Agenda item

Construction of apartment block comprising 27 No. one and two bedroom apartments.

The Senior Planning Officer, Paul Hopper, 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 Senior 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 construction of apartment block comprising 27 no. one and two-bedroom apartments and was recommended for approval.

The Senior Planning Officer asked Members to note the previous use of the land in the past as a builder’s yard, albeit the site had been vacant for a number of years.  He explained the location was within close-proximity to the city centre, bus station and East Coast main line, a well-served and sustainable location.  Members were referred to photographs of the site and reminded of the site visit, and the Senior Planning Officer referred to the fencing and planting at the site, the nearby terraced properties and the changes in level.  The Senior Planning Officer noted the nearby bungalow at the head of John Street and the terrace at Holly Street being elevated compared to the main part of the application site.  He noted the windows to habitable rooms at the gable of 10 John Street adjacent to the application site.

The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to a proposed site layout, with 27 one and two-bedroom apartments, with the two-bedroom apartments being en-suite.  He highlighted the communal bin and cycle store areas and explained the building would appear in elevation as 2.5 storey from Holly Street and 3.5 storey from John Street.  He added that a previous application had been for a purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) and the current application had been amended in terms of no longer being a PBSA, rather self-contained flats and had seen a number of design changes.

The Senior Planning Officer noted there had been no objections from statutory or internal consultees, however, the City of Durham Parish Council had objected to the application, with a summary of their concerns listed within the report.  He added there had been seven objections, including from the nearby Spiritualist Church and one letter of support, again with a summary of their comments contained within the report. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted Durham Constabulary Crime and Community had objected to the application in terms of density of development and lack of outdoor amenity space and parking.  He added that objection from the Local MP had also been received, noting issues of overbearing, overshadowing and likely occupation by students.  It was noted that there had been amendments following the applicant contacting the MP.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the application was for C3 accommodation, not a PBSA and the Conservation Team considered that the design would enhance the setting within the Durham City Conservation Area.  He added Officers felt there would be minimal impact on residential amenity of nearby residents, and the design within the constraints of the site was acceptable.  He added the development was within a controlled parking zone and would include two disabled parking bays, with Highways offering no objections as the site was in a sustainable location and had provision for cycle storage. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted while the Ecology Section, and School Places Team had offered no objections, commuted sums were suggested in terms of: provision or enhancement of play provision within the Neville’s Cross Division; provision of school places within the Neville’s Cross Division; and towards biodiversity enhancements in line with Council strategies.  He explained that in terms of a commuted sum in relation to affordable housing, a detailed viability statement had been provided and the Spatial Policy Team had noted no objections in relation to the lack of affordable housing provision.

The Senior Planning Officer noted it was a finely balance proposal and noted that Officers felt that the benefits including: positive use of a vacant site; positive impact on the Conservation Area; small contribution to housing stock; sustainable location; improvements to the adjacent footpath outweighed any adverse impact and accordingly the recommendation was for approval subject to the Section 106 Legal Agreements and conditions as detailed within the report.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor R Cornwell, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell thanked the Chair and noted the City of Durham Parish Council was a statutory consultee and had objected to the application.  He reminded Members of the previous application in 2016 for a PBSA on the site, which was refused, and that refusal decision upheld at appeal.  He noted the site and area was not suitable for further student accommodation and highlighted the concerns of the Parish Council and residents that the application before the Committee could be student accommodation by stealth.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that the emerging City of Durham Neighbourhood Plan identified the site for mixed use, with accommodation for older people being identified as an area of need.  He noted such use would tick a number of boxes both with DCC’s Spatial Policy Team and the City of Durham Neighbourhood Plan.  Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted NPPF Paragraph 61 referred to the need to provide for a number of different groups, however, he pointed out the similarity of the design to that of a PBSA, suggesting a risk the accommodation would become student housing. 

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted the Parish Council suggested some conditions and amendments to have slightly more two-bedroom apartments and for some disability adaptations.  He noted a previous application where condition as regards under 55 years of age for occupation had been made and suggested that a similar provision, albeit for those over the age of 25, could be made to restrict use by undergraduate students.  He added that the challenge was to try to live up to the promise of the application and therefore there needed to be a nuanced discussion.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor R Cornwell and asked Local Member, Councillor L Brown to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor L Brown noted that she and Councillor E Scott, as County Councillors for the area, were very pleased when this application was lodged as they both felt that not only would the flats help redress community balance in Durham City as per paragraph 142 in the Committee Report, but would also provide accommodation in close proximity to shops and public transport. She added that the proposed scheme also had the added benefit of removing a derelict piece of land which had been an eyesore for many years.

Councillor L Brown explained that given those factors, the apartments would be ideal as housing for older people, vulnerable adults and people with disabilities as referenced on p108 of the County Durham Plan pre-submission draft.  She noted there was a shortage of that type of accommodation in the city and added that as she had said in her original representation, it would be wonderful if the block of apartments were warden controlled and had community facilities built in, as can be seen in other areas of Durham.

Councillor L Brown noted that she and Councillor E Scott therefore welcomed the application, however, would like to ensure that the eventual residents were not students as they looked to developments like this to make up the shortfall in housing for the full-time residents of Durham.  She concluded by noting that it was hoped conditions could be added to the application to ensure the apartments were not for student use.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Ms N Allen, Planning Consultant acting on behalf of the applicant to speak in support of the application.

