Agenda item

2 Storey Extension to existing dwelling to create a total of 2 No. Dwellinghouses.

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East, Sarah Eldridge 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 Team Leader, Central and East advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for a two-storey extension to existing dwelling to create a total of 2 No. dwellinghouses and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East explained that the property was in the City of Durham Conservation Area and that 22 Allergate was a Grade II Listed Building.  She added that 22 and 22a Allergate were within the same ownership, and there was shared use of the gated access and amenity space.  It was explained that the external dimensions of the proposed extension were 3.5 metres wide and 4.5 metres deep.  Members were referred to photographs of the site, showing Hanover Court adjacent to the site.  Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted the floorplans, with their being two, one-bed flats one on each floor.

 

In terms of representations, the Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted objections had been received from the City of Durham Parish Council, the City of Durham Trust and from six members of the public.  She added there had been no objections from the Design and Conservation Team, subject to conditions, and that the details as regards all representations were summarised within the report.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted that in considering the application, in had been considered that the application was in a sustainable location within the city centre, close to shops, services, education and transport links.  Members noted that Hanover Court was approximately 13.5 metres away and the application had been amended from a previous form to remove a first-floor window to the western elevation of the proposed extension and therefore the required separation distances were achieved.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted that construction management would be dealt with via condition and that Officers had considered there would be no additional harm to the Listed Building from the application.  It was highlighted that there was no in-curtilage parking and that the street was in a controlled parking zone.  The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted there had been no objections from the Environmental Health or Ecology Teams in relation to the application.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East concluded that it was felt the application was in accord with national and saved Local Plan polices and as there was no detriment to the setting of the Listed Building, the application was recommended for approval.

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Team Leader, Central and East and asked Parish Councillor Grenville Holland, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council.  He noted that the application was about 22 Allergate and not just about 22a Allergate, which was a later annexe to the main building.  He explained that the environmental impact of the proposed development therefore fell both within the main building and its curtilage.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted the report concerned the Parish Council because, in paragraph 48, by using NPPF paragraph 213 it was seeking to set aside or minimise the policies contained in the City of Durham Local Plan published in 2004.  He added that the carefully crafted policies of the Local Plan were tailored to the specific needs of our City.  He stated they were Saved, and the Parish believed that they were just as relevant and valid today as they were in 2004.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that Furthermore, without the Local Plan there was really nothing to rely on, as the NPPF was far too broad a brush to deal with the necessary level of detail within this application.  He noted that one must therefore use the saved Local Plan policies to test this proposed development in order to determine whether it adversely affects 22 Allergate, a Grade II listed building which formed an important and vital part of our City’s heritage.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that first of all, there was an important raft of environmental policies that were designed to control development in our city centre.  He noted Policy E3 protected the central core of the city and its relationship to the Cathedral and the Castle.  He added that the setting and history of 22 Allergate had to be seen in the context of a Georgian street scene dating back to medieval times.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted Policy E6 protected the special character, appearance and setting of the Conservation Area which the policy insists must be preserved and enhanced by any new development.  He asked, was the Conservation Area actually preserved and enhanced by the proposed development?  He explained that Policy E21 also requires that any development must enhance and preserve the historic environment, and this was not just limited to listed buildings.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted 22 Allergate was, in its present form, an important Grade II listed building that enriched the city’s historic fabric and environment.  He asked, does the proposed development really enhance and preserve the historic environment?

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that Policy E22 carried the requirement further by not permitting proposals that would detract from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting and it pursued this demand in greater detail.

He explained that the Parish Council believed that this proposed development was detrimental to the Conservation Area. 

 

Parish Councillor G Holland referred to Policy E23 noting it safeguarded listed buildings and their setting, with 22 Allergate being a listed building with a lovely tiered garden which therefore must be safeguarded. 

He noted that the proposed development clearly fell well short of every one of those environmental policies and their cumulative impact could not be disregarded.

 

With reference to the NPPF, paragraphs 184 to 187, Parish Councillor G Holland noted these were also concerned with conserving and enhancing the historic environment.  He added that the NPPF provided similar guidance to the Local Plan stating that new development should make a positive contribution to the character of an historic environment.  He asked, does the application really make a positive contribution to the setting of the city and does it really respect, preserve and protect 22 Allergate and the neighbouring properties?

