Agenda item

Conversion of C3 4 bed dwelling to C1 seven bedroom aparthotel including demolition of porch and alteration of windows.

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 conversion of C3 4 bed dwelling to C1 seven bedroom aparthotel including demolition of porch and alteration of windows and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the completion of a s106 legal agreement, as set out within the report.

The Planning Officer noted the application site was approximately 100 metres from the coast and explained that the application site was next to Londonderry Court, a Grade II* Listed Building and was within the Seaham Conservation Area.  Members noted there was a range of shops and facilities located nearby, within walking distance.  Councillors were asked to note the building was attached to a neighbouring property, and that the old brown uPVC windows as shown in the presentation were in the process of being replaced with new white sash style windows with Georgian features, in keeping with the windows in the area.

The Planning Officer referred to elevations for the property, noting no alterations to the rear of the property and no extensions.  Members noted the internal layout and the proposed changes as set out on the presentation slides.  It was highlighted that the stairwell ran along the boundary with the attached property.

In terms of representations, it was note that initial concerns from the Highways Section had been resolved, with a supporting statement having been supplied by the applicant in terms of parking.  Members noted Environmental Health had commented in terms of impact on residential amenity for the attached building and Londonderry Court.  It was explained this was resolved through a management plan and sound insulation.  The Planning Officer noted that Ecology colleagues had noted a requirement in terms of a financial contribution towards the management of the coast in accordance with National Habitat Regulations.

The Planning Officer explained that there had been 10 letters of objection from members of the public and a petition, with a summary of the reasons being set out in the report, including: impact on residential amenity; car parking within the curtilage of the application site; house prices; and works had commenced prior to permission being granted.  The Planning Officer noted that the applicant had been advised not to commence any works prior to the application being determined by Committee.

The Planning Officer added that there had been 19 letters of support for the application, noting that the proposal was for much needed accommodation of this type; that there was adequate parking in the nearby surrounding area; and that the works would help to improve the building. 

Councillor F Tinsley entered the meeting at 1.25pm

Members were referred to Condition 3 within the report recommendation, noting a Management Plan in terms of the building and providing contact details for local residents should they be an issue at the property.

The Planning Officer concluded by noting that the application was recommended for approval, subject to a s106 Agreement and conditions.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her report and noted Councillor K Shaw, a Local Member wished to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor K Shaw noted he had been asked to raise concerns on behalf of local residents.  He explained that Seaham was a town that was growing and thriving, a place people wanted to visit and agreed there was a need for places for visitors to stay overnight.  He added that residents did not think this application was the solution, with concerns from residents in terms of impact upon residential amenity.  Councillor K Shaw noted Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated a presumption for sustainable development unless there were material considerations why development should not take place.  Councillor K Shaw noted residents’ concerns included: overlooking from the property; the adequacy of the parking; noise disturbance; that Londonderry Court, sheltered accommodation, was within touching distance of the proposed development.

Councillor K Shaw noted residents’ concerns in terms of the building being adjacent to elderly residents, noting guests to enter the property by 11.00pm.  He added there did not appear to be regard in terms of the impact on the adjoining neighbouring property, with that property being part of the original building.  Councillor K Shaw added that there would be noise during development, impacting on the neighbouring property and, once complete, the neighbouring property would effectively be permanently living in the wing of a guest house.  He added that Environmental Health had not objected, however, he was not aware on any surveys having been conducted.

Councillor K Shaw explained residents felt there would be a loss of privacy to adjacent properties and that there were also issues in terms of parking capacity and noise levels.  He added that it had been suggested that there was nearby parking available 24 hours, and that traffic surveys would have had a better understanding if they had been carried out on a pleasant day at the weekend in terms of the parking available and traffic levels.  He noted that a conservative estimate of the parking required was around 8 spaces, and that paragraph 57 of the Officer’s report noted in relation to car parking: “Nevertheless there remains a residual adverse amenity impact in this regard”.

The Chairman thanked Councillor K Shaw and asked Mr D Irwing, Applicant to speak in support of the application.

