Agenda item

Conversion and extension of former Companions Club building to provide 9 no. residential flats, associated ancillary facilities and parking.

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting within the Durham (City Centre) Conservation Area.  The application was for conversion and extension of former Companions Club to provide building 9 no. residential flats, associated ancillary facilities and parking and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from the internal and statutory consultees, however, there had been objections from local residents, the City of Durham Trust, and a late representation had been received from the local MP, Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods in terms of strengthening conditions to prevent the property being let to students, to give an opportunity for permanent residents to live in the area. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the application represented redevelopment of a brownfield site, with a neutral impact on the conservation area.  It was added that there was an issue of some overbearing at the south side of the site, adjacent to No.5 Mowbray Street, however, there were examples of similar relationships with other buildings in the area and it was felt on balance that the impact on no.5 Mowbray Street did not outweigh the benefits brought by the application.  The Senior Planning Officer concluded by noting that Officers from the Highways Section were satisfied that there was sufficient parking and had raised no issues.

The Chairman asked the Local Member for Neville’s Cross, Councillor G Holland to speak in relation to the Application.

Councillor G Holland thanked the Chairman and addressed the Committee noting for clarity that developers had consulted with both of the Local Members, himself and Councillor N Martin, as well as the immediate residents before submitting their application.  Councillor G Holland explained that in principle they approved of the proposals and did not wish to stand in their way, adding that an unsightly corner of the city centre would benefit from being refreshed.  Councillor G Holland noted however that there were a few matters of concern that he wished to raise at Committee.  Councillor G Holland asked whether we could be sure that during the proposed construction, residents of Waddington Street, the Bowers, Kings Lodge Hotel and all adjacent the application site would not suffer the same sort of disruption that occurred when a nearby student hostel and Gentoo development were under construction 2 years ago, a nightmare for those that lived locally. 

Councillor G Holland referred Members to Condition 6 of the application and noted that the proposed development was classed as C3.  Councillor G Holland asked should the emerging Article 4 Directive not be put into effect, what would stop the development becoming a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) by stealth or by having the condition removed in a few years’ time.  Councillor G Holland noted that another item on the agenda referred to a proposal for a 2 bedroom property to be converted to a HMO and commented that such conversions and Members’ inability to stop them had bedevilled the city for far too long.    

Councillor G Holland added that there was local concern as regards the site being over-massed to the detriment of the adjacent properties, especially in Mowbray Street and Waddington Street.  It was added that the proximity of the building was also a concern though Councillor G Holland noted that J Levitas, a local resident, was also in attendance to speak and would no doubt discuss that matter in greater detail.  Councillor G Holland explained to the Committee that another important issue was that of the communal garden used by residents, and asked whether the garden could be protected or enhanced by the developers, working with residents. 

Councillor G Holland reiterated that developments such as this one, although welcome, must not be to the disadvantage of those who already live in the vicinity and enjoy its setting.

Councillor G Holland asked Members to consider an added dimension to the application that of the adjacent Elliot’s site.  It was noted that the Elliot’s site was not for determination by Committee at this meeting; however, Councillor G Holland noted the same developer intended to build further flats on the Elliot’s site and he believed that construction would be at the same time as the proposed development for the Durham Companions Club site.  Councillor G Holland noted that those Members that had been Councillors at the former City of Durham Council in 2004, including the Chairman of the Committee, would recall an application for the Elliot’s site that had looked to develop a large residential building for the use of care of disabled people in the community, with the outline of that proposed building having been included on one of the slides used by the Planning Officer in his presentation.  Councillor G Holland noted that in 2004, the City of Durham’s planning committee rejected the application for a care facility; however this was subsequently overturned on appeal in 2005.  Councillor G Holland noted that after a preliminary examination of the Elliot’s site by the developer, the project was abandoned as: the water saturated sands encountered posed a significant problem; and the social care market at that point no longer offered the same opportunities. 

Councillor G Holland noted that following the Appeal for the Elliot’s site, the developers were given 3 years to begin building works and as they did not, then presumably the permission would have lapsed in 2008.  Councillor G Holland added that as a consequence of the financial downturn in 2008 the then Government, and subsequent coalition Government, had allowed some flexibility on these deadlines, however an extension would require an application and Councillor G Holland was not aware of any such application having been made in respect of the Elliot’s site. 

Councillor G Holland explained that 3 years ago, Nick Boles, the Planning Minister closed the opportunity for such extensions and Councillor G Holland noted he had read the analysis by Eversheds; a similar analysis from BLP – Berwin Leighton Paisner; as well guidance from the Planning Inspectorate and from that information Councillor G Holland judged that the stalled permission for the Elliot’s site had long since failed the deadlines and was not extant.  Councillor G Holland noted that therefore, he felt that within the application being considered at Committee there was concealed a presumption of an extant permission for a simultaneous development on the Elliot’s site, rejected in 2004, albeit reversed in 2005.  Councillor G Holland noted that as the Committee was the consenting body, he did not think the two developments should be separated by this device.

