Agenda item

Erection of 4 dwellings.

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 visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of four dwellings and was recommended for approval.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted some minor amendments to the report: to paragraph four, the properties being now one two-bed, two three-bed and one four-bed; and to paragraph 83, with Environmental Health noting that the condition was no longer necessary and rather an informative would be included should the application be approved.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application site was in a heavily build up area within Durham City, the proposed development being on land to the rear of 63 Crossgate.  Members were referred to nearby features including Framwellgate Bridge and was very close to shops and amenity that the city had to offer.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that the trees that were on site had been looked at and no all were in good condition and the current state of the site was untidy.

 

The Committee were referred to proposed plans and elevations, noting the sloping nature of the site, and the buildings being up to three storeys in height.  It was added that given the location, within the historic city there had been consideration taken of this within the design.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the site was at the rear of Crossgate Working Men’s Club (WMC) and that the proposed properties would only be visible from those existing properties surrounding the site.  He added the access from Crossgate was via a small vennel, shared with Crossgate WMC.

 

Councillors J Shuttleworth and A Laing left the meeting at 2.11pm

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to proposed storage for bins and cycles on site.  He noted that the Highways Section had no objections as the site was in a sustainable location and had cycle storage within the site.  He added that Northumbrian Water had no objections, noting that care should being taken in respect of some of their assets in the area.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Coal Authority had no objections subject to condition.

 

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth entered the meeting at 2.12pm

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the City of Durham Parish Council objected to the application, with reasons as set within the report, including: the application not safeguarding the nearby listed buildings, Conservation Aera or setting; and there was no safe, satisfactory access to the site or adequate parking provision. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service (CDDFRS) had not commented on the application.

 

Members noted that the Council’s Design and Conservation Section had offered no objections, given the site was concealed and did not adversely impact upon the surroundings.  The Principal Planning Officer added that Ecology raised no objections subject to a s106 legal agreement relating to loss of biodiversity.  It was added that the Landscape Section offered no objections in terms of visual impact and the Tree Officer noted none of the trees on site warranted a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  Councillors noted that the Nuisance Action Team raised no objection to the application and Contaminated Land and Archaeology offered no objections subject to conditions.

 

Councillor A Laing entered the meeting at 2.14pm

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the City of Durham Trust objected to the development, citing reasons including: the proposals representing backland development; loss of trees; poor access to site for residents, construction workers, materials and machinery, and emergency services; no provision for bins storage, given a notice prohibiting such within the vennel.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that NPPF paragraph 11 referred to sustainable development being approved unless negative impacts of development outweighed the benefits.  He noted that the application did represent a small contribution to housing supply, albeit as a small development this afforded limited weight.  He added that saved Local Plan Policies Q8 and H13 referred to amenity and design impact upon the surrounding area, including layout across the site.  Members were informed that the separation distances in terms of windows and gables were met and while there was close proximity to the WMC and city centre, Environmental Health had felt an informative was sufficient.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of saved policies E22 and E23 relating to impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and Listed Building, the secluded site and appropriate design meant that Officers felt the proposals were appropriate. 

In terms of highway safety and access to the site, there was only the one access as described, via the small vennel. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the Highways Section had noted no on-site parking provision as required due to the city centre location, and that while access for construction materials and equipment may be difficult, this would be controlled via Construction Management Plan (CMP).

 

In respect of the issue raised in relation to the proposed access not being safe in the event of an emergency, CDDFRS were consulted and did not come back with a view and therefore the proposals were considered acceptable.

 

The Principal Planning Officer concluded noting that on balance Officers felt that the benefits of proposals outweighed any adverse impacts and therefore the application was recommended for approval, subject to a s106 legal agreement and conditions as set out within the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and noted Councillor L Brown wished to raise a point of order.  Councillor L Brown asked if, given Councillors J Shuttleworth and A Laing had left the meeting during the item would they be eligible to vote on the matter.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it would be an issue for those Members to decide upon and to state if they did not feel able to take part in the decision.  However, he noted that they were absent for only a very short time during the Officer’s presentation.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted the debate had not yet taken place and he had only left the room for mere seconds.  Councillor A Laing apologised noting she had needed to take a drink following a coughing fit, adding that she too had not left the meeting for very long.  Both Councillor J Shuttleworth and A Laing indicated they would take part in the decision making.