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted saved Policy H10, restricted backland and tandem development and that this important policy was missing from the report.  He explained that H10 required safe and adequate access and must accord with Policy T10, which he would return to.  He added that H10 also required that both the amenities and the character of the existing, adjacent properties are not adversely affected and that from the letters of objection they clearly would be adversely affected.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted Policy H13 echoes Policy H10 and once again this application fails the test of H13.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland referred to Policy T10 which dealt with vehicle parking and off-road provision, of which there was apparently none.  He added that Policy Q8 was about quality, the privacy enjoyed by the neighbours, and sought to minimise the impact on the neighbours and there was no doubt from the public response that this would be diminished by the introduction of two new properties and their occupants on the households next door.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that Policy Q9 dealt with alterations and extensions to residential properties and required these to be sympathetic.  He added that it was felt there was nothing sympathetic about the internal and external treatment of 22 Allergate.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland concluded by noting that the Parish Council were asking the Committee to understand their deep concern about the application, recognise that the saved Local Plan policies were as fresh and relevant today as they were in 2004 and use them as the only effective guide that Committee had and to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked Dr Robert Banks, local resident to speak in objection to the application.

 

Dr R Banks thanked Members and noted he had asked to speak to the Committee as a resident of Allergate for almost 40 years.  He asked if he could first point to a serious material error in the Committee Report where, on page 59 paragraph 74, it stated that “With regard to the adjacent Grade II Listed Building it is noted that the application building sits to the north of this and firmly within its setting. However, the asset’s setting has already been compromised by the presence of the building itself constructed within the original burgage plot and it possesses no historic, functional, or positive visual associations with the asset.”

 

Dr R Banks explained that in reality the application building had a direct historic association with the asset, because it was originally granted planning permission and built in 1911 as “addition of study and bedroom at 22 Allergate for Miss Thompson”.  He noted the documents concerning that permission were held in the County Record Office, and he could give the catalogue reference if required.  He added that The Durham Directory and Almanac showed that Miss Thompson was living at 22 Allergate from at least 1896 to at least 1915.

 

Dr R Banks noted that moreover, the application building was so occupied by the previous owner of number 22; was used by himself and his family at the time of listing; and, indeed, was advertised as an annex to number 22 when the property was recently sold.  He added that therefore it was clear that the application building was an annex to number 22, and as such was a part of the Listed asset.  Dr R Banks stated that to claim otherwise was wrong and negated the Officer’s recommendation at the end of the report.

 

Dr R Banks asked Members’ to draw their attention to the fact that Allergate was a small medieval street in a Conservation Area, and it required the Committee’s protection.  He noted that if it was to retain its character and its heritage value to the City it was imperative that further subdivision of existing buildings, especially ones as sensitive and historically important as number 22, must not to be permitted.  He commented that Bill Bryson’s “perfect little city” was constantly under threat from overdevelopment, and we must do all we could to protect what’s left.

 

Dr R Banks concluded by noting that on behalf of himself, his family and his neighbours he was earnestly asking the Committee to help sustain the historical integrity of Durham City and refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Dr R Banks and asked Mrs Gabrielle Moore, the applicant to speak in support of her application.

 

Mrs G Moore thanked Members for the opportunity to speak and explained that the property had been bought at auction and financially to be able to carry out the necessary works to the beautiful listed building, 22 Allergate, it was necessary to carry out the proposed works to 22a Allergate.  She noted that she had asked Planning Officers to view the property and for their suggestions in relation to an application.  She explained that there had been proposals in relation to straightening out the roof line and the proposed extension did not affect the garden.  She added for clarity that the application was for one additional property, not two additional properties.

 

Mrs G Moore noted she had read the history of the property within Peter Ryder's unpublished Buildings Survey and noted that the property had been rented out several times, with two doctoral dtudents living in the property when she purchased the property.  She added the property was in a highly sustainable location, less than 800 metres from the bus station.

 

Mrs G Moore explained she had offered to render the proposed extension and would be in sympathy with 22 Allergate and help 22a to blend in. 

She noted that in the context of the comments on the medieval street, she agreed to the historic nature, however, pointed out that there were ugly concrete buildings to either side of 22a Allergate and that in order to carry out the restoration of 22 Allergate correctly the application as regards 22a Allergate was necessary financially.

 

Mrs G Moore concluded by noting that 22a Allergate had existed before those newer concrete buildings and that she felt when the proposed works were completed that the building would look better.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr G Moore and asked the Planning Team Leader, Central and East to comment on the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted in reference to the query as regards 22a being part of a Listed Building, she explained that when referring to Historic England guidance on the issue, when it came to determining the acceptability of alterations to curtilage structures it was important to remember that curtilage structures were not listed in their own right, but can be important for their contribution to the special interest of the principle listed building.  She noted that the annex was within the rear garden boundary of the main listed house, forming part of its physical surroundings, it pre-dated the listing (1971) and the pre-1948 requirement and, as far as she understood, had always been within the same ownership as the house.  She added however, it held no special interest historically, architecturally, or archaeologically, the main house being C17 while the annex C20, it had been in use as a separate dwelling for a considerable time and did no longer support the main house, and most importantly extending it would not affect the heritage significance of the principle listed building.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted that given the buildings limited value it should not be treated as part of the listed building even though it is within its curtilage at the date of listing, and Listed Building Consent was not required for the proposals.

