Agenda item

DM/18/01671/FPA - 11 Prospect Terrace, Nevilles Cross, Durham

Two storey, single storey rear extensions and internal alterations to provide 2no. additional bedrooms to an existing C4 (small HMO).

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie, 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 Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had travelled past the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for two storey, single storey rear extensions and internal alterations to provide 2no. additional bedrooms to an existing C4 (small HMO) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions set out within the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the proposals would increase the number of beds to 5, and referred Members to site photographs showing a number of extensions to properties in the area.  Members were shown existing and proposed layouts and elevations.  It was noted that there were no objections from the internal consultees.  The Principal Planning Officer noted there had been objections received from the Parish Council, Local Member and the City of Durham Trust with reasons including room sizes, parking and increase “studentification”.

 

The Committee noted that there was not a change of use required as the property was already C4 use, house of multiple occupation, potentially up to 6 bed.  It was reiterated that there had been no objections raised by the Highways Section, with there being parking available at a nearby layby, and with Officers noting they could not sustain a refusal based upon parking.

 

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Councillor L Brown, a Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor L Brown explained that the application had been brought before the Committee because of the cumulative impact it would have on the area.  She added that the size of one of the bedrooms, although troubling from both a practical and a mental health perspective, did not carry planning weight and was a crusade for another time.  She noted that the problems with the application lay with the parking difficulties on Neville’s Cross Bank.

 

Councillor L Brown noted Members had passed the site and hoped they realised that there was no car parking at all to the front of the property despite the claims of Paragraph 36 of the Committee Report.  She added that what Members may not know was that there was no parking to the rear either, with all the gardens and the access road to the rear having been sold off privately about five years ago, several to non-residents.  She explained that the garden to the rear of this property was one that was sold to a neighbour.  Councillor L Brown noted that the back street was required for access at all times and was single track.

 

 

Councillor L Brown explained that Neville’s Cross Bank was just outside the Durham City Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and there were 22 long term parking spaces for approximately 43 dwellings, together with a café that had 3 short term spaces outside and relied on passing trade.  It was noted that 5 of those residences were licensed HMOs and there was one more that would become licensable in October.  Councillor L Brown added that there was also extant permission for one dwelling at the end of the street.  She explained that being outside the CPZ, yet within walking distance of town, many commuters parked at this location and walked into town and added that within 100m of the property there was Duresme Court a Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) with 280 bedrooms and 34 parking spaces which would be coming online at the end of the month.  She reiterated that there was a small café which relied on passing trade for its business and that further pressure would be put on parking spaces when parking restrictions were put in place outside the school.  Councillor L Brown noted that Highways Development Management had asked “No parking details were submitted with this application. Due to the increase in number of bedrooms, does the applicant intend to provide any off street parking?” She added that Paragraph 32 of the Committee Report stated that Highways had made no objection to the application.  She continued, stating that she felt the fact of the matter was Highways had asked a question which had not been answered by Officers or the Applicant.  Councillor L Brown noted she would like to have seen a report from Highways rather than an unanswered question.

 

She continued by explaining she did not feel that the legislation within City of Durham Saved Policy H9 had been met in this application and stating she felt that quite obviously adequate parking, as set out in Policy T10, was not already in place for the reasons she had given previously, nor had it been provided for in the development plans.  She added that Policy T1 also came into play as any further pressure on parking would significantly affect neighbouring residents’ amenity.  Councillor L Brown noted she should also like to draw attention to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Part 9 which dealt with sustainable transport adding that, amongst other things, it states that safe and suitable access to the site be achieved for all users.

 

Councillor L Brown noted she had two final points which she felt must be implemented should the Committee be minded to approve the application, firstly, she had been impressed by the detailed report submitted by Mr P Clark the Principal Public Protection Officer.  She explained she would like it conditioned that his recommendations should be followed exactly.  Councillor L Brown noted that secondly, given the non-existent parking and very poor access to the site, she would like a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to be submitted and agreed before any development starts with, noting it should have an 8.00am start, due to the residential nature of the area.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor L Brown and asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

 

 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that room size was not something that could be controlled by planning and added that the Highways Section had noted that while the parking layby stopped prior to the front of the application property, it was likely that this would be the parking area that would be used by the property, if required, and that a refusal on highways ground was not sustainable.  The Principal Planning Officer added that expectations on a HMO and issues in terms of the licensing regime were dealt with elsewhere under separate legislation and could be included as an “informative”, though not as a formal condition.  He added that a CMP as suggested could be included, as the Committee felt appropriate.

 

The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer, David Smith noted that the Terrace did not include in-curtilage parking and that it was not likely that there would be an additional 2 cars associated with the additional 2 beds, with it being in an accessible location for students, within walking distance to the city centre and with public transport links.  He added that it was felt unlikely that an objection in terms of parking would be sustainable.  The Principal Highway DM Engineer noted that in driving past the site there was capacity within the parking layby and added that the cumulative impact was not severe, with Civil Parking Officers being able to ticket vehicles should they be causing an obstruction.  He added that Neville’s Cross School was sufficiently far enough away to not affect the application.

 

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

 

Councillor M Davinson thanked Councillor L Brown for mentioning the need for a CMP, and agreed that such a CMP should include a start time of 8.00am, mirroring the second application on the Committee agenda.  It should also deal with site traffic given the restricted nature of the back street.

 

Councillor O Temple noted that the layby in question stopped a way short of the application property and added that it was at night that there would likely be an issue in terms of parking, with that being when there would be a loss of amenity.  He added that with there being no parking to the rear, he would ask if a new 5 bed HMO were to be proposed would this have no objections in terms of parking.  Councillor O Temple added that if the answer was no then he felt the same should apply to the application.  He concluded by asking how it was known that the University were “actively” encouraging students not to bring a car to Durham.  The Chairman noted this application was not for a new 5 bed HMO so the question about parking for such a proposal was not for the Committee to consider.

 

The Principal Highway DM Engineer noted a lot of terraced streets did not have parking, and that there was consideration on balance in terms of the demand on the street, with 2 additional beds not constituting much additional impact.  He added that even considering an evening peak in terms of parking demand and capacity issues, there was not considered to be significant highways impact.  The Principal Planning Officer noted use of the word “actively” as described in relation to the University and encouraging students not to bring cars to Durham, and explained that this was part of the Applicant’s Statement, and had not come from Planning Officers. 

He added that while he believed that this was something the University did do he was uncertain as regards how the University would monitor or police this, especially for those students living “off-campus”.

 

Councillor J Clark noted she agreed in terms of the CMP as proposed by Councillor M Davinson and proposed that, subject to an additional condition in relation to this, the application be approved.  Councillor M Davinson seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report and with an additional condition requiring a Construction Management Plan controlling site traffic and working hours, with a start time of 8.00am.

 

Supporting documents: