Agenda item

Demolition of existing semi-detached dwelling and erection of 2 new dwellings.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East), Sarah Eldridge 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.  The application was for the demolition of existing semi-detached dwelling and erection of 2 new dwellings and was recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

 

Members noted that the application represented the effective demolition of half of the existing dwelling and an extension to create 2 separate dwellings, resulting in a 3 property terrace.  Members noted photographs showing a single storey extension to the rear of the neighbouring dwelling, and recalled this from the site visit earlier, with the proposed plans and elevations for the 2 new dwellings showing a 2 storey extension to the rear of the proposed properties.  The Planning Team Leader added that the churchyard wall would be retained and that parking access would be gained via the rear of the property.  The Planning Team Leader noted the report referred to any issues of obstruction as being a Police matter, however, it had been pointed out that as the access was private, such issues would be a civil matter.

 

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from the statutory or internal consultees on the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report.  Members noted 3 letters of objection from residents and that both Local Councillors were in attendance to speak on the application.  Members noted a summary of the objectors’ comments was contained within the report.

 

The Planning Team Leader noted that the application was acceptable in principle and also acceptable in terms of residential and visual amenity and highway safety.  The Committee noted that the parking and access issues were considered acceptable by the Highways Team and that it was felt the proposals were suitable and had a neutral impact in terms of the conservation area and ecology.  The Planning Team Leader concluded by noting Officers felt the application was in line with saved City of Durham Local Plan (CDLP) policies and the NPPF and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

 

The Chairman noted both Local Members for Neville’s Cross were in attendance and asked Councillor G Holland to speak first in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that he and Councillor N Martin had asked that the application be brought to Committee because they were concerned about the adverse and potentially serious impact that this proposed development would have on the immediate neighbours.  Their home, at the moment, was firmly anchored in the form of a semi-detached relationship to the other half owned by the proposed developer.

 

Councillor G Holland noted he would not go into the motives of this intended development but observed that, in his long experience he had never encountered a proposal like this before.

 

Councillor Holland noted that the NPPF was an overarching and general document that cannot be site specific in the way that was needed in this case.  It was added that the rather peremptory reference to the NPPF in the Officer’s report only pays casual attention to the NPPF merely looking at parts 4, 7 and 12 in a general sense and Councillor G Holland noted he felt they could not be used to justify this proposed development.

 

In the absence of the County Plan, Councillor G Holland noted that Planning Committees must rest any decision on the City of Durham Local Plan whose policies have been saved.  It was noted that within the report, the Officer cited a handful of local plan policies to help sustain the recommendation for approval.  Councillor G Holland explained that he wished to look at these and other policies in greater depth as he felt they would guide Members to an opposite conclusion.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that Policy E22 required development to preserve and enhance the appearance of the conservation area.  Councillor G Holland felt the proposed development would not do that and added that by breaking in half and restructuring a long established building it could be said to detract from this well established and harmonious setting adjacent to an important Grade II listed Church.  Accordingly, Councillor G Holland suggested that E22 surely guided Members against the proposed development.

Councillor G Holland reminded Members that Policy H2 considers windfall development, although on this occasion it was windfall achieved by demolition of part of a perfectly sound building.  Councillor G Holland noted that Policy H2 did not condone or support this activity and should not be used for this purpose.

 

Councillor G Holland referred Members to the Officers report and noted the omission of reference to Policies H10 and H13.  Members were reminded that Policy H10 addressed backland and tandem development, which Councillor G Holland felt this application was, in an opportunist way.  Councillor G Holland explained that constraints were introduced in this policy, namely that:

 

·       A safe and satisfactory access and adequate parking can be provided in accord with policy T10.

 

·       The amenities of both the new and the existing dwellings are not adversely affected.  The adverse impact to be described by the residents.

 

·       It is in keeping with the character, density and scale of the surrounding or adjacent development. 

 

Councillor G Holland noted he did not think the application was in keeping with the character, density and scale of the surrounding or adjacent development because he felt the application was a perverse piece of opportunism in a closely knit and balanced environment.