 

The Chair thanked Members and asked Parish Councillor John Ashby representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in objection to the application.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby thanked the Chair and congratulated her as the newly appointed Chair to the Committee.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that the application had clearly raised a number of concerns with Officers and the Parish Council welcomed the considerable efforts put in by Officers to try to overcome the shortcomings of the scheme.  He added that, unfortunately, some problems remained.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby explained that the proposal site was classic backland development and that Saved Policy H10 of the City of Durham Local Plan stated:

 

“The developmentof backlandand tandem siteswill notbe permittedunless thereis:

1.          A safe and satisfactory access and adequate parking can be provided in accord with policy T10;and

2.          the amenities of both the new and existing dwellings are not adversely affected;and

3.          It is in keeping with the character, density, and scale of surrounding or adjacent development.”

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that in this case the access was a narrow alleyway between substantial buildings, with no proposal or prospect of widening the alleyway.  He added that in terms of adequate parking, no parking provision was offered, and that noise was a recognised amenity issue, with the site sitting between the Crossgate Workingmen’s Club and the North Road nightclubs.   Parish Councillor J Ashby added that the proposal was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area; it was in the very heart of the Conservation Area, and several of the buildings in Crossgate were listed in their own right and therefore Saved Policies E6, E22 and E23 were engaged.

 

He added that the Parish Council had major concerns about the practical difficulties caused by the narrow and long alleyway for construction equipment and, even more importantly, for the Fire and Rescue Brigade, and was surprised that solutions to these problems were not put before the Committee.  It was noted that the Parish Council urged that Members satisfied themselves on those matters before considering whether the application should be approved.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted the Officer’s report at paragraph 66 stated “With Policy H2 being a settlement boundary policy, informed by what is now an out of date evidence base, the policy is therefore considered to be an out of date policy for the purposes of engagement of paragraph 11 of the NPPF. This also affects the weight to be afforded to this policy.”  He explained that the Parish Council did not agree; the evidence base concerns whether there was sufficient approved housing land, and paragraph 72 of the Officer’s report correctly noted that “The Council is able to demonstrate in excess of 6 years supply of deliverable housing land.”  He noted that therefore there was no requirement find additional housing development sites.

 

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted he would turn to the vexed question of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) for students.  He added that it was agreed by all concerned that a planning application would be required if the development was to become a C4 HMO property.  He added that it was felt it would comprehensively fail in terms of the County Council’s Interim Policy on Student Accommodation.

  

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that it has been obvious in recent years that many properties in the city were being used as student HMOs despite having C3 residential permission, not C4, with detection avoided by the landlord paying Council Tax instead of seeking student exemption.  He noted that whilst local permanent residents reported their observations that neighbouring properties were quite obviously student HMOs, the Council continued to insist that Council Tax records were the most reliable and consistent evidence.  Parish Councillor J Ashby explained that this particular application, if approved, would need especial vigilance against it becoming an unapproved C4 or Sui Generis HMO, with enforcement being absolutely key.

 

In conclusion, Parish Councillor J Ashby noted the Parish Council urged that, despite the sterling work of Officers to bring it up to acceptable standards, the application be refused as it represented backland development with unsatisfactory access, no parking provision, was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding Conservation Area and Listed Buildings, and was at risk of creating unauthorised C4 or Sui Generis HMOs adding to the burdens of the Council’s Enforcement Officers.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor J Ashby and asked the Principal Planning Officer if he would respond to issues raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that it was acknowledged that policy H10 was engaged, the development representing backland development, however, Officers had assessed the application against the relevant criteria.  He added that the Highways Section had noted the access was acceptable for this location and there was no need for vehicular access.  He reiterated that CDDFRS had not commented upon the application after being contacted for their views.  In reference to amenity, the Principal Planning Officer referred to the section within the report that distance standards and layout and design were acceptable and, taking all those factors into account, in relation to Policy H10 Officer felt the application was acceptable.  In reference to the properties becoming HMOs, this issue had been raised, however, the application before Committee was for C3 use, noting that the area was covered by the Article Four Direction and any change of use to HMO use would need to be via a further application.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Mr Keith Ryder, Architect for the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr K Ryder thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and explained that the scheme as set out within the agenda papers had been developed in collaboration with the Planning Department, Ecology, Landscape, Design and Conservation to ensure the proposals were reflective of the architectural landscape of the area.

 

Mr K Ryder noted the concerns raised by the Parish Council, however, noted that the Officer’s report was very positive, with a recommendation for approval.  He added that there were technically three access points to the land in question, that already discussed along with two others to North Road and another point along Crossgate.  He noted that a recently retired Fire Safety Officer had been asked as regards access to the site in an emergency and he had felt the access was acceptable and there would be capacity to be able to reach into the site with equipment. 

 

Mr K Ryder noted as the application was for C3 residential dwellings, the Article Four Direction did not apply, this being for C4 HMOs, and reiterated the point made by the Principal Planning Officer that any C4 use would require a further planning application.  Mr K Ryder reinforced that the Council’s Design and Conservation Section had been consulted upon the design due to the sensitive nature of the site and they had raised no objections to the application.  He added that the backland site was not very attractive and the development proposed would represent an improvement on the current state.  Mr K Ryder concluded by noting it was felt the scheme was well designed, had been developed in consultation with the Planning Department and hoped that the Committee would agree with the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted Officers were only aware of one access to the site.  Mr K Ryder noted the applicant would be better placed to explain, the Chair allowed Mr L Smurthwaite, the Applicant to speak.  Mr L Smurthwaite noted that there were additional accesses to the site: one running the left side of his property, Crossgate WMC; and another being marked on 100-year-old deeds, leading out onto North Road via some steps.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the application only considered the access as described along the small vennel.

