Agenda item

Erection of 35 apartments and associated external works.

The Senior Planning Officer, Barry Gavillet gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had previously visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for erection of 35 apartments and associated external works and was recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

Members were reminded that the application had been considered at the last meeting in October when Members had resolved to refuse it.  It was explained that the application was back at Committee for consideration as there had been an error within the report considered by Members in terms of the parking provision.  The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members of an existing permission that included undercroft car parking provision and explained that the report considered by Members in October had stated that there were 46 undercroft car parking spaces.  It was noted that this was incorrect and that the existing permission actually included 36 car parking spaces, 25 of which were undercroft car parking spaces, accessed from Providence Row, with the remaining 11 being surface car parking spaces accessed from Ferens Close.  Accordingly, it was noted that the current application only reduced the car parking numbers by 2, not 12 as stated in the previous report. 

Councillors were also asked to note that some minor discrepancies relating to plans and land ownership, were addressed within the report.  The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that since the Councillors had visited the site prior to the last Committee meeting it had been fully screened, with images showing this being displayed.  Members were shown elevations comparing the previously granted permission with those of the application being considered, with the Senior Planning Officer noting that the new elevations were almost identical.

The Committee were reminded that the approved scheme had included 25 undercroft car parking spaces accessed from Providence Row and 11 surface car parking spaces accessed from Ferens Close.  It was added that the proposed scheme included 8 surface car parking spaces accessed from Providence Row, 16 surface car parking spaces accessed from Ferens Close, at the same point as the previous application, and a further 10 surface car parking spaces accessed from the south end of Ferens Close, with a footpath link from these spaces to the proposed development.    

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of representations from statutory consultees, the position was the same as at the October meeting, with no objections and that the Highways Section had noted that 34 car parking spaces for 35 apartments was acceptable given the close proximity to the city centre.

The Committee noted an additional letter of objection had been received since the last Committee, making a total of 12 objections received with the main reasons cited in objection including: an increase in traffic; lack of car parking spaces; the location of the car park resulting in noise and disturbance; loss of trees; flood risk; and the appearance of the development.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of the extant permission the principle of development had been approved and it was the opinion of Officers that the issues raised in terms of impact upon residential amenity, impact upon the Conservation Area and highways were not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission and therefore the application was recommended for approval.    

The Chairman asked Ms K Banks, a local resident to speak in relation to the Application.

Ms K Banks thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and thanked the Members for their careful consideration and decision made at the October meeting refusing the application.  It was noted that the report, and articles in the press with comments from the Head of Planning and Assets, had set out the reasons for the application being back at Committee.  However, Ms K Banks explained that she felt the proposals were the same as those considered and refused at the last meeting.  Ms K Banks noted that the reasons for refusal had been on issues of highways safety and residential amenity and added that the distance to the application site was greater than the 400 metres mentioned within reports previously.

Ms K Banks explained that the proposed car park at the top of the site would be inaccessible during periods of snow, adding that often the conditions were such that residents living at the top of Ferens Close would have to leave their cars at the bottom of the bank.  Ms K Banks noted that at the October meeting, Councillor P Conway had explained that a key reason for the approval of the application in 2014 had been the provision of undercroft car parking. 

Ms K Banks noted that the proposals were for a total of 26 car parking spaces to be accessed from Ferens Close.  Ms K Banks noted that residents of the proposed development, and visitors to those residents, would drive up Ferens Close to look for a place to park and should there be no spaces available they would then need to reverse back on to Ferens Close.  It was added that this would cause issues in terms of traffic and parking as those future residents and visitors may decide to park along Ferens Close itself.  It was added that on evenings and at weekends there were no parking restrictions and that if people were to park along the narrow road this would lead to difficulties in terms of access, especially for those existing residents who need to have sufficient room to be able to turn their vehicles to access their driveways.  Ms K Banks added that there would be a threat to elderly residents and children from increased traffic and that the proposal would be a detriment to residents.  