 

Councillor G Holland explained that Policy H13 followed a similar line stating that planning permission would not be granted for new development if it has a significant adverse impact on the amenities of residents within the immediate area.  Councillor G Holland noted he would allow the resident who was in attendance to explain why the impact was adverse.  Councillor G Holland added that Policy T10 addressed vehicle parking off the public highway and noted that parking had to be sustainable and accessible.  It was noted this was another issue that the local resident would be best placed to explain.

 

Councillor G Holland noted Policies Q8 and Q9 were concerned with the quality of buildings and their surrounds.  Councillor G Holland noted Policy Q8, which was omitted from the Officer’s report, requires new development to provide adequate amenity and privacy and minimise the impact of the proposal upon the occupants of existing nearby and adjacent properties.  Councillor G Holland noted he believed that the proposed development failed to achieve that target, with the local resident being better placed to explain this.  Councillor G Holland explained Policy Q9 considered the impact of proposed alterations and extensions to residential property and placed constraints on such developments.  It was noted that this requires that any alteration or extension respects the privacy of adjoining property owners.  Councillor G Holland felt the proposed development certainly had no respect for its immediate residents.

 

Councillor G Holland noted Policy U13 related to development on unstable land and added he had been told this site was on unstable land. 

Councillor G Holland noted the site’s proximity to the former Aykley Heads coal workings which were immediately below this area.  Councillor G Holland noted that he did not think you could take a risk in this regard without a very detailed engineering examination.  It was added that Paragraph 121 of the NPPF was very specific in this regards and Councillor G Holland felt it must be weighed in the balance.

 

Councillor G Holland felt that there was a very important principle here that should be sustained.  Councillor G Holland questioned whether a developer could come along, buy half of a house, knock it down, build 2 speculative houses in its place and ignore the wellbeing and future security of the residents in the other half of the building and those in the adjacent properties?  Councillor G Holland noted he hoped Members of the Committee believed, like him, that this should not be allowed to happen.

 

Councillor G Holland noted that should Members of the Committee need appropriate planning policies to sustain such a decision to reject the application then he would suggest that Members rely on the saved policies of the City of Durham Local Plan: E22; H2; H10; H13; T10; Q8; Q9; and U13 together with Paragraph 121 of the NPPF.

 

Councillor G Holland concluded by stressing that above all, he asked that Members of the Committee to protect the welfare and future of the residents whose house forms half of the property in question.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor G Holland and asked Councillor N Martin to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor N Martin asked if the Officer could bring up the relevant slide from the presentation which showed the proposed parking arrangements.  Councillor N Martin referred to the slide and explained that, as Members saw on the visit to the site earlier, the access to the rear of the properties was via a very narrow lane and that as another property had already created a fenced off parking area, the access into the proposed parking area would be very narrow, would be in conflict with the neighbours’ hedge and would not leave a gap to allow more than one car to access at a time.  Councillor N Martin added that on the basis that he could not see how it would be possible to manoeuvre into the proposed spaces, an approval of this application would undermine the residential amenity of all existing residents and present problems for future residents.  Councillor N Martin reminded the Committee that as the properties would effectively be new buildings, they would not be eligible for permits for the controlled parking area to the front of the properties.

 

Councillor N Martin added that when looking at the proposed design and layout within the detailed plans, the rooms sizes were “very cosy indeed”, with the main bedroom only being large enough to fit a double bed, with no room for a wardrobe.  Councillor N Martin wondered if there was a subtext in terms of this application and questioned who these properties were aimed at, families or students.  Councillor N Martin suggested that should Members be minded to approve the application then it may be appropriate to include a condition restricting use to Class C3, and excluding Class C4 for use as a house of multiple occupation.

The Chairman thanked Councillor N Martin and introduced Mr P Donald, the neighbouring resident, to speak in relation application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee. 

 

Mr P Donald explained that he moved into 3 St. Leonards in May 2012 and the residents of 1 and 2 St. Leonards and resided in those properties for over 50 years.  Mr P Donald explained that the unknowns in terms of the proposed demolition filled him with dread and the works would represent a huge disruption to his life, with the proposed extension leading to a loss of light and likely devaluation of his property.  Mr P Donald noted he and his partner worked from home and the disruption would negatively impact upon their business.  Mr P Donald explained he thought it was staggering that such an application within a Conservation Area was recommended for approval and that the proposal sought to replaced a house with a “sardine tin” and represented a cramped spectacle next to a Grade 2 heritage church. 

