Agenda item

Demolition of existing building in association with the erection of two and three storey pitched roof building providing 10 no. apartments with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the demolition of existing building in association with the erection of two and three storey pitched roof building providing 10 no. apartments with associated access, parking and landscaping at Magdalene Heights, Gilesgate, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

Alan Dobie, Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.

Mr Stott, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the proposal.  Mr Stott informed the Committee that he lived in Magdalene Heights and he had concerns about land stability issues and parking issues which may arise from the proposed development.  A recent application to develop the former scrapyard site near to Magdalene Heights required an invasive land stability survey to be carried out, and the site for this proposed development was next to the former scrapyard site.  Mr Stott expressed concern that any drastic earthworks which may be needed could cause land stability problems.

Mr Stott informed the Committee that a boundary fence ran along his property and the proposed development site of the Magdalene Heights property and it was his responsibility to keep this boundary fence retained.  However the current fence was not suitable for the development plans for Magdalene Heights and Mr Stott asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of existing hedging.  Referring to car parking, Mr Stott informed the Committee that the proposed development only allowed for one car parking space per property and queried where any overspill car parking would occur.  The recent approval of development plans for the former scrapyard site did not include any provision for car parking, and Mr Stott queried where cars from this development might park.  The only vehicular egress from both the former scrapyard site and the proposed Magdalene Heights development would be downhill and up along Ashwood, and although this was a two lane road, it had a very sharp bend on it.  The same road was used by users of other nearby facilities such as Sea Cadets and Jehova’s Witnesses.  Mr Stott referred to drainage issues and informed the Committee that the proposed development would have a larger paved area and therefore greater run-off of surface water.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that some of the issues raised by Mr Stott were covered in the Committee report.  The current application had been considered within the context of the nearby student accommodation on the site of the former scrapyard being approved.  Referring to land stability, the Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that a comment on this was contained in the report at paragraph 93 with the site currently holding a dwelling without subsidence issues.  Stabilising the new proposal on the land would be a technical issue which would be dealt with under building regulations.  The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that issues of landscaping and fencing were dealt with under condition 5 of the planning permission.

John McGargill, Highway Development Manager informed the Committee that there was provision of one parking space per property at the proposed development.  The site was within the Durham City Controlled Parking Zone and therefore any parking over and above the one per property provision would need to take place outside of this Zone.  The proposed development would generate relatively low volumes of traffic, and the nearby student accommodation on the site of the former scrapyard had no parking provision and would therefore not generate any significant traffic.

Councillor Moir informed the Committee that Mr Stott had well-articulated the problem of this proposed development.  While the proposed development was within the Controlled Parking Zone this did not necessarily mean that the residents of the proposed development would not have more than one car, and together with the nearby approved student accommodation which had no parking provision, this would result in vehicles being parked as close as possible to the two developments.  This would result in current parking problems being exacerbated.  Traffic movement around this area was convoluted because while the proposed student accommodation could be accessed from the A690, access onto the A690 was not permitted.  This would result in traffic wishing to exit the student accommodation or this proposed development using Magdalene Heights and Ashwood, which were both small and narrow roads.  Councillor Moir referred to the topography pf the area, which led steeply down to the River Wear, and referred to a landslip which had occurred elsewhere on the banks of the River Wear.  He informed the Committee that he was uncomfortable to make any decision on this application because of the recent approval for the nearby student development and potential problems of land stability on the area.

Councillor Robinson referred to condition 5 of the planning permission and sought clarification on responsibilities for boundary fences.  The Principal Planning Officer replied that any damage caused to the existing boundary fences by the developer would need to be reinstated at the expense of the developer.  However, the legal responsibility for boundary fences was a private issue between property owners and not a planning issue.  Land stability matters were to be dealt with under building regulation control and not under planning matters.

Councillor Kay informed the Committee that the application had suitable parking provision and should be considered on its own merits.

Mrs Franks, applicant, informed the Committee that her mum currently lived in the property in Magdalene heights and intended to live in one of the new apartments once the development was completed.  The proposed apartments were being designed to be desirable for retired people and the provision of one parking space per unit would be more than adequate.

Moved by Councillor Clark, Seconded by Councillor Kay, and upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report.