Agenda item

Demolition of existing two storey end-terrace house and construction of two student flats.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the demolition of existing two storey end terrace house and construction of two student flats at 60B & C Claypath, Durham, DH1 1QS(for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal 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 R Ormerod, local Member, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Members were advised that 60C Claypath had been derelict for many years, while the other properties in the block were generally occupied by students. The amenity of nearby residents of Claypath and Hillcrest Mews, would be detrimentally affected should the application be approved, particularly in terms of loss of sunlight, which was contrary to saved Local Plan Policy H13. In addition, the overbearing nature of the proposed development was also considered unacceptable.

Councillor Ormerod advised that the proposed development was less than 14 metres from 59 Claypath and the bedrooms would look directly into the first floor.

Members were advised that the application contravened saved Policy H9 which stated that the subdivision of an existing property should not have an adverse effect on neighbouring residents.

Councillor Ormerod highlighted that many properties in that area of the city were let to students and with some 3000 student bed applications now approved, this far exceeded the predicted requirement from the University. Councillor Ormerod believed families were being excluded from the area and he feared that such parts of the city would become student dominant. There was a real need to encourage balanced communities.

In relation to bin storage, Councillor Ormerod advised that the proposals would result in a health hazard if unmanaged, as was the case elsewhere in the city.

Mr A Watson, representing the applicant, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the proposals were the result of extensive consultation dating as far back as 2008. Such consultation had involved the Highways Authority and the Council’s Conservation Officers. In presenting the application, Mr Watson advised that all comments relating to the position and appearance of the proposed development, had been accounted for.

Members were advised that student accommodation accounted for 39% of that area of the city and in relation to overlooking, Mr Watson advised that various changes had been made to the scheme to resolve any issues. The current application had only one bathroom window which would be on a level with surrounding properties, which would have obscured glazing.

Councillor D Freeman echoed the comments of Councillor Ormerod. In referring to the officers’ assertion that student presence in the city was moderate, he argued that 30% in the Claypath area and 65% in the surrounding area, was much more that moderate. He highlighted that an interim policy regarding student accommodation was currently being considered which spoke of levels of 10% per postcode area. Had the current application come forward at a future date when an interim policy was in place, then it would be refused on the grounds of exceeding the limit for the area. Councillor Freeman believed that the interim policy demonstrated that the current situation was not acceptable.

Members were advised that saved Policy H9 was particularly relevant as 39% and 65% were not acceptable levels and far exceeded what would be acceptable in a balanced community.

In relation to overlooking, Councillor Freeman suggested that the application failed to meet acceptable levels as the distance from the development to both 2 Hillcrest Mews and 59 Claypath, failed the recommended 21 metre separation distance.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

·    Overbearing development / Loss of Amenity – the Planning Authority accepted there were shortcomings in relation to separation distances, as detailed within the officer’s report. However Members were reminded that separation distances were merely guidelines, mainly to be taken into account for the development of schemes such as new estates. The site location was a tight area and so separation distances were less achievable;

·    Student Accommodation – The levels in the Claypath area were considered moderate, relative to the surrounding area, as detailed in paragraph 59 of the officer report. The site was an appropriate location for students as it was in close proximity to the city centre;

·    Gable End – A separation distance of 13 metres would have been expected, however 2 Hillcrest Mews was currently facing a rear wall with a gable effect. It could therefore be argued that the current situation had a worse impact than what was being proposed.

Councillor Lethbridge had found the current building to be an eyesore compared to the front area of Claypath and he was mindful that the Committee were not in a position to make judgements regarding student numbers. He felt the proposals would improve the building while providing a service, he therefore moved that the application be approved.

Councillor Kay seconded the motion to approve the application. He too had found the building to be untidy and noted that there were already HMO’s in the immediate vicinity. The proposals would be a vast improvement to the current building and issues regarding overbearing had been dealt with thoroughly within the officer report.

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