Agenda item

Redevelopment of Nevilles Cross Social Club to provide student accommodation.

 

The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the redevelopment of Nevilles Cross Social Club to provide student accommodation at Nevilles Cross Club, Nevilles Cross Bank, Durham, DH1 4PJ (for copy see file of minutes).

 

Members had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location.

 

The Area Team Leader gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members were advised that since preparation of the report a petition of 51 signatures had been received in objection to the proposals. In addition 2 further letters had been received stating their disappointment with the committee report and its content.

 

Councillor N Martin, local Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that while he accepted that the site did require sustainable redevelopment, the application before Members would not be sustainable in the long run.

 

Members were advised that the periphery of the City already had a high population of students and in the direct locality of the application site, 20% of George Street was occupied by students, with many more in the nearby St Johns Road. The current application would serve to treble the number of students in the area.

 

Councillor Martin suggested that the application went against Policy 32 of the emerging Local Plan which placed a 10% limit on HMO’s in any one postcode area.

 

Although the applicant asserted that the property would be for post graduates only, Councillor Martin highlighted that there was no evidence that such accommodation was sustained anywhere else in the City. He believed that in time, the property would be let to undergraduates in order for the developer to generate an income.

 

Members were advised that there were currently some 400 untaken student beds across the City for the forthcoming academic year and he believed that landlords would not hold properties for the possibility of accommodating post graduate students.

 

Councillor Martin expressed concerns that the applicant had not supplied a management statement. The proposal was to manage the development as three separate dwellings, yet Councillor Martin felt this was unrealistic and was something which the applicant had no previous experience of managing. In referring to the applicants statement, Councillor Martin highlighted that to say CCTV and warden control may be included, was not acceptable. Should the application be approved without Members having the opportunity to view a management plan, the developer would be at liberty to change the way they proposed to manage the scheme. Councillor Martin felt that the Committee should be able to accurately judge how the scheme would work before making a decision. He further suggested that the final management plan could be so weak that the police may regularly be called to the development to maintain order.

 

Councillor Martin felt that the separation distance of 5.1m between the development and the adjacent Crossview House, was too close. The Committee advised that approximately 6 years earlier the upper storey of the site had been a music school which then went through a change of use without planning permission. Bedrooms had been established and as such the recommended separation distance was not being satisfied.

 

In relation to the habitability of the corridors, Councillor Martin advised that residents in the new development would be using the corridor at all times, day and night, which would therefore impact on the privacy of the neighbouring accommodation.

 

Members were advised that the applicant had not been forthcoming with a S106 proposal yet the impact of the development on the surrounding area would be immense. Councillor Martin advised that the roads surrounding the application site were in very poor condition, however the applicant had not offered to improve them.

 

In relation to parking, Councillor Martin queried the comparative evidence from Sheffield University which had been used to calculate the parking spaces which would be required at the site.

 

Members were advised that the applicant had already commenced with work to the site without any consultation with or regard for, neighbouring residents.

 

Councillor Martin advised that although the site was previously a social club, its members had steadily decreased over time and it had not been greatly used. He therefore felt that it was not acceptable to compare the impact which the social club had on the local area with the impact that students would have.

 

In concluding, Councillor Martin called for the application to be refused on the following grounds:-

 

• That it contradicted saved policy H16
• That it conflicted with Policy 32 of the emerging local plan
• That changes to the existing plan conflicted with recommended separation distances
• That the absence of a management plan undermined the sustainability criteria of the NPPF
• That the applicant was making no contribution to the infrastructure of the surrounding area and that the proposed development failed to enhance the surrounding area

 

Mr A Doig, representing George Street and St Johns Road Residents and the Crossgate Community Partnership, addressed the Committee, speaking in objection to the application. Members were advised that he spoke on behalf of groups who represented a long established residential community within a conservation area. Mr Doig advised that the community within that area was a typical reflection of the community type referred to in paragraph 50 of the NPPF, an area which already had a mix of students.

 

Members were advised that as all rooms within the proposed development would hold double beds, then 66 more students would be brought to the area, altering the student/residential balance to 55/45, thus contravening part 58 of the NPPF.

 

Mr Doig advised that the scale of development was unacceptable and the absence of a statement of community involvement also contravened planning policy. From a residents point of view Mr Doig suggested that the planning report was not balanced, failed to provide an opportunity for residents to provide contradictory evidence and was biased.

 

Members were advised that the applicant had already had 3 months in which to bring forward a management plan and that accommodation for next year was already being advertised, Mr Doig therefore doubted that any management plan would be submitted.

 

Mr Doig believed the application failed to meet the development needs of the area and that it was contrary to Policy 32 of the emerging local plan. Furthermore he advised that the development undermined several parts of the NPPF in that it would undermine the quality of life for the local population and would do nothing to enhance the local area.

 

The Area Team Leader responded to the points raised as follows:-

• Management Plan - It was suggested that should Members be minded to approve the application, a condition could be added to the permission requiring that a management plan was submitted, the contents of which would need to be discussed and agreed with officers. Between the developer and officers, decisions would therefore be made as to what would be appropriate within a management plan and the Planning Authority in turn, would liaise with Environmental Health.
• Window Distance – The corridor window which had been inserted approximately 6 years earlier, was lawful
• Policy 32 – Members were reminded that while Policy 32 was included in the emerging local plan, it should be given limited weight at the present time
• Statement of Community Involvement – Members were advised that a statement of community involvement was not a requirement and the Planning Authority was not able to insist on one from an applicant
• Development Need – Members were advised that an applicant was not required to demonstrate that there was need for a development within any given area.

