Agenda item

Erection of single-storey extension at rear of dwelling (retrospective application).

The Principal Planning Officer 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 visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was the erection of single-storey extension at rear of dwelling (retrospective application) and was recommended for approval, subject to the agreed alteration works being carried out within 3 months of the date of approval. 

 

Members were reminded that an application for a flat roof extension had been approved in 2015, however, it was brought to the Authority’s attention that the extension was: slightly taller than the permission; used slightly different windows; used a different lantern; and a different brick type.  Accordingly, a retrospective application was required. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Local Members had asked that the application come to Committee for consideration due to the application site being within the Conservation Area and that the work had already been carried out.  It was added that Planning Officers had spoken to the applicant in terms of their concerns and a number of changes were proposed within the retrospective application to make the extension acceptable in planning terms.

 

Members noted the replication of a coal hatch and the use of former coping stones to help visually reduce the height and help assimilate the extension into the street. 

 

The Committee was shown a table setting out the elevations and issues in terms of the 2015 permission, what was actually built and what was proposed in the retrospective application.  It was explained that the original permission granted had been approved under delegated powers and at that time the application had received no comments or objections.  Members were aware of what had been built, having been out on site earlier in the day.  It was explained that the application in front of Committee proposed a negotiated compromise in terms of a reduction in height by 300mm, with anything greater requiring significant structural alterations, and work to the aluminium trim.  It was added that the current glazed lantern element would be replaced with a less visible unit and in the Planning Officers’ view these alterations would make the extension acceptable and if granted the works would be required to take place within the next 3 months.

 

The Committee noted that there had been 33 letters of objection to the application, with none having been received at the time of the 2015 application, and 30 letters of support had been received in terms of the application.  It was added that objections had also been received from the Member for Parliament for the City of Durham, Roberta Blackman-Woods MP, the Crossgate Community Partnership and the City of Durham Trust.  Members noted an additional objection had been received since the report was prepared for Committee.

 

Councillors noted that supporters had cited several reasons including that the development improves the property, that the works were minor and they constituted no significant harm to the Conservation Area.

 

It was noted that objectors had raised several issues in terms of the design of the extension and the context of the Conservation Area and saved City of Durham Local Plan Policies, as summarised within the report.  It was added that other issues raised by objectors had included: that the original plans should have been followed and a fine should be issued for the breach; that the changes proposed were not sufficient; and that the Design Team had not correctly evaluated the proposed changes. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Council’s Design and Conservation had offered no objections on heritage or design grounds.  It was added that the flat roof, as opposed to sloped roofs used on other extensions in the area, was not seen as a significant issue and that in terms of the works already undertaken there was no real punishment in the case of the errors in construction.  Accordingly, the recommendation was for the retrospective application to be approved and subject to the condition that the works be carried out within 3 months.

 

The Chairman noted the Local Members for Neville’s Cross, Councillors G Holland and N Martin were in attendance to speak in relation to the Application and asked Councillor G Holland to begin.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that colleagues may have been puzzled why what appeared to be a small and parochial planning application had found its way to Committee and that both Local Members would attend Committee to speak about it.

 

Councillor G Holland added that the reason, however, was important.  It was explained that in the beginning the property was just another House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) which the owner had decided to expand to include more students and thus increase the income from the property.  The application for that work had been approved under delegated powers because it had apparently differed little from the hundreds of other such applications in the city centre.

 

Councillor G Holland explained that as the building progressed it became ever more obvious that the build was not following the approved plans and there was outcry from the local residents as what they saw emerging was, in their eyes, unacceptable.  It was added that the extension as built was the wrong size, inappropriate in style and had disfigured the setting of the late Victorian Terrace.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that the test had to be whether this particular extension, which had been built without the benefit of planning permission, now met the demands of Policies E6, E22, Q1, Q9 and H9 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan, Article 4 relating to Conservation Areas in Durham City, and Policy 7 in the NPPF.

 

Members noted that Policy E6 placed constraints in a Conservation Area and was designed to protect the special features of Durham City, seeking to avoid reflective surfaces such as glass or plastic.  It also requires the use of external building materials which are the same as, or are sympathetic to, the traditional materials in an historic city or an individual street.  Councillor G Holland added that this arbitrary extension failed to meet those constraints and therefore it failed the test of E6.