Councillor G Holland noted that an additional problem, which was discovered by the original developers, was the water saturated sands that lie at the foot of Flass Vale.  Councillor G Holland explained that he thought that Members should be told about the impact of loading these sands with large compressive forces introduced by the proposed, but as yet unconsidered and maybe never to be considered building.  Councillor G Holland asked whether adjacent properties would be secured from flooding or permeating water damage, adding that the land in question was tricky and the potential for lateral damage, of which there was a history, must not be shrugged off.  Councillor G Holland asked what the relevant engineering geologists’ analysis would say and where was such analysis.  Councillor G Holland noted that he felt that the right place to consider the Elliot’s development was separately at this Committee, and not via the presumption of a supposed extant application from 12 years ago.

Councillor G Holland concluded by noting the recommendation within the report mentioned a s106 legal agreement and he and Councillor N Martin supported the suggestion made by the City of Durham Trust, to restore the narrow ancient Flass Lane with such monies, rather than being consumed in some general community pot.

The Chairman thanked the Local Member and introduced Ms J Levitas, a local resident, to speak in relation application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee. 

Ms J Levitas thanked the Chairman and addressed the Committee noting that development of the site itself was welcomed, the developers had consulted with residents as regards their proposals, and the demolition of the dilapidated garage was an appreciated act of good will on the part of the developer.  Ms J Levitas noted 3 issues in connection with the application, firstly that the high rear wall of the proposed development would be over 5 metres high and would be far too close to an adjoining property, namely No.5 Mowbray Street.  It was added that the Case Officer had stated that there were similar examples elsewhere in Durham; however, Ms J Levitas asked where these examples were within the city.  Ms J Levitas added that planning regulations were updated over time and felt that in this case the situation was such, with the loss of light and amenity, that if the application could not be refused then it should at least be amended to incorporate a design that was more suitable.

Ms J Levitas noted the second issue she wished to raise was that of the rear of the building.  Ms J Levitas noted that the report cited the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and that the site was within the Durham City Conservation Area.  Ms J Levitas explained that she felt that the design was not of the high standard as required by these policies and the use of the adjoining communal garden would be affected, with the proposed rear wall having the appearance “of a prison wall” being blank with no windows.  Ms J Levitas noted there had been a promise from the architects as regards a revised drawing for this; however, Ms J Levitas had not had sight of any such revision.

Ms J Levitas explained that this led on to the third issue, that of the shared communal garden.  Ms J Levitas noted she felt that as the area would be utilised during the construction, should the proposal be approved, and there would be damage such to effectively trash the garden.  Ms J Levitas noted that the developer had stated they would reinstate the garden subsequent to works being completed; however, Ms J Levitas asked whether this would mean the garden would be lost as an amenity for local residents for an extended period, approximately a year.  Ms J Levitas noted nothing within the application or planning law that would protect the garden or a requirement to reinstate once works were completed and asked whether there was a reliance on the good will of the developer to undertake such reinstatement.  Ms J Levitas noted that over several years she had spent time and money to maintain the communal garden for the benefit of local residents and felt the garden needed to be protected and respected.

Ms J Levitas concluded by reiterating the point made by Councillor G Holland as regards the extant permission for the adjacent site, adding that that particular site had been vacant for around 10-11 years.

The Chairman thanked the Ms J Levitas and introduced Mr D Smith, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee. 

Mr D Smith thanked the Committee and noted that the Planning Officer’s report showed that the submitted application was recommended for approval and was in compliance with planning legislation and policy.  Mr D Smith noted that the application was for Class C3, residential properties, adding that all could agree that there was a need for more private homes within the city.  Mr D Smith added that there was a condition within the application that prevented a change of use to Class C4, a HMO.  Mr D Smith explained that the demands of the local market were for 2 bedroom town houses, in line with the Gentoo development, and there had been amendments to the rear elevation following feedback from residents.  Mr D Smith added that as regards the roof line and the site being within a conservation area, Local Members had been consulted and the sympathetic design was in line with other properties as noted by Planning and Conservation Officers.  Mr D Smith noted that that the Elliot Yard site was a separate matter and was not required in terms of taking this application forward.  Mr D Smith added that he was surprised that this application was at Committee for determination as it was in line with planning policy and concluded by noting the demolition of the garage as a gesture of good will and that the application would bring a brownfield site back into use with 9 C3 residential properties.

