Agenda item

Detached two-storey dwelling in side garden of 4 Mayorswell Close.

                The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling in the side garden of 4 Mayorswell Close, Durham, DH1 1JU(for copy see file of Minutes).

                The Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

                Councillor D Freeman advised that as local Member for the area, he had been approached by local residents who had raised concerns regarding the application. Concerns had been expressed that the site was a very small area in which to develop and issues regarding highway implications were of particular concern. The property was to be built with 2 car parking spaces in mind, which would be difficult to access and as such would probably not end up being used.

                Councillor Freeman further highlighted that the applicant was uncertain as to the end use of the dwelling and residents had expressed concerns that 25% of Mayorswell Close were HMO’S. This was felt to be a high proportion when taking consideration of saved Local Plan Policy H9 and there were concerns that any more HMO’s in the street would contravene NPPF Part 50.

                As such Councillor Freeman requested that if the application was to be approved, then a clause be included to prevent the property from becoming a HMO.

                In response to the concerns raised by Councillor Freeman, the Planning Officer highlighted that condition 6 as detailed within the report, set the class use for the property as C3.

                Councillor Conway was pleased with the inclusion of condition no.6 and would have been in objection to the application without it. While he had sympathy with residents who were concerned about overdevelopment in that part of the city he felt that the proposed development could alleviate parking issues in the area and so on balance he supported the proposal and moved that the application be approved.

                Councillor Bleasdale was not supportive of the application and expressed concerns regarding the very small development site and potential issues with parked vehicles in the street.

                Councillor Lethbridge seconded the motion to approve the application. He highlighted that development in that area of the city was particularly mixed with a whole range of house styles and little uniformity. He therefore felt that the proposed dwelling would not be out of place.

                Councillor Bell also supported the application. While the recommended 21m separation distance would not be met in this instance, he acknowledged that this was merely a guideline.

Resolved: “That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report”.

Councillor A Laing left the meeting.