 

The Committee noted that Policy E22 addressed the Conservation Area and in its first section it stated that the Council would not permit development proposals that would detract from the character or the appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting.  It was added that all development proposals should be sensitive in terms of siting, scale, design and materials, reflecting existing architectural details.  Members noted that the policy also demanded a sufficient level of detail to accompany applications to enable an assessment to be made of its impact on the Conservation Area.  Councillor G Holland added that this never occurred.  Councillor G Holland noted that in his opinion this application had failed the test of Policy E22 and that from the outset there had been inadequate detail to recognise the changing land levels, which were already well known, and yet which half way through construction made it clear that the original plans must founder.  It was added that what followed was arbitrary and insensitive to the setting of the property in Nevilledale Terrace.  The Local Member explained that the site was now over massed and discordant with the adjacent buildings with the flat roof that does not recognise the sloping roofs in all other adjacent properties, also being discordant.  Councillor G Holland added that he felt that the aluminium flashing was unacceptable in a Victorian terrace and that the extension was a botch up and however much you fiddle at the margins you could not meet the design criteria demanded by Policy E22.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that Policy Q9 lead to a similar conclusion, requiring that the design, scale and materials were sympathetic to the main dwelling and to the appearance of the area.  It was added that all the evidence made it clear that they were not and therefore the application failed the test of Policy Q9

Councillor G Holland noted at the application also failed the test of Policy H9, which was not mentioned in the Officer’s report.  It was explained that H9 was dedicated to HMOs and extensions to those properties and confirms that such developments must not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents and were of a scale and character, both with their surroundings and with any neighbouring residential properties.  Councillor G Holland noted that quite simply, it was not. 

 

Councillor G Holland noted that the Officer did touch on NPPF Section 7 within the report but had failed to develop the concept.  It was explained that this part of the NPPF demanded good design and added that the Government attached great importance to the design of the built environment.  Specifically, Paragraph 64 stated clearly that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and the quality of an area and the way it functions.  Councillor G Holland noted those were the exact words and as the development failed Section 7 Paragraph 64 of the NPPF, the application should be rejected.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that the problem that confronted the Committee was that the present situation, and the retrospective application, were the result of poor procedures at an earlier stage and a lack of control during construction.  It was noted that added to this, the developers themselves failed to follow correct procedures or take advice.  Councillor G Holland explained that the decision had to be based on Planning Policies rather than sentiment or the feeling that the development was too minor to bother about.  Councillor G Holland noted you cannot cherry-pick the weight that you give to our Policies. 

 

Councillor G Holland concluded by reiterating that he felt the application clearly failed the test of Local Plan policies E6, E22, Q9 and H9 and it also failed the Government’s directive in Section 7, Paragraph 64 of the NPPF and therefore the Committee should reject the retrospective application and seek a more suitable structure in its place.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor G Holland and asked Councillor N Martin to address the Committee.

 

Councillor N Martin noted he had a number of questions in relation to the application.  Firstly he asked “when was a Conservation Area not a Conservation Area”, adding that he did not believe that there was such a thing as a “part-Conservation Area”.  Councillor N Martin noted that the idea that one part of a Conservation Area did not look as pretty or did not matter was incorrect; rather development should enhance an area.

 

Councillor N Martin noted that the Officer had noted within the report and in reference at the previous application that each application was dealt with on its own merits and therefore the application would not be setting a precedent.

 

 

Councillor N Martin asked what was meant by “discourage the use of uPVC”, adding did this mean that there was no force in planning terms and what reason was there for the use of uPVC, given that the original application stated no uPVC to be used.

 

Councillor N Martin added that the original application stated that materials must be approved by Planning Officers, however, the choice of bricks used was not submitted to Planning and therefore he asked what the response would have been from Officers in that regard.  Councillor N Martin asked at what point do planning permissions mean something, adding he suggested to the Committee that it was perhaps reckless that the choice of brick to be used was not submitted to Planning Officers.  

 

Councillor N Martin noted that the Council had issued letters to some areas within the City noting that residents needed to have a certain type of window or paint type and concluded that the Council must say planning permissions and the Conservation Area mean something and refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor N Martin and asked Mr N Rippin to speak on behalf of Roberta Blackman-Woods MP in relation to the Application.

 

Mr N Rippin thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Roberta Blackman-Woods MP, who was unable to attend the meeting.  Mr N Rippin noted that the MP had met with residents and it had been noted that there was a great deal of resistance in terms of this application.  It was added that the MP thanked the Conservation Officer who had agreed to meet with her on site and discuss the issues.  However, it was explained it was not felt that the retrospective application was suitable, for the reasons and Policies as stated by the Local Member, and also the MP did not feel that the application would pass on appeal and therefore should be refused.  Mr N Rippin explained that the MP had noted the application sought a very different scheme than that previously approved, with a significant height difference and unsuitable materials being used in terms of uPVC, brick type and aluminium trim.  It was added that it was not felt that the application mitigated the harm to the historic street and the property was within the Conservation Area and was a non-designated heritage asset.  It was noted that the character assessment of the area would be rendered out-of-date if the application was approved.  