Ms N Allen thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted it was important to state the 27 one and two-bed apartments were for market accommodation, specifically developed for C3 use, and would be suitable for a whole range of different people, from young families to older people.  She reiterated the Officer’s comments as regards the vacant, tight urban site and the commuted sum that would be made in terms of open space provision.

Ms N Allen noted the Officer’s report highlighted no objections from the statutory or internal consultees and reiterated that the application before Committee was very different from PBSA application previously considered.  She noted that Conservation Officers were happy with the design, enhancing the Conservation Area and pointed out the city centre location, close to transport links and amenities, meant the site was in a highly sustainable location.  She added the brownfield site also benefited from being fully serviced and the opportunity for a range of people to occupy the properties offered the potential of social benefits on top of economic benefits of regenerating the vacant site.

Ms N Allen referred to the NPPF tilted balance test and reiterated the significant benefits of the scheme as set out within the report and Officer’s presentation.  She understood that Members had visited the site and would know the site was currently an eyesore and informed the Committee there had been a number of fly-tipping incidents at the location.  She added the retaining wall was in poor condition and the application would help to regenerate the site, vacant for so long the previous Case Officer used to walk past the empty plot on the way to school.

Ms N Allen appreciated the proposal was for a large block, however, the design was sympathetic and was a high quality which would “enhance the Conservation Area”.  She added the development would improve the footpath as mentioned, and also create a new hammerhead and retaining wall.  She noted the huge opportunity to develop the plot, with high build costs due to the constraints of the site and bespoke design, the applicant taking a long-term view in developing the site.

Ms N Allen noted the was not much harm in the proposed development and that was far outweighed by the significant benefits as demonstrated and therefore she asked that the Committee approve the application as per the Officer’s report.

The Chair thanked Ms N Allen and asked the Senior Planning Officer to comment on the issues raised by the speakers.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in respect of the issue raised by the City of Durham Parish Council and Local Members, the apartments were for any end user and that any change of use application for student use in the future would provide an opportunity for a level of control, each application to be considered upon its own merits.  In respect of conditioning for age restriction, the Senior Planning Officer noted such conditions would need to be looked on in terms of reasonableness and, in this case, Officers had not thought such conditions would not be reasonable to impose.

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

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he had attended the site visit and had saw drainage holes at the site and asked how they would be incorporated within the development.  He also noted six objections from local residents and highlighted the proposal suggest around 50-60 people living at the location, none having a vehicle.  The Senior Planning Officer noted the Council’s Drainage Team and Northumbrian Water Limited were happy with the application and appropriate condition in respect of drainage.  He added the site was within a controlled parking area and asked the Highways Officer to elaborate.  The Highways Development Manager, John Mcgargill confirmed the site was within a controlled parking zone and that as a new development, new residents would not be allowed to apply for parking permits.  He added that the cost of on-street parking would be prohibitive, however, the application site was within a sustainable location.

Councillor B Coult noted that the site was an eyesore and she moved that the application be approved.

Councillor D Freeman noted he felt a sense of déjà vu, with applications in 2007, 2008, 2009 and with him having sat on all three of the Planning Committees where they were considered.  He noted that C3 use was not for student use, however, he had concerns that the one-bed units and lack of parking provision suggested they may become used by students in the longer term.  He noted his disappointment in terms of the lack of affordable housing, noting planning was becoming flexible to the point of delivering no affordable units. 

Councillor D Freeman asked for the comments of the Solicitor – Planning and Development as regards any condition relating to an age restriction.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the decision as regards conditions was for Members, however, she noted that conditions must be reasonable and acceptable or necessary.  She noted that Officers had not identified any reason why such a condition would be necessary and reiterated it was a matter for the Committee. 

Councillor A Laing seconded Councillor B Coult.

Councillor D Freeman noted he would be happy to see such an age restriction condition as it would support the aims and needs identified within the CDP and City of Durham Neighbourhood Plan.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it would be a struggle to sustain such a condition if appealed.  Councillor A Laing asked what would be possible in terms of such a condition.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that any type relating to an age restriction would likely be lost at appeal as they would not be necessary in order to deliver the development.  Councillor D Freeman reiterated he felt a condition in terms of restricting to aged 25 years old would be beneficial in order to rule out the majority of students.  The Chair asked Councillors B Coult and A Laing as proposer and seconder if they agreed to such a condition being added, they both agreed.

The Area Team Leader, Sarah Eldridge asked for clarity in terms of the condition they wished to apply and whether Members’ wished the condition to would preclude any family members under the age of 25, or if the condition would stipulate at least one family member being over the age of 25.  Councillor B Coult noted one family member being over 25 years old.

Councillor I McLean noted the situation that could occur where a 21-year-old living in one of the flats could lose their parent or parents in an accident and by virtue of such a condition lose their home as well as their family.  He added there could be other scenarios, where a child and siblings are left the property and unable to live in the property.  He added he felt it was too proscriptive.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted Councillor I McLean’s interpretation was correct.

Councillor R Manchester noted that he agreed with Councillor I McLean’s comments and he was against any condition restricting age.  He moved that the application be approved, subject to the original conditions set out within the Officer’s report.  Councillor I McLean seconded Councillor R Manchester.

The Chair noted that the first vote would be for approval, subject to a condition restricting age to one family member over the age of 25, proposed by Councillor B Coult and seconded by Councillor A Laing.  Upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.  The Chair noted the proposal by Councillor R Manchester, seconded by Councillor I McLean was for approval, subject to the original conditions as set out in the Officer’s report.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreements as set out within the report.