Agenda item

Partial demolition of existing building, refurbishment and change of use to form 1 no. flats for use as a House in Multiple occupation, associated landscaping and car park.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the partial demolition of existing building, refurbishment and change of use to form 1 no. flats for use as a House in Multiple Occupation, associated landscaping and car park at Neville’s Cross Club, Neville’s Cross Bank, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

Barry Gavillet, Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that a representation had been received from Councillor N Martin, local member, expressing his support for refusal of the application on the grounds stated in the report and also on the fact that there were more than enough student HMO premises in the Crossgate area to satisfy current and foreseeable demand.  The design of the premises was such to encroach on the amenity of the neighbouring Cross View House which had living space only 5 metres from living space in the premises with no obscured glass installed, against the Council policy on directly facing lived-in rooms.

Mr Doig, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  He referred to Policy 32 of the emerging County Durham Plan which stated that houses in multiple occupation and student accommodation would not be permitted where the site was located within 50 metres of a postcode area where more than 10% of the total number of properties were already used as licenced HMO’s or student accommodation and informed the Committee that the area had already reached a 20% student ratio which was an over-provision of student accommodation.  Currently, the first and second  floors of the property were being used for student accommodation, although there was a legal challenge to this.  Referring to Policies H9 and H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan, Mr Doig informed the Committee that the application would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity pf local residents.  The application estimated a 50% car ownership which was an underestimate and had no conditions attached regarding noise and smoking in the vicinity of the property.  The application was also contrary to Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan due to its proximity to Cross View House.

Environmental Health had significant concerns about the application and had objected to the proposals.  The application was also contrary to paragraph 123 of the NPPF which stated that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the application site did have a 25% proportion of HMO’s within 50 metres and the policy referred to by Mr Doig was a policy within the emerging County Durham Plan.  Referring to the proximity to Cross View House, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the windows in the application property were existing windows but were not in habitable rooms.  The usage of the upper floors at the property were not part of this application.

Councillor Moir informed the Committee that the report contained a well-crafted reason for refusal of the application and he Moved the recommendation contained in the report, adding that while the property was previously a drinking establishment, insufficient information had been provided by the applicant regarding noise and disturbance.

Councillor Conway Seconded approval of the recommendation.

Mr D Ridley, Planning Consultant, informed the Committee he had identified a possible problem for the Committee to deliberate the application.  Paragraph 62 of the Planning Officer’s report stated that no applicant’s statement had received, however, a statement had been submitted and was currently available on line.  Mr Ridley expressed concern that Members of the Committee had not seen this statement.

Claire Cuskin, Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee that as part of a planning application, the applicant had submitted a statement.  The reference within the report to the applicant’s statement was to a separate statement which had been requested from the applicant specifically for inclusion within the report and which had not been received.  This was not a matter to prevent the Committee making a determination on the application, unless the Committee considered differently.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reason detailed in the report.