 

Mr N Rippin added that it had been noted that of the 30 letters in support of the application, several were from other local landlords and others were from students, with none of them setting out any material planning reasons why the application should be approved.  It was added that on the whole the letters in objection were from local residents or from local community groups that had the interests of the city at heart.  It was noted that tourism was an important part of the economic plan for the city and any additions needed to be sensitive and enhance the area.  It was noted that approval would set a dangerous precedent and Members were reminded that Durham contained a World Heritage Site.  It was added that there was already an existing permission and if the extension had been constructed in line with that approval then there would not have been an issue, with Members being asked to resist developer creep.  It was explained that the MP understood the need to upgrade properties over time, however, such alterations and additions should be respectful of the Conservation Area and the surrounding properties and accordingly she would hope that the Committee refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr N Rippin speaking on behalf of the MP and asked Ms S Wilkinson, a local resident to speak in relation to the Application, noting that there were a number of slides that would be shown while the resident spoke.

 

Ms S Wilkinson noted that the City of Durham Trust, the Local MP, Local Councillors and residents all supported the refusal of the application.  It was added that a TV documentary had noted that developments within a Conservation Area must enhance the area.  It was noted that the development was contrary to Policy E22 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan, and the report gave a false impression of the extension with the current height being 4 metres, with the existing permission being for a height of 3.5 metres.  It was added that to state that the proposed 3.7 metre height was very similar to the former wall was not true, it was an increase 70 centimetres.  Ms S Wilkinson added that Assistant Design and Conservation Officer had noted that the original design had been very well considered and added now it appeared as if the original was not of good design.  Ms S Wilkinson added that Members would have seen on site the height of the extension and the fact that it was not stepped in height, unlike other properties in the street.  It was explained that the salvaged coping stones were below the correct levels and this was a breach of Policy E22 and the NPPF.  Ms S Wilkinson noted that the Article 4 Direction imposed in 2007 was to prevent this type of erosion of the Conservation Area.  It was added that only one of the supporters was a resident of Nevilledale Terrace. 

 

Ms S Wilkinson noted that the applicant had not approached the Council in terms of the brick type used, the lantern was not in keeping with the flat roofs used on extensions in the area and it was added that the windows had not been replaced with bi-fold doors.  Accordingly, Ms S Wilkinson noted that the application was not in accord with saved City of Durham Local Plan Policy E6.  Ms S Wilkinson noted that the wall should only be 3.5 metres and that there should be a parapet to shield the view from the street and the aluminium trim was not in keeping with the area, and should use glazed coping stones.  Ms S Wilkinson concluded by explaining that residents would ask that the Committee refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Ms S Wilkinson and asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond to some of the issues raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that policies had an element of interpretation and that the detailed assessment had been undertaken, in addition to seeking advice at a high level from within the Council’s Design and Conservation Team, and it was felt with the amendments proposed within the application would make the extension acceptable.  It was added that there was not a requirement to enhance a Conservation Area via legislation, rather to “preserve or enhance” and therefore in this case it was felt to preserve.  It was explained that while Officers had not had the opportunity to comment on the brick type, now the application was assessed, looking at the range of materials used and those in the area and it was not felt there was sufficient detriment to warrant a refusal recommendation.  The Principal Planning Officer added that there was also the fall-back position in terms of the existing permission.  It was reiterated that Officers recommended that the application be approved.

 

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Ms J Atkinson to speak on behalf of the Applicant.

 

Ms J Atkinson thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted she was not a planning expert, and that in terms of the development an experienced architect was involved at the pre-planning stage however he had become distracted due to a personal matter which Ms J Atkinson felt she could not speak further on.  Unfortunately there then had been a discrepancy in terms of the height of the development.  Ms J Atkinson noted there had been a number of rather personal attacks as regards the application, however, once the discrepancy had been noted the Planners and Officers from Design and Conservation had been contacted and discussions took place as regards amended planning.  It was noted that the Head of Design and Conservation had met with the MP in this regard and Ms J Atkinson noted that student housing was always an emotive issue, with Members well aware of this.  Ms J Atkinson did note and thank those residents that did make the effort to speak to her and chat as regards circumstances behind the situation and offer their support, though noted that the atmosphere of intimidation was such that they did not feel they were able to come forward in terms of publicly supporting the application.  Ms J Atkinson thanked those who had offered gifts of scones and flowers, with their gestures being very kind.  Ms J Atkinson also thanked the Council’s Planning and Heritage and Design Departments for their help and asked the Committee if they would support the Officers’ recommendation for approval.  Ms J Atkinson noted that there was not a large difference in comparison to the approved permission, the extension did not overlook any other properties and the application would preserve the quality of the Conservation Area.   