Mr D Irwing noted he would address points raised by the Local Member, who had been invited on several occasions to discuss issues raised by residents.  Mr D Irwing noted that parking was available 24 hours and that the development addressed a call from the Seaham Destination Plan in terms of this type of accommodation.  Mr D Irwing explained the background in terms of his links to the property and the town and noted upon staying in the area the only accommodation was at the nearby Seaham Hall or Seaton Lane Inn, a distance away.

Mr D Irwing added that the parking survey had been moved to early morning, and late afternoon times and of the 50 spaces available nearby the most that had been occupied was 5.  He noted that the street was a wider than average road and that while some residents had noted concerns relating to the development, there was also support from other local residents and businesses.  He added there was also further support for this type of accommodation via local social media pages, citing 91% support.

Mr D Irwing noted that the development of this type of accommodation would mean there would be a little more coming and going to the property, however, if the town was to grow it would need this type of accommodation.

The Chairman asked the Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

The Planning Officer referred to site plan to highlight the distance between the development and Londonderry Court, and also showed proposed internal layouts, to demonstrate that in terms of overlooking, the situation would be similar to that existing currently.  She highlighted that there were no proposed extensions, the works to be within the current building. 

In relation to noise and additional comings and goings, the Planning Officer noted that the change of use meant there was potential for more, with the entrance to the property being along the side of the property.  She reiterated that the management plan would ensure entry to the property by 11.00pm and there would be contact details should residents have any concerns.  The Planning Officer added that there would be sound insulation internally and the layout had been designed to try to reduce the amount of the rooms adjacent to the neighbouring property, with a corridor offering addition protection.

The Planning Officer noted in relation to car parking that the Highways Section had initially raised concerns, however, after consideration of the information submitted had noted no objections.  The Highways Development Manager, John McGargill noted that Tempest Road was 9 metres wide and if vehicles were parked both sides vehicles could still pass.  He added that the survey carried out had shown that there was spaces available along Tempest Road and at nearby public car parks.  The Highways Development Manager explained that similar applications for Durham City had been approved.  He added that in the case of 7 vehicles being associated with the development, this would equate to 5 vehicles in competition with others for spaces and that this would not be sufficient to sustain a reason for refusal.

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

Councillor J Clark noted the background information in relation to the development, and wondered if there had been a period of tranquillity prior to development with the property being empty and asked, if the application was approved, would guests be directed to where the car parking would be provided or available.  The Chairman asked if the applicant could provide any further information.  Mr D Irwing replied that the property had been empty for 12 months and confirmed that guests would be e-mailed with instructions in relation to gaining entry and times, as well as parking information and a polite notice as regards respecting other nearby residents.

Councillor J Maitland asked whether the aparthotel would be for holiday seasons or all year round.  The Planning Officer noted it was all year round.

Councillor I Jewell asked as regards a live-in receptionist or whether keys would be collected.  He noted that if the property was not successful as a hotel it would likely become a bedsit or similar.  The Planning Officer noted the application proposed that there would be no one on site, keys would be collected and that the management plan would apply, with a contact being available to guests and neighbouring residents.  She added that any move to a different type of accommodation would need to be via a separate planning application.

Councillor O Temple noted he understood the need for accommodation within the destination plan, and added that with no management on site, the management plan itself would be very important.  He asked whether it was possible to have a time limit on an occupancy, if there were prolonged periods without lets, for example in winter, and then longer terms lets were then made, he felt this would not be the same purpose as enabling tourism.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter spoke to the Planning Officer and advised that the Local Planning Authority could not reasonably impose restrictions in terms of the length of occupancy.  He added that this could be included within the management plan, should the applicant volunteer to do so, however the LPA could not insist upon its inclusion.

Councillor P Jopling noted that while visiting the site, it was clear some works were underway on site.  The Chairman noted applicants were always informed that they carried out any works prior to permission at their own risk.

Councillor J Clark moved that the application be approved; she was seconded by Councillor I Jewell.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.