities.

Several councillors said they couldn’t take personal matters into account when ruling on planning applications.

Independent Councillor, John Shuttleworth, added: “I do feel for the lady and her circumstances but we have to protect this city.

“People are sick to death of HMOs and the amount of students that are in the city.”