  

The Chairman thanked Ms J Atkinson and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

 

Councillor A Bell noted he had attended the site visit and with his building experience the development was not the best extension in the world, however, he did not feel that a drop of four courses would alter or improve the situation.  Councillor A Bell added that he understood that the uPVC lantern was considered obtrusive and noted that the reduction of four courses may not be sufficient, however asked if the fall-back position of the previously granted permission or another application may be more suitable.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted to work to the previous permission would require at least some demolition or alteration to the roof and while this may require substantial construction works the applicant may wish to go back to this permission should their application be refused.

 

Councillor A Bell noted that the alterations to remove four courses of bricks would likely still be substantial, and added that surely the building inspector should have been “on the ball” and he did not feel the changes were warranted.

 

Councillor C Kay noted he was sorry to hear as regards the situation with the applicant, and noted he held a different view to that of Councillor A Bell. 

 

 

He noted that he felt the removal of four courses of brick was significant and he also felt that a “Conservation Area was a Conservation Area” and the aluminium trim used was not acceptable in such a location, it was more suited to starter units at an industrial estate.  Councillor C Kay noted that the condition set out in the report stipulated that works be undertaken within 3 months and added that he may be cynical as regards whether they would be and wondered whether it was not possible to say put it back as it should be.

 

Councillor P Conway noted that the application seemed to be trying to make the best of a bad job; however, he felt that even the original application that was approved was not in keeping with the area.  He added that he felt that the works did jar with the rest of the back street and that if the original permission had come to Committee and there had been an opportunity to discuss the issues fully then this situation may not have arisen.  Councillor P Conway added that he did not know why it had not been called in initially and noted he agreed with Councillor A Bell in that building inspectors should have perhaps been “keeping an eye” on works.  Councillor P Conway noted he was minded, given that the original permission had already been approved, to go back to the original position.     

 

The Chairman asked if there were any Members wishing to make a proposal in terms of the application.  Councillor P Conway asked if Planning Officers could comment on some of the points made by Members.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted he was not sure what else could be added in terms of the report, presentation and representations made, however, reiterated that the application represented a compromise position negotiated between the applicant and Planning with recommendations from the Design and Conservation Team.  It was added that in terms of approval or refusal, the applicant could go back to the original position, or appeal any decision to refuse the application, should Members be minded to refuse the application.

 

Councillor A Bell noted he felt that the Committee were stuck between a rock and a hard place, with Councillor P Conway mentioning the possibility of going back to the original approved permission, however he did not feel that was necessary and that the building inspector should take some responsibility. 

 

Councillor A Bell moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor J Clark.

 

Upon a vote being taken the motion was lost.

 

The Chairman asked whether any Members wished to move to the contrary in respect of the application.

 

Councillor C Kay noted that the previous permission was granted and was deemed to not detract and he felt that the application would adversely impact.

 

The Chairman noted that a decision would need to be made and that if the Committee disagreed with the recommendation then the Members must propose and vote accordingly, citing with relevant policy reasons for refusal.

Councillor C Kay noted that reasons would as be per the NPPF and saved Local Plan Policies, with the application detracting from the Conservation Area.

 

The Chairman reiterated that policies would need to be listed, together with reasons why the application was contrary to them in order for the Committee’s decision to be robust should an appeal against it be made.

 

Councillor B Moir noted that on that basis the decision would be based upon: Policy E6 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan and retaining the character of the Conservation Area; Policy Q1, in terms of the design and layout; Policy Q9 in respect of alterations and extensions to residential properties; and Policy E22 preserving the Conservation Area.

 

The Solicitor - Planning and Development, Neil Carter explained that the development was not built in accordance with a permission that was already in place.  The application before Members was a retrospective application not for the works as carried out, rather for what would be retained, 20 centimetres higher than the permission already in place.  The Solicitor - Planning and Development added that if Members were minded to propose the refusal of this application then they would need to identify what harm would be caused by the proposals in the application, what it was that would be unacceptable when compared to the extant permission already in place.

 

Councillor B Moir noted that the original position had been agreed under delegated powers and from the comments made it appeared that the Committee did not accept the aluminium trim in principle and the objectors had noted that 3.5 metres in height was acceptable, with the proposal being 3.7 metres and therefore this was not acceptable in terms of Policy E6.

 

Councillor J Robinson noted the original permission was granted under delegated powers and the views of Members seemed to be such that it may be preferable to defer the application until the next Committee to see further details of the original application as he felt that there was insufficient information on that at present.

 

The Chairman noted if Members felt that there was a need to defer the application then it would need to be proposed and seconded.

 

Councillor P Conway noted that if Councillor J Robinson was proposing deferral he would second this and look to have an application back at a future Committee.

 

Councillor J Robinson moved that the application be deferred; he was seconded by Councillor P Conway.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be DEFERRED.