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Team Leader, Central and East and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

 

Councillor D Freeman reiterated he was a Member of the City of Durham Parish Council, however, was not a member of their Planning Committee and had no input into their comments on the application.  He noted that upon considering the application and the points raised by the speakers at Committee he had concerns.  He added he was amazed that 22a was not considered part of the listed building, not only in respect that it was referred to as an annex to 22 Allergate.  Councillor D Freeman noted there was a live planning application in consideration by the Authority relating to 22 Allergate which related to partial demolition and replacement of part of the building.  He added that he did not understand the impact of this in the context of what Members were being asked to consider.  Councillor D Freeman noted that the issue of backland development had been raised, saved Policy H10, and noted that this was dependant upon adequate parking provision.  He noted there was no parking provision at all and therefore he felt the application was contrary to Policy H10 and others.

Councillor D Freeman noted that a number of residents of Hanover Court had objected to the application, the age of residents being around 60 to 100 years old.  He noted that therefore the views from their homes and natural light were of particular importance to those residents and he felt the application failed on policy in terms of this. 

 

Councillor D Freeman added he felt on a practical perspective the application was problematic, there being only one wooden door and corridor leading to the rear and 22a Allergate.  He added he felt that they should be both considered as one property.

 

Councillor D Freeman added that he felt that if Members were minded to approve the application, there should be conditions to ensure the works to not adversely affect the area and neighbours.

 

Councillor O Temple asked as regards the saved Local Plan and the NPPF and asked if only the element relating to housing supply was considered out of date in this case.  The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted information as regards this was set out at paragraph 50 of the report and that Councillor O Temple was correct.

 

Councillor O Temple noted he felt it was odd that the application for 22 Allergate was being considered separated if 22a was considered an annex.  He noted that he could see some benefits to the property being improved and noted City of Durham policies were clear in terms of views of the Cathedral not being interfered with.  He noted he was minded to move deferral so that the application could be considered alongside the application for 22 Allergate, though would seek advice from the Solicitor.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter referred to the Planning Team Leader, Central and East as regards the two applications being considered separate.  The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted that the building 22a Allergate had been referred to over time by several names, including the ‘Annex’ and the ‘Cottage’, there having been an evolution over time.  She added that it was demonstrated that 22a had been and was occupied as a separate dwelling for a number of years, albeit in the same ownership as 22 Allergate.  She noted that the “sister application” was referenced at paragraph eight of the report and was a more complex application and would be for consideration by Members should it come to Committee in due course.  She noted that in terms of access, the site was not convenient with restricted access width, and added that a construction management plan would ensure impact on the surrounding area was minimised. 

 

The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted in terms of Hanover Court, Officers’ view was that there was sufficient separation distance in terms of light and overlooking.  She added that while it was accepted that some views of the World Heritage Site may be lost, weight could not be afforded to the loss of a view for an individual.  The Planning Team Leader, Central and East noted that in relation to saved Policy H10, as the development was an alteration to an existing building it was not considered backland development.

Councillor P Taylor noted it was good to hear from Parish Councillor G Holland and the references to the City of Durham Local Plan.  He added that he felt that several points were not relevant, and he could hear the worry in the applicant’s voice as regards the work to her properties.  He noted he felt that on balance that a refusal would stop an improvement to the property.

 

The Chairman allowed Mrs G Moore to clarify as regards the demolition aspect of her other pending planning application.  Mrs G Moore noted this related to part of the Listed Building and did not form part of the application before Members.  She noted this was in respect of a 1940s addition that Members would have seen on their site visit and was not part of the medieval or Georgian building. 

She explained that she wished to complete any works very carefully and would not be removing any elements that were older than 50 years old.

 

Councillor I Jewell noted the site visit had been very interesting and noted that it was not for the Committee to carry the materials through the site for any developer.  He added he felt the annex had been added piecemeal and that the extension and works proposed would improve the property.  Councillor I Jewell noted he thought it was not helpful to confuse this application with other issues and that there was not reason for refusal.  Councillor I Jewell moved that the application be approved, Councillor D Bell seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.