Agenda item

Conversion of building to provide 6 no self-contained flats

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion of a building to provide 6 self-contained flats at The Forresters Arms, 35 Collingwood Street, Coundon (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Harkness, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, photographs of the building, the proposed access/parking area, proposed site plan and proposed internal layout of the flats.

Councillor Kay informed the Committee that the application was within his electoral division.  The building had been a public house which closed in 2013/14 and since then various proposals for the building had not been completed.  The proposal for consideration was for conversion into six one-bedroomed flats, which would do nothing for the local housing supply because there was a glut of one=bedroomed flats and houses in the area.

The proposed flats would not cater for young families and Councillor Kay was unsure where demand for the flats would come from.  The proposed development was contrary to Policy H3 in the Wear Valley District Local Plan which stated that development would be directed to those towns and villages best able to support it and also Policy GD1 which stated all new development and redevelopment should be designed and built to a high standard.  Policy H18 of the Local Plan which referred to the subdivision of premises stated that developments should have suitable access, parking and amenity space and although the proposed development provided 5 car parking spaces Councillor Kay considered that these would not be used because this would necessitate reversing from them onto the main road.  Cars would therefore park on B6287 to the front of the development, which was used as a short cut by vehicles, including HGVs.

Paragraph 50 of the report refereed to Coundon having a frequent bus service, yet this was not the case.  Bus services were not frequent and there was no service on a Sunday.

Paragraph 59 of the report referred to the proximity of the Durham Ox Public House to this proposed development.  This was the most popular pub in Coundon and staged live music every weekend, and this noise could impact on the amenity of owners and tenants of the proposed flats.

While the proposed development would be an improvement to the current state of the building, improvement should not come at any price.  Councillor Kay informed the Committee he could not support approval of the application in its current form.

D Stewart, Principal DM Engineer informed the Committee that the Manual for Streets carried a great weight when determining planning applications.  There was a decent bus service from Coundon and a bus stop was 40 metres from the location of the proposed development.  This proposal was not a new build but was a conversion, and other possible uses it could be converted for, for example a restaurant, would result in greater parking problems.  Refusal of the application on highways grounds would be unlikely to be sustained on appeal.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that the current building was a problem and a blight.  Future parking problems were speculation and the application could not be refused on the basis of who might live there.  Although there may be other premises in the area which were empty, this was a risk for the developer and was not a relevant planning consideration.  Indeed, changes to the benefits system could lead to a future need for this type of accommodation.  The development would be an improvement on the current blight, there were no highways objections and Councillor Dixon moved approval of the application.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that it could not foretell whether this development would be of a benefit to the community, and this was not a planning issue.  The application was not being made by the person who would be carrying out the conversion and who might purchase the building in the future, again, was not a planning consideration.  Councillor Clare, while accepting the issues raised by Councillor Kay, agreed with Councillor Dixon that there were no planning reasons to refuse the application.  Councillor Clare seconded approval of the application.

Councillor Armstrong asked whether the internal floor area of the proposed flats was known.  The Planning Officer, following a discussion with the agent, replied that each flat would have a floor area of 50m².  Councillor Armstrong considered that the flats were not going to be homes and that 6 flats was too many for the building.

Councillor Conway informed the Committee that Councillor Armstrong had illustrated his concerns about the number of units proposed for the building and asked whether any discussion had taken place with the applicant regarding the number of units.  More substantial flats would be more marketable.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that no discussion had taken place with the applicant regarding alternatives and that the application had been considered under NPPF 14, whether the adverse impacts of the development were outweighed by the benefits of it.  C Cuskin, Planning and Development Solicitor referred to the discussion about the number of flats and advised the Committee it must consider the application as presented in planning terms.

Councillor Conway informed the Committee that while he was keen for the streetscape to be improved he had concerns about the application.  However, it was difficult to express these in planning terms.  He asked whether consideration of the application could be deferred pending further discussion with the applicant.

In response to a question from Councillor Dixon it was confirmed that a requirement to join the registered landlord scheme could not be a condition of the planning permission.

The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee against any form of amended application and to consider the application as presented to it.  Residential amenity and noise matters were relevant planning issues.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the Environmental Health Officer had advised there had been no statutory complaints regarding noise from existing residences in the proximity of the Durham Ox pub.  The application building formerly had residential use on the first floor and therefore residential use had been established.

The Planning and Development Solicitor asked the Planning Officer to clarify the situation in respect of residential amenity versus statutory nuisance.  The Planning Officer replied that the application had been considered in accordance with NPPF123 and the Environmental Health Officer considered amenity impacts to be acceptable.

Councillor Kay informed the Committee that it was unknown whether the proposed flats were to be rented or sold and whether they were to have different landlords.  Councillor Kay moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Nicholson reminded the Committee it could not take ownership into account when determining the application.

Councillor Armstrong asked where bin storage would be for the proposed flats, and this was indicated by the Planning Officer.  Councillor Armstrong informed the Committee that she considered there to be too many flats being proposed for the building.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that a possible reason for refusal of the application was noise nuisance, although there was no evidence of this.  The size of the flats had been discussed and Councillor Clare asked whether there was any minimum size for a flat.  The Planning and Development Solicitor replied that relevant levels of residential amenity were a planning judgement.

The agent for the applicant informed the Committee of the history of the premises which had led to it being repossessed.  To convert the building into only four flats would result in the conversion being unviable.  Flats of 50m² were not out of the ordinary, particularly on new developments.

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that he considered the proposed flats to be too small for people to live in.

Moved by Councillor Dixon, Seconded by Councillor Clare that the planning permission be approved.

Upon a vote being taken the motion was defeated.

Moved by Councillor Kay, Seconded by Councillor Patterson that the application be refused on the grounds that the number of flats proposed would result in substandard amenity space provision, and this together with the proximity to nearby public houses would fail to secure an acceptable level of residential amenity for new occupiers contrary to saved policies GD1(vi) and H24(v)(b) of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused on the grounds that the number of flats proposed would result in substandard amenity space provision, and this together with the proximity to nearby public houses would fail to secure an acceptable level of residential amenity for new occupiers contrary to saved policies GD1(vi) and H24(v)(b) of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.