Agenda item

Change of use from dwelling to 8 bedroom guest house with operators accommodation on first floor and care taker/night porter accommodation on ground floor.  Consent for rear extension and retention of rear orangery (Amended description).

The Planning Officer, Susan Hyde, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy 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 Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the change of use from dwelling to 8 bedroom guest house with operators’ accommodation on first floor and care taker/night porter accommodation on ground floor, consent for rear extension and retention of rear orangery (amended description) and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer referred Members to elevations, photographs, plans and aerial photographs and explained that a rear wall was shared with St. Margaret’s Churchyard, forming part of the orangery and that this area of the churchyard was less formal, more overgrown and with a lesser amount of public access.  Members noted residential properties to the north and south with existing extensions and the restrictions in terms of parking.

The Committee noted that the orangery had been constructed approximately 5 years ago, with a large roof lantern and the application sought retrospective consent.  It was added that the application also included for a new extension for the night porter accommodation and, through long discussions between the applicant and the Diocese, there was agreement in terms of retention of the churchyard wall and also a new churchyard wall in front of the existing orangery to give a continuity of materials, a stone wall with coping stones. 

Members noted that the property was very spacious, with the application to create 10 bedrooms in total, 8 for letting, 1 for the operator, and the new extension being 1 for the night porter.

In terms of representations, the Planning Officer noted no objections from statutory consultees.  It was added that there had been 13 objections, with the main issue being that of congestion and pressure on the already limited parking.  It was explained that the location was considered sustainable by Officers due to its location near to amenities and local transport links.  The Planning Officer added that objectors also cited additional concerns in terms of additional visitors to the property; however Environmental Health had noted no objections.  Members were informed as regards the orangery window lantern and added that Officers did not feel that residential amenity would be detrimentally affected. 

The Planning Officer added that objections also included concern as regards the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. 

It was explained that Officers had looked at the application in detail and when also considering other development that had already taken place at South Street, the application was considered acceptable and was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out within the report.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and asked Mr R Cornwell to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Trust in relation to the Application.

Mr R Cornwell thanked the Chairman and noted that Members may have noticed on their site visit a number of available parking spaces on-street.  It was added that this was because residents were at work and had driven there: this was also the reason they had been unable to come to the Committee meeting.  Mr R Cornwell explained that residents’ concern was that when they return in the evening there would not be spaces for them and that these would have been taken up by guests at Grafton House.

Mr R Cornwell noted that since 2010 garages previously available to residents of South Street were being demolished and some extra housing built in its place, all parking was now on-street.

Mr R Cornwell noted that in 2010 planning permission was given to convert the property back to a private house from the hotel and restaurant it had previously been.  The Case Officer, the same one presenting today said in her Delegated Report: “The amount of parking and coming and going to the property is considered to reduce with the change of use to a single dwelling as there will be less people occupying the premises hence less parking and noise from the comings and goings”.  Mr R Cornwell added the Officer was right and that of course if you reverse the change you reverse the benefits.

Mr R Cornwell noted that the applicants had said that they will make it explicitly clear in their publicity material and on their website that parking was limited.  Mr R Cornwell noted that unfortunately they would have less control over what goes into the aggregator websites such as bookings.com, Trivago and Expedia.  It was added that the applicants’ other property, Gadds Town House, was listed on five of these sites and some guests would book via these rather than direct with the proprietors and would be less aware, or unaware, of the parking restrictions.  Mr R Cornwell noted that since guesthouses can apply for up to four books of visitor permits per month that would be 60 scratch cards which was enough for two or three extra cars per night.  It was noted that the restrictions only applied during the day from 8am to 6pm.

Mr R Cornwell added that the applicants were giving a personal undertaking about the publicity and were they to sell their property on then these undertakings would lapse.  Mr R Cornwell noted that indeed checking up on whether they were abiding by them would be difficult and time consuming, and enforcement next-to-impossible.

Mr R Cornwell noted that Members would have seen that Grafton House was in the narrowest part of the street, making deliveries difficult. 

He added that he was not sure if the Members’ coach was able to get down the street this morning and noted when he was at South Street yesterday the owners’ Land Rover was partly parked on the pavement.   

Mr R Cornwell noted that the City of Durham Trust was very unhappy about the retrospective application for the orangery, and in the manner that St. Margaret’s graveyard wall was treated in order to accommodate it.  It was added that neighbours had complained about their privacy being breached and since this was a retrospective application it was not speculation, they could see and be seen.

Mr R Cornwell added that the City of Durham Trust also queried the infill which was not small but would mean that virtually the whole of the curtilage had been built over, quite unique in South Street.