Mr P Donald reiterated the comments of the Local Member in terms of the parking issues, explaining that the residents of 1 and 2 St Leonards had maintained the access to the rear of the properties for the last 30 years.  Mr P Donald added that he did not see the need for parking at the rear in addition to parking already available at the front.

 

Mr P Donald noted his concerns as 3 and 4 St. Leonards shared a chimney that there was potential for damage to occur during works.  Mr P Donald  explained that when he sought planning permission for the extension to the side of his property  there had been no objections and suggested that this type of extension was appropriate, rather than redevelopment of the property.  Mr P Donald noted that he would feel betrayed in the application was approved.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr P Donald and asked Mr J White, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee.

 

Mr J White noted the application was for 2, 3 bed dwellings on the site, modest properties, starter homes most likely, and that in terms of design, details had been retained, such as the fenestration to keep the design in line with the existing properties.  Mr J White explained that he noted the concerns of the neighbour in terms of structural integrity, however, the acts quoted within the objectors’ comments in the report, such as the Party Wall Act, together with Building Control Regulations would protect his interests.

 

Mr J White noted that Officers had agreed that the application was in line with saved policies and the NPPF, with a sympathetic design incorporating its own private amenity space.  It was added that the proposals had been considered of neutral impact to the conservation Area and acceptable in terms of scale and massing.  It was added that there was other legislation in place to protect against ex-mining issues and that there were conditions as set out in the report in relation to surveys.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr J White and asked the Planning Team Leader to provide further information on the issues raised.

 

The Planning Team Leader noted that in terms of the Conservation Area, there was a duty to “preserve or enhance” and it was felt the proposal preserved the Conservation Area.  In relation to the coal mining issues, the Coal Authority identified the area as being “low risk” and therefore there would be an informative on the consent, should it be granted, to remind the applicant of their obligations in this regard.  In terms of the issue of the properties being used as houses in multiple occupation, then Members could include a condition to limit the properties to C3 use only, noting that the Article 4 Direction would come into effect from September 2016.  It was added that issues in terms of the party wall would be a civil matter.

 

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

 

Councillor M Davinson noted he did not see any mention of a CMP within the conditions and added that he felt that in most circumstances it would be appropriate to have such a condition.

  

Councillor M Davinson added he was interested that the agent for the applicant had not mentioned how people would get in and out of the car parking spaces to the rear of the property and asked if the Highways Officer had any comments on the issue.  Councillor M Davinson asked if the access to the rear of the properties was un-adopted, who owned the access, and therefore would permission need to be sought to gain access along this route.

 

The Chairman noted the point as regards a CMP.  The Solicitor - Planning and Development asked if it was clear whether the access road was adopted highway or in private ownership.  The Planning Team Leader noted that the access was not adopted highway and was a private way used by the properties.  Mr P Donald explained that he had been led to believe the access was over Council owned land and that while the Authority owned the land it would not maintain it, with the longstanding residents of St. Leonards having maintained the access.  The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that issues in connection with those access arrangements would be for private law to address.

 

Councillor P Conway noted that he had listened very carefully to the speakers and having looked at the site a week ago he could only describe the proposed properties as being “bijou”.  Councillor P Conway added that he had been convinced by Councillor G Holland’s forensic analysis and accordingly felt that he could not support this application and moved that the application be refused in respect of NPPF Paragraph 121 and saved CDLP policies E22, H 2, H10, H13, Q8, Q9 and possibly T10.  Councillor P Conway noted that he did not feel, given the Coal Authority stating a low risk, that he could support using saved policy U13 as a reason for refusal.

 

The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that Members would need to state why the application was contrary to policies and/or would present an adverse effect.

 

 

 

Councillor A Hopgood noted she felt this was overdevelopment in the extreme and questioned what the cost of “starter homes” would be in this particular location within Durham City.  Councillor A Hopgood added that there was also the issue in respect of parking and that the controlled parking zone to the front of the properties. 

