Agenda item

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

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie 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).  Councillors were reminded that the application had been considered by Committee at its meeting held 8 November 2017, with Members having resolved to defer the application to allow for further discussions with the applicant and information to be brought back to Committee.

Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had previously visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for 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 had been brought to the Authority’s attention that the extension was: slightly taller than the permission; used slightly different windows; used a different roof lantern; and the brick type had not been formally approved as required by planning condition.  Accordingly, a retrospective application was required.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that the retrospective application had sought to mitigate the issues that had been identified, and referred Members to the Table on page 4 of the Committee Report which set out the differences between the approved scheme, the scheme as constructed and the amendments as proposed by the application being considered.  Members were informed that the approved height was 3.5m, with the actual height being 3.9m and the proposed scheme being 3.75m.  It was added that further to the last meeting of the Committee, the applicant had responded to Members’ concerns relating to the use of aluminium trim and had agreed to replace this element with coping stones to be more in keeping with the area.  Councillors noted that the roof lantern would be replaced by a roof light, and the Principal Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the applicant did have the fall-back position in terms of the approved scheme.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the proposed amendments were acceptable, with two windows rather than the French doors as set out in the approved scheme not being felt as making a material difference being largely screened by the yard walls.

 

It was noted that there were no objections from internal consultees and in addition to the 33 letters of objection from members of the public to the application considered in November, a further 12 objections had been received.  Members were reminded that 31 letters of support had been received in relation to the application, when considered in November.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that in terms of the impact of the scheme, there were no issues of overlooking other properties and with any impact upon the Conservation Area being the critical issue, though Members were reminded that there was an approved scheme in place for development within the Conservation Area.  It was added that through negotiation the application before Committee had a reduced height, roof lantern replaced with a roof light and coping stones to replace the aluminium trim.  The Principal Planning Officer held up a file folder which demonstrated the height difference of 25cm, being the difference between the approved scheme and the proposed scheme.

 

 

 

 

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that with the proposed changes Officers felt that the scheme was acceptable, and while there was no argument in terms of the scheme enhancing the Conservation Area, it was felt that it preserved the Conservation Area and therefore satisfied the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the saved City of Durham Local Plan.

 

The Principal Planning Officer concluded by reiterating that the recommendation was for approval, subject to the agreed alteration works being carried out within 3 months of the date of approval.   

 

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked a Local Member for Neville’s Cross, Councillor N Martin to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor N Martin thanked the Chairman and noted that he continued to object to the application.  Councillor N Martin noted that he felt that the application was not a retrospective application, but actually a new application.  It was added that he felt weight should be afforded to the fact that those people who had submitted letters of objection to the application were by and large residents local to the area, whereas by and large the supporters of the application were students. 

 

Councillor N Martin explained he felt that the application was not in accordance with saved Local Plan Policy E22 in respect of sensitive design and materials being used in the Conservation Area, and added that all applications for sites within a Conservation Area would require all materials to be agreed in advance with Planners and noted that in this case such agreement was not sought.  Councillor N Martin added that Officers had admitted that the wrong type of brick had been used and therefore he felt that this in fact worsened the Conservation Area and that other examples of the use of the wrong brick type in the area were immaterial.  Councillor N Martin asked that if the brick type was not an issue then why had it been mentioned that it was not the approved type, and added that this was not a trivial matter to gloss over.

 

Councillor N Martin added that planning conditions carry legal weight and added he did have sympathy with the reasons given as regards why the approved scheme had not been adhered to.

 

Councillor N Martin noted that both the City of Durham Council and Durham County Council had agreed to the Conservation Area and added there was no provision for a “part Conservation Area”, with Officers having gone to great lengths in creating the Conservation Area.

 

Councillor N Martin concluded by noting that he felt that the application should be refused on the basis that the application was contrary to saved Local Plan Policies E6 and E22, with the brickwork used not being of the correct type and the development not enhancing and preserving the Conservation Area.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor N Martinand asked the other Local Member for Neville’s Cross, Councillor G Holland to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that he felt the whole matter had been a compendium of errors from start to finish and the application provided no consolation for the Committee.

 

He added that the original proposal had little merit but was probably no worse than much of the third rate accretions that now abounded, with Officers having let it through on delegated powers. 

Councillor G Holland explained that as building began, things went wrong as the Architect’s design did not fit.  He added that so then they improvised, without permission, and when the local residents complained an Enforcement Officer arrived but did not successfully halt the building programme.  Councillor G Holland added that he felt that just in case the Enforcement Officer might have that in mind, the Developer hurriedly completed the improvised plans.