 

The Solicitor took the opportunity to address several issues with the Committee as follows:-

 

• Attention was drawn to condition 8 as detailed within the report. Members were advised that this condition required the future submission of a management plan before any development was commenced. The Solicitor advised that there was nothing within that condition which couldn’t be enforced or which was too imprecise and the condition was perfectly lawful.
• S106 – The Solicitor clarified the circumstances when a Planning Authority could demand S106 works/contributions from a developer and advised that in this particular case, a S106 Obligation was not considered necessary to make the development acceptable.
• Balanced Report – Further to the assertion from Mr Doig that the officers report was unbalanced in that those opposing the application had not been adequately represented within it, the Solicitor highlighted that there were clear sections within the report which set out the views of objecting parties
• Policy 32 – Members were reminded that Policy 32 was an emerging policy and as such any weight given to it at the present time must be limited. He confirmed that whilst the main thrust of Policy 32 was for changes of use from class C3, and the development site did not class as a C3 property, there was a part of Policy 32 which could be applied tonew build propertiessuch as the current proposal.

 

Mr G Hodgson, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. Mr Hodgson provided Members with an overview of the plans for the development.

 

The application had received positive comments from the Design and Conservation Officer, it accorded with both local and national planning policy and highways policy and no objections had been made by any of the statutory consultees.

 

Mr Hodgson acknowledged the objections and concerns raised by local residents, but advised the Committee that all the objections raised had been tested against planning policy.

 

Members were advised that the applicant had attempted to engage with the local residents group while the initial maintenance work was being undertaken to the site, however all attempts had been rejected.

 

Mr Hodgson assured Members that the development would be facilitated by a fully staffed management team as was the case elsewhere in the city.

 

Councillor G Holland stated that there were already more student properties within the city than were needed, with approximately 83 beds unoccupied in the city centre according to information from letting agents. In addition to those vacancies there were already several further student accommodation schemes that were in the process of being delivered.

 

Should the current application be approved, Councillor Holland suggested that the local area in the vicinity of the site would then be home to some 800 residents and other developments would add another 1000 people into the area.

 

Councillor Holland suggested that the University was not in control of all the student accommodation across the city and as such the city was becoming undermined by developers with an uncontrolled approach. While he acknowledged that the site should be developed, Councillor Holland would prefer to see a sensitive redevelopment and he felt the current proposal would add nothing to the local area.

 

Members were advised that an experienced former senior planning officer had commented on the application. That officer had noted a lack of HMO Policy and as such found that the application contravened several sections of the NPPF. In addition, that former officer had cited further issues with the application including a failure by the applicant to engage with the public, issues with the parking plans and several highways issues.

 

Councillor Holland advised that on the site visit the previous day he had noted the  new fenestration which directly overlooked the neighbouring property and he suggested this was a contravention of Policy H9.

 

Councillor Holland expressed concerns about the assertion from the applicant that the accommodation would be exclusively post graduate, he felt there was no evidence to prove that would be the case. He found that overall, the application failed part 123 and part 157 tests of the NPPF, contradicted Policy 32 of the emerging local plan and contravened saved policies H9 and H16.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Conway, the Area Team Leader clarified that the rooms would accommodate double beds.

 

Councillor Conway expressed concerns regarding the absence of a management plan. He understood the applicant was already a student landlord and so should have had a management plan at his disposal to submit with the application. Furthermore Councillor Conway was concerned that when a management was submitted, it would not be available for Members to comment on.

 

While accepting that the site was in need of regeneration, Councillor Conway recalled that the site had once been a thriving social club, however that was now a thing of the past and there had been no noise or disruption from the property for some years.

 

Councillor Conway felt that the application highlighted issues with the Councils development plan through to 2030 given that the University had only provided student population projections to 2020. He felt that the Committee could not be expected to forward plan student accommodation without those projections and suggested that in order to do so there would need to be realistic and transparent discussions as to the future students in the city, otherwise the situation would occur where there would be discord between residents and students. As such Councillor Conway felt that the application should be refused.

 

Councillor Kay noted that on one hand the sustainability test was the main reason for the objections to the application and that the proposals was deemed not to be sustainable due to lack of demand within the city for student accommodation. However he also noted that objections were also being put forward on the grounds that if more students were accommodated then the city would become overrun. Councillor Kay acknowledged that should the proposal become a successful student let there would be a high volume of students in that one area of the city. In response to a query, the Highways Officer advised Councillor Kay that in relation to transport links to the University, the site was within a very sustainable location.

 

For the benefit of the Committee the Area Team Leader advised that in order to alleviate concerns regarding the corridor windows, should Members be minded to approve the application, a condition could be imposed to require obscured glazing in those windows.

 

In response to the comments from Councillor Conway regarding the management plan, the Area Team Leader clarified that while the applicant was a student landlord elsewhere in the city, his other schemes were on smaller scales and so management plans for those schemes would not apply to the current application.

 

Mr G Hodgson advised that until that day a management plan had not been requested from the applicant.  Members were also advised that the applicant had a large scheme at North Road and he had already embarked on discussions with a management company.

 

Seconded by Councillor Bell, Councillor Holland moved that the application be refused.

 

In response to a query from Councillor J Clark, Mr G Hodgson clarified that times detailed within condition 6 of the report could be changed so that work on site would start later than 7:30am.

 

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:-

 

Resolved: That the application be Refused for the following reasons:-

 

·         The absence of a management plan

·         The application contravened emerging policy 32 albeit this was an emerging policy that could be afforded limited weight.

·         The application did not meet the requirements of saved policies H9 & H16

·         The application contravened paragraphs 14 / 17 / 56 / 58 / 123 / 158 of the NPPF