 

Councillor K Dearden added that she would add to the comments of Councillor N Martin in respect of potential student use, stating that she felt the proposed properties would in fact be far too small for student use.

  

The Highways Development Manager noted for clarification that it was correct that as the proposals constituted new properties, then permits would not be issued for use in the controlled parking zone.  It was added that the development is in a sustainable transport location with bus and rail links close to hand and therefore no need to provide parking off street.

 

Councillor C Kay asked if it was known when the properties were built, with Councillor G Holland noting he believed they were built around 1924-25. 

Councillor C Kay added that having sat on Planning Committees for many years he had not seen an application like this.  Councillor C Kay noted he could not see how the proposal would sit right with the other properties and could not see how the proposal would not have a significant effect on 3 St. Leonards.

 

Councillor C Kay added that he was concerned that the development did not have a neutral effect on the Conservation Area and believed that there would be significant loss of amenity for the immediate neighbour.  Councillor C Kay noted that accordingly he could not support the recommendation for approval.

 

Councillor J Lethbridge noted with incredulity as regards the list of concerns over this application, with so many worries that existed.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted the comments from Officers in terms of unstable land, however, a look over at the nearby church where you could see many lines of cement on the walls was an indication that the may be an issue.  As regard the parking situation, Councillor J Lethbridge explained that it was “the theatre of the absurd” in trying to imagine being able to get cars in and out of the rear garden via the access available.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted he could not support the recommendation for approval.

 

The Chairman noted the issues raised and asked if Members who felt that the application should be refused could flesh out the reasons for such a refusal.

 

Councillor P Conway noted that as a layperson it was difficult, however he felt that in terms of E22 the proposal did not enhance or preserve the Conservation Area.  The Planning Team Leader asked why he felt the proposal did not preserve or enhance, was it an issue of scale or design.  Councillor P Conway noted it was everything, the scale, design, context and visual impact.  Councillor P Conway added that in terms of policy H2, windfall development, he felt it was an opportunistic development and not practical or sustainable.  Councillor P Conway added that in terms of policy H10 it was perhaps not appropriate as a reason for refusal. 

Councillor P Conway noted policy H13 and added there would be considerable adverse affect to amenity, especially during demolition and construction and the completed properties would also be out of scale with the existing properties.  Councillor P Conway added that in terms of policy T10 he felt that there were issues in terms of the practicality of parking off the highway and in maintenance of access.  Councillor P Conway noted he felt it was self-evident in terms of the application being contrary to policies Q8 and Q9 in terms of the quality of design and impact upon the streetscene.

 

The Planning Team Leader noted for clarification that policy H2 was in the positive and that new development was acceptable subject to the application not contravening policies E3, E5 and E6.

 

Councillor C Kay left the meeting at 3.37pm

 

Councillor P Conway noted that policy E6 stated preserving or enhancing the Conservation Area by ensuring high quality design and in terms of this application he questioned that fundamentally.

 

The Planning Team Leader noted that in terms of policy T10, as there was good provision of sustainable transport links, as explained by the Highways Development Manager it would be difficult to use this as reason for refusal.  Councillor P Conway accepted the Officers comments in respect of Policy T10. 

 

The Planning Team Leader asked whether that in reference to citing policy H13, Members were referring to the wider enclave of the 4 houses at St. Leonards, disturbance and loss of privacy.  Councillor P Conway noted this was the case and added that there was also the pressure on parking, congestion issues and issues associated with increased use.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED as:

 

The development by virtue of its design, scale and massing would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Saved Policies E22 of the CDLP and Part 12 of the NPPF.

 

The proposed development would fail to respect the scale, density and character of surrounding development, contrary to Saved Policies H10, H13 and Q8 of the CDLP and Part 7 of the NPPF.

 

The development by virtue of its proximity to adjoining properties and use of vehicular access to the rear would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of occupiers of the adjoining properties contrary to Saved Policies H10, H13 and Q8 of the CDLP and Part 7 of the NPPF.

 

Councillors P Conway and K Corrigan left the meeting at 3.43pm