Agenda item

Change of use from 4 no. C3 residential buildings to 4 no. B1 office buildings.

 

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 application was the change of use from 4 no. C3 residential buildings to 4 no. B1 office buildings and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

 

The Planning Officer, JJ explained there were two updates for Members in relation to the application, an update to the wording of Condition 3 to reflect the updated Sustainable Travel Plan and that following the final draft of the City of Durham Neighbourhood Plan moving into the examination in public stage, the plan could be attributed weight in line with paragraph 48 of the NPPF.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the heritage features and character of the terrace, such as the sash windows, and noted the rear yards to the properties and the nearby University office block.  She referred Members to rear elevations and nearby Valuation Office car park, the office block and nearby student accommodation block.  She asked Members to note the proposed internal layout, with minor internal alterations and making good the existing sash windows.  She referred to the parking plan and area in blue which benefited from University parking permits.  She noted that the Highway Section had noted no objections and that the Design and Conservation Section acknowledged the building was of heritage value, though was not a Listed Building, and the proposal would have no impact on the character of the area or the Conservation Area.  She added that Environmental Health had also raised no objections to the proposals.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted four letters of objections had been received with a summary of their representations being set out within the report, namely in terms of loss of family housing within the city centre, historic links to the railway station that existed, the buildings in poor condition, with timber windows left to rot and original features removed, and that parking and congestion would be increased, the Travel Plans being aspirational.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ explained that in principle the proposed change of use of the terraced properties to office accommodation was considered acceptable, due to being suitably located, close to University buildings, the town centre and readily accessible by sustainable transport modes.  She added that the proposals would not require external alterations ensuring the historic character or appearance of the terrace was retained, thus preserving the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.  It was added that the continued use of the building would also ensure its upkeep and maintenance.  The Planning Officer reiterated that there were no concerns regarding impact on amenities of neighbouring occupiers and, while the proposal has generated public interest with four letters of objection received, the objections and concerns raised had been taken into account and addressed within the report.  She concluded by noting that, on balance, the concerns raised were not felt to be of sufficient weight to justify refusal of this application and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

 

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked the Senior Committee Services Officer to read out a statement on behalf of Mr Alan Hayton, representing the Whinney Hill Residents’ Association, and who was not able to attend the meeting.

 

The Senior Committee Services Officer noted the statement from Mr A Hayton read as follows:

 

“It had been our intention to attend the Committee meeting but unfortunately, due to the situation which faces us at present due to Covid-19 and the need for the meeting to be conducted via ZOOM we are unable to take part in person but have provided a written statement. 

 

To support our original written objection to this application we would like to make the following comments:

 

1)   In our initial objection we referred to the University’s claims that the construction of the large-scale Palatinate Building on Stockton Road (opened 2012) was intended by the University   to address all of its office requirements (now and in the future) and at the time this claim was central in supporting their application for approval.

The Planning Officer states that it is accepted that with any business that different needs emerge over time and it is not unreasonable for the University to seek out further office accommodation. The Officer further states that the application must be determined on its own merits, regardless of what previous intentions the University may have had with regards office accommodation.  This would appear to indicate that any argument can be presented in order to gain approval and then it can be conveniently disregarded when it has served its purpose. As it would appear with the Palatinate Building.

 

2)   The Planning Officer refers to the proposed change of use of the dwelling houses can be suitably accommodated in this location, given the close ties with nearby University facilities. Most of the land nearby is open land given to sporting activities i.e. Durham City Rugby Club, The Cricket Club and The Rowing Club. There are also flats and the Magistrates Court nearby plus some University offices (which no doubt will be relocated at some point as part of the University’s expansion plans). Consequently, we would consider the reference to ‘close ties’ as being rather exaggerated and given more emphasis than is justified.

 

 

 

 

 

3)   Durham University has claimed in the past that it takes its responsibilities for protecting the heritage of Durham City very seriously and yet these Victorian Railway Cottages which Durham University have owned for some time have been allowed to disintegrate into such a poor state that it is now claimed that the conversion to offices will actually help preserve these buildings. As the last vestige of the City’s railway heritage Durham University should be restoring them fully, both internally and externally, instead of merely incorporating them within their expansion plan.

 

4)   The Planning Officer refers to the National Planning Policy Framework: NPPF Part 16 -Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning).  The point clearly being made is that sites and buildings do not have to be on the scale of castles or cathedrals to be retained for the benefit of future generations. Consequently, the Victorian Railway Cottages should be conserved as residential units fully restored as example of the period in which they were created in and, the social history evolution depicted within them.

