Agenda item

Demolition of garage and erection of 1 No. house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of a garage and erection of 1 no. house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) on land adjacent to The Lodge, Laburnum Avenue, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

S Hyde, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, site photographs, existing elevations, proposed site layout, proposed elevations and floorplans and proposed street scene.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that since the publication of the Committee report access had been obtained to 21 Laburnum Avenue which showed that the ancillary residential windows referred to in Paragraph 56 of the report were in fact main aspect windows, and this led to a second reason for refusal as follows:

The proposed dwelling, due to its siting and scale, would detrimentally affect the residential amenity of the habitable room windows on the ground floor side elevation of 21 Laburnum Avenue.  This is contrary to Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004’

The Planning Officer also drew Members’ attention to a late representation from Roberta Blackman-Woods MP who urged refusal of the application.

Councillor L Brown, local Member addressed the Committee.  Councillor Brown thanked officers who had, quite rightly, recommended refusal of the application.  Officers had cited the interim policy on student accommodation and saved Policy H13 which referred to the adverse effects on resident’s amenity and also NPPF paragraphs 50. 58 and 69.

There were other policies which made the case for refusal much stronger.  Saved Polices E6 and E22 sought to protect the Durham City Conservation Area from what could be perceived as inappropriate development, H10 stated tandem development must not affect the amenities of existing dwellings and H14 required developers to enhance a residential area.

Councillor Brown drew the Committee’s attention to NPPF paragraph 56 which laid down the edict that good planning and good design should make places better for people, that is, local residents.

Objectors to the application had described the difficulties of living in a community with HMO’s and absent landlords, including parking, noise, rubbish and general seediness.  Councillor Brown reminded the Committee that the Byland Lodge development was originally seen as a diverse attractive residential environment which would impact positively on the community.

Councillor Brown gave two approaches to development in this area.  The first was a quote from the original applicant 10 years ago which stated this development was designed to create an attractive residential development which respected the amenity of existing residents and contributed to the character of the Conservation Area.  The second was from this application which was promoted as not having an adverse effect on the area.

Councillor Brown asked that the application be refused.

Councillor Freeman informed the Committee that the proposed development was contrary to the Interim Policy relating to student accommodation with 64% properties within a 100m radius being student properties.  The area had seen 19 Police Community Protection Orders being issued since the start of the year as well as 19 fines being issued by Neighbourhood Wardens.  Byland Lodge was supposed to create a balanced community and provide a mix of housing, and Councillor Freeman moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Jopling seconded refusal of the application adding that a lot of purpose built student accommodation was currently being built in Durham.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reason outlined in the report and the additional reason reported to Committee.