Ms K Banks noted that the Senior Planning Officer had set out within his report that the previous permission could be implemented Ms K Banks added that the permission including the undercroft car parking had been approved with a flood risk assessment having been provided in terms of that application, and another development in the area had undercroft car parking provision. 

Ms K Banks explained it was crucial that the right decision was made and urged Members to refuse the application, as they did at their October meeting, as the reasons for that refusal in terms of traffic and residential amenity were not affected by the error that had been noted within the previous Committee report.  Ms K Banks asked the Committee not to bow to Developer pressure.

The Chairman thanked Ms Banks and asked Mr A McVickers speaking on behalf of the Applicant to address the Committee.

Mr A McVickers noted the application was identical to that considered by the Committee last month; however, it was back for consideration due to inaccuracies within the Committee report in terms of plans and car parking.  It was added that it was not correct to say that the application which was approved in 2014 only had undercroft car parking provision, rather that permission included an 11 space parking court accessed off Ferens Close.  Mr A McVickers explained that the application being considered included 16 spaces at this parking court, an additional 5 spaces, and that the 34 car parking spaces would be accessed either from Providence Row or Ferens Close.  It was clarified that the previous permission included 36 car parking spaces, which equated to 1 space per dwelling and 1 additional space, and the application at Committee for determination included 34 car parking spaces, only 2 less that the existing permission. 

Mr A McVickers added that the site was further than 400 metres away from the Market Place and that guidance in terms of provision of a maximum standard number of spaces would not apply.  Mr A McVickers added that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) reflected this approach at Paragraph 39 noting “If setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, local planning authorities should take into account: the accessibility of the development; the type, mix and use of development; the availability of and opportunities for public transport; local car ownership levels; and an overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles”.  Mr A McVickers noted that the location of the development was very sustainable in terms of its city centre location, with access to public transport at Freeman’s Place approximately 350 metres from the application site.  It was added that in terms of car ownership, data from the 2012 Census showed that 70.1% of people in County Durham owned 1 car or did not own a car.

Mr A McVickers explained that it was felt that the application was in accord with the NPPF and Policy T10 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan and therefore there was no reason for the application to be refused.  It was added that planning law stated that where applications were in accord with local plans then they should be approved.  Mr A McVickers added that as each application should be judged upon its own merits, there were no issues with this application and the extant permission was not the one being considered. 

Mr A McVickers concluded by noting that the relevant supporting documents and drawings had been submitted and had met the necessary requirements, no objections had been raised by statutory consultees, and therefore as all the requirements had been met, he requested that the Committee approve the application.

The Chairman thanked Mr A McVickers and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application noting Councillor D Freeman, also a Local Member in respect of this application, indicated he wished to speak.

Councillor D Freeman reminded Members that the application had been refused at the last meeting of the Committee, with the reasons cited at that meeting for refusal being that the application was contrary to saved City of Durham Local Plan Policies H13 and T1 as there would be an increase in traffic.  Councillor D Freeman accepted that the figure as regards car parking provision for the extant permission had been incorrectly noted within the October Committee Report, however, the fact remained that the application being considered would mean more cars accessing the site from Ferens Close. 

It was added that within the report that the Environment Agency had noted no objections in terms of flood risk and there had been no issues with the nearby development that had undercroft car parking provision.  Councillor D Freeman noted that guidance for car parking provision was 1 space per 2 bedroom dwelling and 2 spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling and therefore this would equate to a provision of 46 spaces for this proposed development.  Councillor D Freeman noted he had not supported the approval of the permission granted in 2014 and added the reason for less parking provision than the 46 as per guidance had been cited as the close proximity to the Market Place, with a distance of around 400 metres quoted in the previous report.  Councillor D Freeman noted this was ridiculous as the actual distance from the site to Claypath was around 500 metres and the distance to the main transport links of the Bus and Rail Stations was around 900 metres.  Councillor D Freeman felt it was not acceptable to ignore the Authority’s guidance in this regard, especially as there was potential for car parking issues after 6.00pm.

