Agenda item

Conversion of an Existing Cycle and Management Store into Studio Apartment and Associated Works.

Consideration was given to the report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion of an existing cycle and management store into studio apartment and associated works at Angerstein Court, Broomside Lane, Carrville (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor Conway addressed the Committee as local Member. He informed Members that at the time the first application had been submitted residents had expressed concern to him about the proposed development but was out of time to call it in to Committee. The Member submitted a letter of objection to the proposals, however it transpired that as some residents had not been consulted a further consultation exercise was carried out, at which time he requested that it be reported for consideration by the Committee. Paragraphs 37- 41 in the report addressed his concerns relating to the proposals which related to the inadequate size of the dwelling, the loss of an integrated cycle store and the loss of green space. He noted that Planning Officers considered that the development would be contrary to Policies Q8 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2014 and had recommended refusal of the application, and he hoped that the Committee would share his severe reservations about the proposals.

Councillor Conway left the meeting.    

Mr M Burnside, local resident addressed the Committee against the proposals and stated that he endorsed the views expressed by Councillor Conway. This was the third application submitted in relation to this site. The cycle store had been relocated to an area that was tucked in the corner of the car park and would not benefit from the casual observance of passers-by. Highways Officers had objected to the proposed site. The current facility was in a secure weatherproof location with room for cycle maintenance. The proposed site was external and next to motor vehicles which would be difficult to access, risking damage to both vehicles and cycles. He believed that this would discourage use. He also advised that there had been incidents of theft from motor vehicles in the car park.  

The proposals also involved the loss of the management store and therefore access to individual properties would be required to undertake any utilities works. M Burnside also expressed concern about the loss of a landscaped area. Green space was already limited and was fully utilised by residents.  The proposals were not in keeping with the existing development and at 15sqm the floor area would be considerably smaller than the existing apartments which had a floor space of at least 45sqm. The side window would only be 1.5m from the boundary fence which stood 1.8m high. The living space would only be served by one window as the larger window adjacent to the bed would not be easily accessed. Because of the layout furniture in the property would be limited and there would be a lack of privacy because of the position of the entrance into the apartment.  He also considered that there was a potential fire risk because of the proximity of bedding to kitchen appliances.

In conclusion M Burnside asked that the application be refused because of the lack of residential amenity and space, and because the apartment was of a wholly unsatisfactory standard which was out of character in scale and density.

Councillor Moir thanked the Planning Officer and objectors for their well-presented argument for refusal of the application. The proposals were clearly contrary to Planning Policy Q8 and H13 of the Local Plan and paragraphs 34 and 35 of the NPPF.

Councillor Moir moved and Councillor Davinson seconded that the application be refused.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.