 

Councillor G Holland noted a few minor adjustments had been offered and felt that they were probably too little too late.  He referred to the Officer’s report which highlighted those adjustments in bold and summarised them in a table on page 4 of the agenda papers.  Councillor G Holland explained that there was a slight shrinkage in size, still above the original plans, the lantern goes to a roof light, but the fenestration remains uPVC, no longer acceptable under the Article 4 Directive and it never was in this Conservation Area.

 

The Chairman asked Officers at this point for clarification in terms of the Article 4 Directive and uPVC windows.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, N Carter noted that the Article 4 Direction was operated to withdraw  permitted development rights, and therefore did not have any bearing on what is or is not development requiring planning permission or on what materials are acceptable, .

 

Councillor G Holland quoted the Officer’s report at paragraph 30 where the installation of these UPVC windows was justified on the grounds that “the rear streetscape is awash with this modern material”.  Councillor G Holland added that he lived in the same Conservation Area and he certainly could not slap a uPVC window in his house, he could not even paint it without clearance from the Council. 

 

The Chairman noted he had not said that uPVC windows were allowed.

 

Councillor G Holland drew Members attention to the Design and Conservation comments in paragraph 29 of the Officer’s report: “The extension as built is of inferior design and quality compared to that originally approved”.   Councillor G Holland noted that therefore it failed the test of saved Local Plan Policies E6, E22, and Q9 and also failed the test of H9, not even mentioned in the Officer’s report.

 

Councillor G Holland asked, setting aside the scale and over massing which the Committee Members noticed on their site visit in September, why did the developer not stay with the design and quality that had been agreed. 

 

 

Councillor G Holland asked were they cutting costs or could they not source the appropriate materials.  He also asked whether inferior design and quality was acceptable in a Conservation Area, or was it acceptable simply because it was only going to house students.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that at the meeting in November he had argued that any decision on the proposed development had to be based on planning policies rather than sentiment or the feeling that this development was too minor to bother about. 

 

Councillor G Holland reiterated that he felt the application still clearly failed the test of Local Plan Policies E6, E22, Q9 and H9 and also failed the Government’s Directive in section 7, paragraph 64 of the NPPF.  Accordingly, Councillor G Holland asked the Committee to reject this retrospective application and seek a more suitable structure in its place.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor G Holland 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 further opportunity to speak on behalf of Roberta Blackman-Woods MP, who was unable to attend the meeting.  Mr N Rippin reminded Members 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 reiterated 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 Members in their statements.  Mr N Rippin explained that the MP had noted the amended application was still different than the scheme previously approved, with still a significant height difference and unsuitable materials being used in terms of uPVC and brick type.  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.  It was added that there had been an opportunity to address the issue of uPVC and this had been missed.  

 

Mr N Rippin added that it had been noted that of the 31 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 and no further letters in support had been received since re-consulting.  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, with an additional 12 objections since the last meeting, on top of the 33 previously received.  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 explained that the MP understood that change would happen and properties would need to be altered 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.

 

Ms S Wilkinson thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to speak again and noted the support of the Local MP in terms of refusing the application.  She added that she was heartened at the refusal at the last meeting considering this matter.

 

The Chairman noted for clarity that the Committee did not refuse the application at the November meeting, rather they had voted to defer the application.

 

Ms S Wilkinson reiterated her points made at the previous meeting, noting that the development was contrary to Policies E6 and E22 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan, not being in keeping with the Conservation Area.  It was added that the amended application was still higher than the approved height, at 3.75m, virtually 4m, and over 0.5m taller than the old wall.  It was noted that the report stated 3.75m with 5cm coping stones, making an 80cm height difference in comparison to the old wall.

 

Ms S Wilkinson added that NPPF Part 7 referred to “good design” and that the Design and Conservation Officer in his report stated the extension as built was “of an inferior design and quality compared to that originally approved”.  Ms S Wilkinson noted that the scheme still lacked a stepping of the wall, though the report referred to the positive use of the coping stones in the design.

 

Ms S Wilkinson noted that those local residents that had objected used this back street and were those in receipt of the Article 4 Direction, and it was reiterated that the brick type used was of the wrong colour.

 

It was added that the use of uPVC meant the application failed a test of saved Policy E6 with there being a detrimental impact upon visual amenity.  Ms S Wilkinson noted that the flat roof would still be visible and would not be hidden by the wall, the back wall was 30cm taller that the approved scheme.  Ms S Wilkinson added that the Committee should seek to have reclaimed stone used in the design.  It was added that it was felt that the proposal was contrary to saved Policy E22, being detrimental to Conservation Area, and that this was consistent with the NPPF in terms of protecting or enhancing Conservation Areas through high quality and appropriate design.

 

Ms S Wilkinson noted that the applicant had failed to adhere to the approved plans and had then had to seek advice from the Planning Department, however, if the retrospective application was approved how confident could one be that the work would be carried out.  Ms S Wilkinson concluded by asking that the Committee refuse the application as it was contrary to saved Policies E6, E22, H9, Q1 and Q9 as well as being contrary to the NPPF.

