Agenda item

New house in the garden of 36 The Hallgarth.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that at the start of the meeting, the Applicant’s Agent, Mr D Leybourne had been given sight of e-mails in objection that had already been circulated to Committee Members so that he may comment when addressing the Committee. Mr Legbourne confirmed that he had read them and did want to comment.

The Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings, 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 a new house in the garden of 36 The Hallgarth and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set out within the report.

The Planning Officer noted that the application site was within the Durham City Conservation Area, had a number of listed buildings nearby and was 450 metres east of the Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site (WHS).

The Committee were informed that the proposed property would be set back 1.5 metres from the line of houses and Members noted proposed elevations.  The Planning Officer noted the design was in keeping with the properties in the area in terms of material and scale.  It was added that the upstairs bathroom window would be required to be obscured glazing in perpetuity.

The Planning Officer noted no concerns from Northumbrian Water Limited and no objections from the Highways Section, highlighting no parking permits would be provided for the new property.

It was noted that the Design and Conservation Section had noted that the application would have a neutral impact in relation to heritage.

The Committee were informed that the Tree Section had noted none of the trees warranted a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and Ecology and Contamination Land Officers had noted no objections.  The Planning Officer noted the Archaeology Section had noted a conditions in terms of a watching brief and investigation works as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted a number of public responses had been received, with the main concerns raised being: development would constitute overdevelopment, leading to problems with waste disposal, noise and parking; be detrimental to the amenity and area; and concerns the property would ultimately be converted to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).

The Planning Officer noted that the proposal were acceptable in policy terms and was in a sustainable location within the City.  It was reiterated that the application had been deemed neutral in terms of impact upon the Conservation Area and heritage assets.  The Planning Officer noted that the application was not deemed to have significant detrimental impact upon residential amenity and was recommended for approval.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and asked the Local Member, and Committee Member, Councillor D Freeman speak in relation to the application.

Councillor D Freeman noted Members would have had sight of e-mails from members of the public in objection to the application, sent to Councillor D Freeman.  He added that this had not compromised his decision making, he had not yet made up his mind in terms of the application.  He explained that he had asked that the application be brought to Committee as he had concerns in terms of the impact of development within a garden and a fear of the property becoming a HMO, notwithstanding paragraph 74 of the report which stated a change of use application would be required.  Councillor D Freeman asked how the property would be monitored in terms of HMO status and some residents had noted their doubts in terms of the merits of the property as a family home, having a reduced garden area and no parking.  Councillor D Freeman noted the report had stated no requirement for parking spaces, however, asked the Committee to think of a family home without any parking provision, and no parking permits being available.

Councillor D Freeman noted that he felt that building a property within an existing garden seemed to be contrary to Policy H2 of the saved City of Durham (COD) Local Plan.  He noted that the Officer had spoken to the fact the COD Local Plan was out-of-date, however, he noted that some references to saved plans were made in support of a recommendation when it suited.  He noted that the distances between properties were nearer than permitted and therefore the application was contrary to Policy Q8.  He added an issue relating to a covenant had been raised, though he understood this matter fell outside of the remit of the Committee, he asked for clarification as to the Committee’s position if the covenant had been put in place by the former City of Durham Council. 

Councillor D Freeman concluded by noting that Paragraph 77 of the report noted there was a need for family homes, however, there had not been any mention within the report of the large development at the former school site within 100 metres and therefore he felt that a single property in the context of the larger development was not a strong argument.

The Chairman thanked Councillor D Freeman and noted that Local Plans were used where not in conflict with the NPPF.  He asked Ms D Jones to speak in objection to the application.

Ms D Jones noted she was speaking in objection on behalf of at least 8 neighbours that had been unable to attend the Committee meeting.  She added the local community wanted 36 The Hallgarth to remain as a family home, only viable if the large garden was retained, and that the proposals represented overdevelopment.  Ms D Jones noted Policy H13 protected against significant adverse effect on the character or appearance, or the amenities of residents within an area.  She referred to Paragraph 80 of the report that accepted that there would be some adverse impact on neighbouring residents, however, set out that Officer did not feel this outweighed the benefits of the proposal.  Ms D Jones noted that there was significant and demonstrable impact on neighbours in terms of loss of privacy, loss of green space and the impact upon parking.

Ms D Jones noted that the Authority could demonstrate a 5 year housing supply and 75 properties were being built on the former Whinney Hill School site nearby.  She added that the Officer’s report noted that separation distances were less than policy and that there would be some overlooking by the proposed development.  Ms D Jones noted that the loss of green space would have an impact on local wildlife.

Ms D Jones explained that parking was a huge issue in the area, noting no permits would be issued for the new property and that the garages nearby had been transferred to the County Durham Housing Group and there was a waiting list.  She noted given all of those facts it would be difficult for the property to be used as a family home and the fear of residents was that the new property and 36 The Hallgarth would become HMOs with there being around 10 HMO properties already in the area.

