Agenda item

Conversion of the existing building into 17 self contained student apartments and a reduced commercial/retail floorspace.  Alteration to elevations of listed building to provide new access and fenestration.

The Team Leader - Central and East 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. 

It was noted there was an application for the conversion of the existing building into 17 self-contained student apartments and a reduced commercial/retail floor space, together with an associated Listed Building consent, and they were recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Team Leader - Central and East explained that the building was the former Post Office within the City Centre, a large deep building that extended at the rear towards Fowlers Yard.  It was explained that works had been carried out to the rear elevation in the past and the application included some aspects that would seek to address some of the issues with the rear elevation.

The Committee noted no objections from the Highways Section in terms of the application, having no parking provision.  It was noted the City Centre site was a sustainable location with good access to transport links and facilities.  It was added that cycle parking provision had been included following negotiations.  Members noted that the Design and Conservation Team had no objections, and an element of retail being retained at ground level was of benefit.

The Team Leader - Central and East noted Durham University had been approached in terms of the need for additional student accommodation, however, no response had been received.  It was explained there had been representations from the City of Durham Trust and the Neighbourhood Planning Forum in respect of cycle parking provision and loss of retail provision.  It was reiterated that cycle parking had been negotiated and that some retail had been retained.

It was noted that the proposal was for self-contained apartments, not the usual bedrooms with shared facilities and while normally there would be considerations as to whether additional student properties would affect the balance of communities in terms of student and family properties, as this site was within the City Centre, there were not very many C3 use family homes in the area.

The Team Leader - Central and East noted in respect of the Listed Building consent the application was designed to enhance the Listed Building and the Conservation Area and that the alterations proposed were entirely in keeping with the quality and design in the area.  It was noted that the planning application and Listed Building Consent were therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairman noted no registered speakers and therefore asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions on the application.

Councillor D Freeman noted the Council’s Interim Policy on Student Accommodation and its position in terms of Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA).  He added that the Committee were aware that the current existing, agreed and proposed provision of PBSA already met the demand for student accommodation and therefore he could not see how the need for this application had been demonstrated.  Councillor D Freeman noted that he felt that there was negative impact upon the retail aspect and while some retention was welcome, it was still less than the previous Post Office use.  He noted that Silver Street did not have many empty properties and he felt that, whilst the applicant had this application in mind, good marketing could secure a better use.  He therefore proposed that the application be refused and that people worked to get a better application back in the future.

Councillor J Clark noted that PBSAs usually included an on-site presence and a management plan and asked if there was no need given the self-contained nature of the proposed units.  The Team Leader - Central and East confirmed this was the case.  Councillor J Clark noted this and applauded the applicant in terms of the honest approach setting out that the application was clearly for student use upfront.  She added that the retention of some retail was good, adding she felt given the depth of the building that it would likely prove difficult to try and find a larger retail use.  Councillor J Clark noted she proposed that the applications be approved.

Councillor D Brown noted he seconded the recommendations for approval, however, asked whether there could be restrictions in terms of, for example, a fireworks shop being the retail element with the associated risks of this type of business.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted that the A1 Class Use covered a multitude of different uses and it would be difficult to condition against a specific use as mentioned.  The Chairman noted he felt that would be dealt with in terms of a business being able to secure a fire safety certificate.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he tended to agree with the Chairman that there would be regulations governing such activities, outside of planning considerations although he did not have a detailed knowledge of such regulations.

Councillor J Clark proposed that the applications be approved; she was seconded by Councillor D Brown. 

RESOLVED

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