 

The Chairman thanked Ms S Wilkinson and asked the Principal Planning Officer to address the points raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that in reference to the comments from Councillor N Martin, Officers had not approved the use of the brick type; rather the type was not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the street scene and was of an appropriate quality, though it was acknowledged that there may have been more appropriate options.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that saved Policy E22 stated to “preserve or enhance” and therefore it was sufficient to preserve the Conservation Area and while objectors noted they feel that the application was not in line with policies, Officers contend that the scheme was in accordance with policies.

 

As regards the use of uPVC the Principal Planning Officer noted that a quote from the Design and Conservation Officer had been used to say it was inappropriate, and of inferior design, however the Officer then did continue in his statement by noting that the amendments in terms of height, and use of coping stones as a parapet, were better.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the original structure had uPVC windows and that the previously approved scheme contained uPVC windows.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the Design and Conservation Officer had not felt the proposed scheme would be a detriment to the Conservation Area.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the comments in terms of Durham City tourism and the context of the World Heritage Site and added that while this was the case, the application area was a back street, not a prominent site itself and not widely used by tourists.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the use of windows rather than bi-fold doors was different, however not necessarily a detriment, and accordingly for the reasons stated in the report the Officers’ recommendation was for approval.

 

Councillor N Martin noted that paragraph 20 of the Officer’s report stated Policy E22 read “preserve and enhance”.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that this was a typographical error in the report and that it should read “preserve or enhance”, as also set out in the statutory test within the Listed Building Act.  Members were advised that weight could be afforded to the condition as set out in the report in terms of the alteration works being carried out within 3 months of the date of approval, should they wish to approve the scheme.

 

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and the Solicitor – Planning and Development and asked Ms J Atkinson to speak in support of the application.

 

Ms J Atkinson thanked Members for the opportunity to speak again at Committee and added that there had appeared to have been some confusion at the November meeting as regards the application and therefore discussions took place with the Planning Department in terms of the issues raised at the November meeting.  Those included: the difference in the brick height; 2 windows rather than bi-fold doors; roof light rather than a lantern; and the use of aluminium trim. 

It was explained that further to Members’ comments as regards the aluminium trim, this had been dropped in favour of use of coping stones, advice having been sought from Officers on this issue.

 

Ms J Atkinson added the policies were open to some interpretation; however, the opinion of Officers was that the application was acceptable.  Ms J Atkinson noted that she felt she and her son had been portrayed as people who “couldn’t be bothered about planning regulations” and in fact this could not be further from the truth.  Ms J Atkinson asked the Committee to ignore false statements and to approve the application.

 

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

 

Councillor D Freeman noted that he felt if the original approved scheme had come to Committee that it likely would have not been approved, however it had been approved under delegated powers.  Councillor D Freeman noted that the wall was too high; the brickwork could’ve been significantly better, however it was a case of having the works done as previously approved, or as they were now proposed.  Councillor D Freeman noted a minor point in terms of the works being completed within 3 months, if approved, and with the property being occupied by students, would this impact upon them with the usual time for works to such properties being over the summer.

 

Councillor P Conway noted he thought, like Councillor D Freeman, that if the original application had been considered by Committee it likely would not have been approved.  He added that there was an approved scheme already in place and that it was unfortunate that previous application had not been brought forward to Committee by the Local Members.  Councillor P Conway reiterated that the issue was that of the proposed scheme being considered against the approved scheme and noted that they were not significantly different.  Councillor P Conway added he was interested in the comments and debate as regards the brickwork and asked if a slide could be displayed which showed the brickwork.  Councillor P Conway noted that he could appreciate that the brickwork was not in keeping, however, he felt the stepped feature of the wall was attractive.  He added that should this application be refused and the approved scheme was constructed then it would not be much different than the proposed scheme and the brickwork would be the same.  Councillor P Conway noted he did not know what could be done, with the application being retrospective, and that it was unfortunate that the issues in terms of site levels had not been raised at the time.

 

Councillor B Moir noted that the slide offered clarity of vision as he could see several types of brick having been used in properties, and also several types of windows.  He added that the streets were not uniform and it was a back street, however, it was in the Conservation Area.  Councillor B Moir noted the process had been akin to the “peregrinations of Kissinger” and concluded by noting that he felt confident in the Council’s Conservation Officer and therefore supported and moved that the application be approved.  

 

Councillor J Lethbridge noted that he supported the comments of Councillor B Moir and comments from others that the issue was a “back lane scenario”.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted that he had listened to the discussions on the brickwork and felt that given a few years’ time, weathering would act to reduce the newness of the brickwork.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted he was happy to second the proposal for approval.

 

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor J Lethbridge.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition set out in the report.