Ms D Jones concluded by noting that Paragraph 74 of the report did not convince residents that there would be enforcement taken in terms of a HMO and therefore she asked that Members would consider the objections raised by residents and refuse the application.

The Chairman thanked Ms D Jones and asked Mr D Leybourne to speak in support of the application.

Mr D Leybourne noted that pre-application enquiries in relation to the development had been made with the Planning Department and initial objections in relation to the impact on the view of the Cathedral had been taken on board with the position of the new property being set back 1.5 metres.  He added that, as the Planning Officer had explained, any use as a HMO would require a separate change of use application and would not be supported with an Article 4 Direction in place.

Mr D Leybourne noted that the proposed property’s bedroom would not overlook Hallgarth Farm.  He added that the location was sustainable, being within the City and the Highways Section had not objected to the application.  He noted an application to rent one of the garages had been submitted with many of the garages in the area being used for storage rather than for vehicles.  He added the Officer’s recommendation was for approval, considering the objections raised, with the issues having been addressed.  He noted in terms of overdevelopment, Officers felt this was not the case.  He added in terms of overlooking, the gable window had been relocated.  Mr D Leybourne added that in terms of garden space and the Cathedral view, this had been addressed by the setting back of the property.  He noted that there had been no Highways objections and that any use as HMO would require a change of use application.

In response to the e-mails that had been circulated, Mr D Leybourne noted that it had been widely assumed the application was for 2 HMOs, and that was not the case and clearly that would be subject to applications in terms of change of use.

The Chairman thanked Mr Leybourne and asked the Principal Planning Officer, to comment on the issues raised.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the application before Members at Committee was for C3 residential use, not for a HMO.  He added that should the property be used as an HMO, then if residents were to alert Planning, there would be grounds for enforcement action.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that there would clearly be a reduction in garden space, however, it was felt the remaining garden space would be sufficient for the properties.  In reference to the application being contrary to Policy H2, the Principal Planning Officer noted that the policy did direct to brownfield sites, however, the site was in a highly sustainable location and therefore acceptable in planning terms.

The Principal Planning Officer noted in respect of privacy concerns that the separation distance in question, being less than the policy, was to Hallgarth Farm House and was 14 metres, less than the 21 metres per policy.  He explained that it met distances in terms of habitable windows, and the only one being the first floor bathroom, which would have obscure glazing fitted.  He added that at the ground floor trees and the boundary treatment would break up the views.  He noted that all the separation distances to Hallgarth Street were over 21 metres except one which was 20.5 metres.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that given the angle and level differences, it was not sufficient to justify a refusal reason over 0.5 metres.  In relation to loss of important green space in the area, the land was currently private garden and therefore could not be classified as public green space that would be lost to the general public.

The Highways Services Manager noted that the application site was in a very sustainable location in terms of bus and rail travel, with a range of amenities within walking distance.  He noted there was a car share scheme, “Co-wheels”, operating in the City.  He concluded by noting the application was NPPF Part 4 compliant and that he could not recommend refusal on the grounds of parking.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that the outstanding issue of a covenant was not a material planning consideration, even if it had been imposed by the former City of Durham Council.

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

Councillor O Temple noted that on the site visit he had been struck by how difficult it had been for the bus driver to get out having driven down the cul-de-sac.  He added that even for a time during the day, there was a large number of cars parked along the road leading to the application site.  In terms of overdevelopment, he noted a lack of parking, the site being within an existing garden, and the separation distances being less than the policy requirement, as stated by the Officer.  He added he was minded not to vote in favour, in terms of the impact on residential amenity.  Councillor O Temple noted the site was close to the Cathedral and policies H2 and H13 had already been quoted previously as those the application would be in breach of.  He noted that Design and Conservation had noted a neutral impact from the application, adding this was close to being adverse.  Councillor O Temple noted he felt it was a cumulative impact of a number of small details, and that if someone more experienced in policy were to recommend refusal he would support their motion.

Councillor D Brown noted two omissions from the site plan, that 31 The Hallgarth has an extension right up to a garage, and there was a new build property opposite to the site, compounding car parking and access issues.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the separation distance would be 20.5 metres between the extension and Hallgath Street and Planners felt that in this case it was acceptable.  He reiterated that the 14m to Hallgarth Farm House was acceptable given the obscure glazing to be used.

Councillor I Jewell explained that he was struggling to see some of the points raised in objection, noting the only loss of green space was to 36 The Hallgarth, and this was not public space, rather a private garden.  He added that it was likely any person purchasing the property would be aware of the garden size and understand the situation in terms of car parking, with some people not owning a car.  He noted he was not fully convinced the objections were valid.

Councillor I Jewell moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor J Maitland.

RESOLVED

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