Councillor D Freeman added that the extant permission had set out 25 undercroft car parking spaces accessed from Providence Row and 11 surface spaces being accessed from Ferens Close.  It was added that the proposed development would represent 3 separate access points to the site, 2 coming off Ferens Close, increasing the traffic along Ferens Close.  Accordingly, Councillor D Freeman noted that as nothing had changed since the application was considered in October he felt that the application should be refused as it was contrary to Policies H13 and T1 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan.

Councillor J Robinson noted he had not been at the last meeting of the Committee so had considered the development and read the papers and submissions from objectors with fresh eyes. 

He noted looking at the minutes and reports there appeared to being an increasing spider-web in terms of the parking issues, and added comments within the report stated residents of the proposed development would not be able to get parking permits as existing residents did and they, and their visitors, would need to pay for pay and display parking.  Councillor J Robinson noted that existing residents paid for their parking permits and added that it seemed to be that residents were being fitted around the scheme.

Councillor J Robinson added that there was an extant permission with undercroft car parking and asked why has this scheme not been taken forward, with the Developer knowing what they were getting into as when the permission was granted in 2014. Councillor P Conway had raised the issue in terms of potential flooding and there had been no objections from the Environment Agency as regards that application.  Accordingly, Councillor J Robinson noted he could not support the application.

Councillor P Conway noted he understood the reason why that application was back before Committee for consideration, to close a legal loophole, however he felt there were no reasons to change his opinion on this application.  Councillor P Conway added that the undercroft car parking had been fundamental to the 2014 approval and that in considering the current application he felt that there would be highways problems if approved.  Councillor P Conway suggested that given the location of the development, it was unlikely the apartments would fall within the affordable housing price bracket and that car parking would be required for each property.  Councillor P Conway concluded that he would support the Local Member in proposing refusal of the application and would suggest the Developer complete the site as per the 2014 permission.

Councillor C Kay explained he had noted no significant change since the meeting in October and therefore supported the refusal of the application.  He added he felt that it was classic Developer creep and while he understood the reasons why the application was back at Committee for consideration, it was the same as the one that was refused.  Councillor C Kay noted that the Developer had got planning permission in 2014 and suggested that they go and build as per those approved plans.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that Highways Engineers had stated that while the development was outside of the 400 metres in terms of guidance on parking, it was considered a reasonable walking distance to the city centre, with the Institution of Highways and Transportation noting a suggested acceptable walking distance to a town centre up to a maximum of 800 metres.

Councillor D Freeman noted he proposed that the application be refused, for the same reasons as explained at the October meeting of the Committee, namely that the application was contrary to saved City of Durham Local Plan Policies H13 and T1.  The Chairman noted the reasons as set out in the minutes of the previous meeting and asked as regards issues of access.  Councillor D Freeman noted that the additional access from the top of Ferens Close made more of an issue in terms of traffic.  The Team Leader - Central and East, Sarah Eldridge asked if the issue was simply as a result of the additional access or whether it was intensification.

Councillor D Freeman noted it was both, with the proposed additional car parking spaces provided at the parking court off Ferens Close and the additional parking accessed from the top of Ferens Close meaning additional traffic would access the site from Ferens Close.  It was noted that the extant permission would have less traffic along Ferens Close as majority of car parking provision would be accessed from Providence Row.

Councillor D Freeman moved that the application be refused; he was seconded by Councillor P Conway.

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.   The new access from Ferens Close would have an adverse effect on the area       and on the character of the area by the conversion of an area of green land into       a car park, contrary to saved policy H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

2.   The amended access points for this development would have an adverse       effect on the amenity of local residents and of residents in Ferens Close,       particularly after 6.00 pm, contrary to saved policy T1 of the City of Durham       Local Plan.