The Chairman thanked the Speakers and asked the Senior Planning Officer to address the points made by the Speakers. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the concerns as regards disturbance during the construction period, with Condition 3 setting out the requirement for a Construction Management Plan, and Condition 8 setting out the hours when works could be undertaken, a standard condition for these types of works.  It was added that Condition 6 set out the position in terms of no change of use to a HMO, with any proposed change requiring a further planning application.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the Elliot’s Yard application was a separate application and that the elevation shown during the presentation included the elevation of the Elliot Yard application, as agreed by the Planning Inspectorate in 2005, for Members’ information.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development, Neil Carter noted the suggestion that the developer should make a financial contribution to improvements for Flass Lane and reminded Members that there a number of legal tests which must be satisfied before S106 money could be required in particular, it must be necessary to make the development acceptable.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development added that he could see no evidence as regards any impact the development would have on Flass Lane and therefore no connection in this regard.  In terms of the communal garden, there was nothing in planning law in terms of protections afforded; however, private law would cover the issue.

The Chairman asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor P Conway asked what the legal status was as regards the application for the Elliot’s Site as from the elevations seen today it appeared as if there would be contiguous run from that site into the former Companions Club site.  Councillor P Conway noted the concerns mentioned as regards massing at the rear of the development and asked whether it was possible to modify this design without internal adjustments to the development.  Councillor J Robinson noted that the developer had made a promise, at a public meeting, in terms of reinstatement of the communal garden however, asked whether there was any protection for the nearby Grade II listed Redhill’s Miners Hall, in terms of the vegetation described in the report as offering shield between the sites.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that while the current position in terms of the Elliot’s Site could not be confirmed at this time, the opinion of the Case Officer was that Elliot’s site did not impact upon the acceptability of the scheme as set out in the application being considered by the Committee.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of the Redhill’s Miners Hall, consultation with the Design and Conservation Officer had noted that it was not felt that the application would have an impact upon Redhill’s and that the trees and vegetation fell outside of this application site and therefore would not be affected.

Councillor B Moir noted at Paragraph 64 of the report it stated that the distance at the south east corner of the proposed building would only 5 metres away from No.5 Mowbray Street and asked what the usual recommended separation distance was for a development of this nature.  Councillor B Moir also asked to view the other elevations, the north and south faces for comparison.  The Senior Planning Officer noted those were not part of the slideshow presentation, however hardcopies were available for Members to view.  It was added that due to the nature of the design, the elevations “wrapped around the site” as the walls varied in angle.  The Senior Planning Officer added that should there be alterations to the rear elevation this would result in a loss of internal space.

Councillor J Clark explained that during the visit to the site the tranquillity of the communal garden was noted and the overall quality of the garden was very impressive.  Councillor J Clark asked whether there could there be assurances that the integrity of the site could be preserved in the context of deliveries of materials and works at the site.  Councillor J Clark noted that Paragraph 73 of the report stated that as there was less that 10 units being created there was no requirement in terms of contribution towards public art, however within the conditions as set out in the report stated that there would be a contribution via a s106 legal agreement and therefore asked which was correct.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of a s106 contribution, Paragraph 73 was correct and the addition of this within the recommendation was a typographical error.

Councillor M Davinson asked as regards car parking for an adjacent business, noted that the business had parking provision within their lease that could be affected by construction at this site. 

Councillor J Lethbridge noted that he had felt the communal garden was “an oasis of calm” when on site and noted this was to the credit of Ms J Levitas.  Councillor J Lethbridge added that this was in stark contrast to some fly-tipped materials behind the wooden frontage of the site and noted therefore development at the site would be welcomed.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted three points for consideration; what impact the water saturated sands may have; the need to balance the relatively close distance of the rear elevation to No.5 Mowbray Street against improvement to the site once completed; and due to the close proximity of Flass Vale, could the improvements as described by the City of Durham Trust and Councillor G Holland not be possible.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that of 10 parking pays, 4 were allocated for the nearby business and the Highways Section had been satisfied in this regard with the Construction Management Plan setting out how parking would be dealt with during construction.

Councillor K Dearden noted that as there were less than 10 units there was no requirement in terms of a s106 contribution, however, asked whether in the context of the adjacent Elliot’s site, was there scope to consider the total number of units in order to secure s106 monies. 

The Chairman noted it was laudable that Members of the Committee and Local Members would look for ways to secure contributions from developers for our communities; however, the application for consideration by the Committee was separate from the Elliot’s site.

Councillor P Conway noted he concurred with the comments of Councillor J Lethbridge and that on balance the application would improve the site, adding that having looked at the whole area in terms of this application including the Elliot’s site he felt somewhat uncomfortable in not being able to consider them together.

Councillor J Lethbridge moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor P Conway.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the

Officer’s report to the Committee and a correction to remove reference to a s106 contribution in terms of public art.