Mr R Cornwell explained that in terms of grounds for refusal, Policy T1 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan would apply, and referred Members to paragraph 39 of the report.  Mr R Cornwell added he felt the County Highways Officer was being unduly optimistic and that the traffic generated by the development would have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property.  Mr R Cornwell noted that as argued previously, not all guests would see the publicity put out by the owners, they would be booking online via intermediary websites, so more would arrive by car than the Committee report anticipates.

Mr R Cornwell noted Policy H13 requires planning permission to be withheld for changes of use that have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of a residential area or the amenities of residents within them.  It was added that there had been complaints when the property was a guesthouse ten years ago, under different ownership, but the problems would be similar.

Mr R Cornwell explained that Policy Q9 required alterations or extensions to residential properties to respect the privacy of adjoining neighbours.  It was added that the Committee report stated that it was only a bathroom: “which is considered to be a non-habitable window”.  Mr R Cornwell noted that this may be, but it was a room where one expects privacy.  It was added that the change of use meant that the overlooking, which includes a private garden, would be by members of the public not ones neighbours.

Mr R Cornwell concluded by noting that the City of Durham trust asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The Chairman thanked Mr R Cornwell and asked the Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

The Planning Officer noted she was the Officer that had considered the previous permission for change of use to a private dwelling under delegated powers and that in returning to a guesthouse there would be increased comings and goings however from the Officers point of view the property was very large, greater than a normal domestic property and the increased comings and goings would not be sufficient to warrant refusal.  It was added that Environmental Health had not considered there to be sufficient detriment to warrant a refusal of the application. 

The Planning Officer explained that while the personal assurance had been given by the owner, it was noted that this did not carry much weight in terms of when Planning Officers look at an application, and issues such as Visit County Durham stating there was a need and demand for such “boutique” hotels in the city were more relevant. 

In terms of the impact of the orangery, the Planning Officer added the bathroom opposite was clear glazed, however you would normally expect a bathroom window to be obscure glazed however this was the neighbouring property owner’s choice.

The Planning Officer reiterated that the application was felt to be in line with Local Plan Policies and was recommended for approval.

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

Councillor D Freeman explained he would find it difficult to accept a guest house within the middle of a residential street as being appropriate as it inevitably would have some effect on amenity.  However, he added there was a precedent in relation to the property previously being used as a guest house.  Councillor D Freeman added that parking was an issue, being already difficult and limited and that people visiting may need to park a substantial distance away.  It was added that he had noted the Planning Officer had accepted that more parking would be generated, and with the owner being resident would mean they would retain their scratch cards in terms of parking. 

Councillor D Freeman noted that the Committee did not like retrospective applications in general, and he felt that the applicants should have known as regards the church wall, however, with no objections from St. Margaret’s it could only be assumed that agreement between the applicants and St. Margaret’s had been reached. 

Councillor D Freeman noted he did not feel it was appropriate, however the Case Officer had presented the case well and the property had been used as a guest house in the recent past.

The Chairman noted that it was not ideal for retrospective applications; however, such applications were permitted within planning legislation.

Councillor B Moir noted that if the application was simply the retrospective aspect he may have had a different view on the application.  He added that historically the area was ripe for development and that if you had visited the street 200 years ago it would have been likely to be very busy.  Councillor B Moir added that he too noted that the property had previously been used as a guest house and added that the owners were some of the bravest business people in Durham, creating an offer for tourists visiting the City, investing in the City and increasing opportunities.  He added that the view from the property was a very expensive one and that offering this view at the cost of bed and breakfast was an act of altruism on behalf of the owners.  Councillor B Moir noted he proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor C Kay asked for clarification whether weight could be giving to a previous use of a property or was it not relevant.  The Planning Officer noted that the former use had ceased therefore no weight was being afforded to that former use, the application had been considered as a “fresh” application and had been considered appropriate and therefore had been recommended for approval.

Councillor J Clark noted this had been the second time she had visited this street and there had been significant amounts of car movement up and down the street, at speed, and there did not appear to be any parking along the street where the property was.  However, Councillor J Clark added that this did not detract sufficiently and that she would therefore second the proposal. 

Councillor J Lethbridge added that he felt in the sunshine it was a delightful street and that while there were some passing cars he felt no great weight of traffic.  He added that the street was diverse in style and overall was very attractive, and took reassurance from the Officer’s statement of “protracted discussions” as this showed that a lot of thought had been put into this application.  Councillor J Lethbridge added in terms of conservation he felt the current exterior was very good and when looking over the wall into the churchyard he was able to understand the issues that had been pointed out by the Planning Officer.  He noted he disputed the claims as regards the overlooking from the orangery to the bathroom window, feeling that the height and angle meant this presented no problems.

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor J Clark.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.