 

The Chair thanked the speakers and the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor D Freeman explained 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 after hearing the comments from Officers and the speakers he had concerns as regards the suitability of the site, out of the way behind the WMC and close to several listed buildings.  He noted he was familiar with the access via the small vennel and noted this would go past the location of the smoking shelter provided by the WMC.  Councillor D Freeman noted four properties were proposed, though with no parking.  He explained that as C3 dwellings, he would imagine in an ideal world these being for possible family use and that the lack of parking provision would mean this would be unlikely. 

He added that the land was previously undeveloped green space and that there was not sufficient cause to warrant development on greenfield land.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted the Parish Council had raised the issue of potential use as an HMO and added he felt this would be a likely end use for the proposed properties, with recent applications and appeals for HMOs use not providing him with reassurance.  He concluded by noting he did not feel he could support the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

The Chair asked Councillor D Freeman to clarify if he was proposing that the application be refused.  Councillor D Freeman noted he was proposing the application be refused. 

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he felt that no parking provision was ludicrous and did not feel the application was a good idea and seconded that the application be refused.

 

Councillor D Brown noted that the site visit had shown that the site was very steep, not easily reflected via the photographs and drawings.  He noted the best way he could describe the site was as very untidy and as a dump.  He noted when on the visit there was adjacent developments that seemed perfectly adequate and well used with people out on a balcony enjoying the sunshine.  He proposed that the application be approved.

 

Councillor S Iveson noted with the lack of parking provision and the inclusion of cycle storage she felt the intention was for student use.  Councillor A Laing asked for more information as regards why there was no parking.

 

The Highway Development Manager, John Mcgargill noted that it was standard for no parking provision requirement within 400 metres of the city centre due to the sustainable location, with links to transport and amenities, including the bus and rail stations which were very close to hand.  He added that the area was within the city Controlled Parking Zone, where even Residents were not permitted to park without a permit.  He explained that Saved Policy T10 encouraged the restriction of parking to encourage sustainable modes of transport and gave weight to application. 

He noted there were several examples of residential development within the city where access was only obtained via such small vennels, along Silver Street and Saddler Street, again with no parking provision.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of access to carry out the development, this would be agreed via a CMP to be submitted to the Planning Authority.  The Chair allowed Mr K Ryder to clarify a point in this regard, with Mr K Ryder noting that the CMP would be drawn up when a contractor had been appointed and would be fine-tuned as necessary. 

He added that upon development the smoking shelter and current bins would be moved.

 

The Chair noted there had been a proposal for refusal and asked Members for their reasons.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he felt on the grounds of the lack of parking and accessibility to the site, he noted he could not see how equipment such as a JCB digger would be able to get on to the site in order to dig foundations and carry out groundworks.  Councillor D Freeman felt that the application was contrary to saved Local Plan Policies H2, H13, E6, E16 and T10, together with the relevant policy in relation to not developing greenfield sites. 

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked as regards which element of Policy H2 Councillor D Freeman felt the application was contrary to.  Councillor D Freeman explained that as he felt the application was contrary to Policies E6, T10 and not in accord with the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings nearby it was therefore contrary to Policy H2.  Councillor D Freeman added that he felt the application represented a negative impact upon the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings only metres away, for example St. Margaret’s Church, contrary to Policies E6 and E22.  He added that he agreed with Councillor J Shuttleworth as regards the parking issues and therefore he felt the application was contrary to Policy T10.  He concluded that there would be impact upon the character and amenity of the area, citing the very neighbours that Councillor D Brown had noted while on the site visit being those impacted upon, and therefore this was contrary to Policy H13.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he had concerns as regards the robustness of any reason for refusal linked to Policy T10 given the comments of the Highway Development Manager that in his professional opinion the application was compliant.  He added that in terms of adverse impact upon the Conservation Area, Officers from the Design and Conservation Section had offered no objections and therefore he felt any refusal based upon such reason may prove difficult to defend should there be any appeal.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that he felt the inadequate access to the site would be sufficient to rule out the application, not being able to get firefighting equipment to the site.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted he had listened to the arguments made and felt it was recorded that Members did not particularly like the application, however, he had listened to the advice given by the Solicitor – Planning and Development in terms of defending a refusal decision at appeal and therefore he would second the proposal by Councillor D Brown for the application to be approved as per the Officer’s report.

The Chair noted that the proposal for refusal had been put by Councillor D Freeman and seconded by Councillor J Shuttleworth and therefore this would be voted upon first, upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

 

The Chair noted the proposal by Councillor D Brown, seconded by Councillor M Davinson was for approval, upon a vote being taken it was;

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to completion of a s106 legal agreement and the conditions as set out within the report.