 

5)   The Committee report under Planning Policy paragraph 9 refers NPPF part 2, Achieving sustainable Development, however NPPF 2 part 8b does not appear to be referred to and states:

 

‘8 b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations…’

 

By retaining the Victorian Railway Cottages as family homes, the above objective is achieved, and a mix of quality residential homes is maintained which would comply with DCC policy of maintaining and preserving mixed and balanced communities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6)   Paragraph 36 of the Committee Report refers to applicant’s statement which claims potential benefits to local trade.  Obviously, that would be a possibility rather than the properties being left empty. However, there would be a more immediate and long term benefit for local businesses if the properties were returned to family housing - giving a 7 day trade to both shops and evening premises and also avoiding the loss to trade if the offices were relocated at a later date.

 

7)   The Planning report also refers to paragraphs 47 and 48 within the Planning Consideration and Assessment section. The application refers to a site which is at the far end of Green Lane and not located within the city centre. Consequently, we are not sure what the relevance of para. 47 is, as there is no bus stop anywhere near this location and the bus service on the adjoining Whinney Hill has been withdrawn. Therefore, it would appear to have no bearing on the application. The reference to para. 48 is also surprising as it refers to Saddler Street which is in the city centre. Surely, this only reinforces the point that even more family/residential accommodation is being taken out of circulation in order to facilitate Durham University’s poorly thought out expansion.

 

8)   It is also reported that Highways have no objections because the University can issue parking permits and they have 202 parking spaces which are operating under capacity at present. We would make four points:

 

a.    At present Covid-19 is having an impact on University staff working practice and consequently all of their car parks could be described as operating under capacity.

b.    During normal none Covid-19 times, Green Lane is awash with cars so approval of this application will simply result in the displacement of present car users.

c.    When the Business School is completed (and during its construction), Green Lane will become an obvious choice as a car park. Again, present car users will be displaced.

d.    Even now, during Covid-19, if you take a walk down Green Lane you will see that the parking spaces located there are in high demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9)   We would also suggest that at least part of the applicant’s statement is disingenuous when it states:

 

‘We (The University) has found there is no demand for renting the properties in their current condition and is not viable for Durham University to Invest in properties for rental to staff. Conversion to office use restores the buildings, bringing them back into beneficial use. It is anticipated that this will be a short term proposal until there is a proposed bespoke office accommodation for the Faculty of Arts and Humanities. Works have also been designed to facilitate conversion back to residential in the future’.

 

We would highlight two points:

 

a)   The University claim there is no demand for renting the properties in their current condition or viable for them to invest in. As the current owners of the properties, the University should be maintaining them to a degree which enables them to continue to be sought after as residential properties, as they have been in the past. Therefore, the question should be why has the University deliberately allowed these properties to fall into such a poor state of repair?

 

b)   It is claimed that this is a short-term proposal and the properties can be converted back into residential use. In response firstly, in 2017 a University representative suggested that as part of Durham University’s expansion Masterplan that the properties could be demolished as part of their development plans for Green Lane. Secondly, having conceded that it is not viable for Durham University to invest in these as rental properties; it is to be considered disingenuous that after allowing these Victorian Railway Cottages to fall into disrepair once that the University would be in any rush to convert them back into high quality residential units which genuinely reflected the period they depict?

 

10)   DCC are the custodians of Durham City and yet year on year Durham City is losing its once, unique identity and is being absorbed into the corporate identity of Durham University. By approving this application DCC would merely be endorsing this loss of Durham City’s identity and heritage.

 

We have been assured by DCC Conservation Officer’s that the Victorian Railway Cottages have been afforded protection and can’t be demolished, which back in 2017 a senior University representative said was a possibility. Now, it is proposed to convert these Victorian Railway Cottages which, up until now have been used as residential properties, into 14 office rooms.

The Planning Officer’s report refers to Design and Conservation being consulted and for their views on the proposals.  They confirmed the terrace of Victorian Railway Cottages dates from c.1898 and is rare within the city as it was built as part of the Durham Station-Elvet part of the Durham, Elvet & Murton branch line, with many of the buildings associated with the station demolished in  the  1960s.They  note  that  the  terrace  contributes  positively to the surrounding conservation area and in this respect the proposed change of use to secure their use/occupation, along with  associated fabric restoration works would be beneficial moving forwards.

 

In conclusion therefore, it would appear clear that these Victorian Railway Cottages do have a significant part to play in celebrating Durham City’s railway heritage but it would also appear that these residential properties have been seriously neglected and, the Design and Conservation departments support for the change to office use is seen primarily as a way of preventing further erosion of these rare and unique properties within the city rather than fully endorsing the Change of Use application.

As part of safeguarding Durham City’s Railway heritage this application should be refused and the properties completely refurbished by the University and, they should continue to provide much needed housing in this corner of Elvet for either local residents or university staff.  Thank you”.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Committee Services Officer and asked the Planning Officer, JJ to speak in respect of the points raised within the statement.

 

The Planning Officer, JJ reiterated that the application was for a change of use to office buildings and regardless of other applications, the application must be determined on its own merits.  She added that the area was already in mixed use, and that the site was well related to other University offices as well as student accommodation.  She noted that in respect of the concerns raised regarding the current state of the properties, the reuse of the building would help in terms of their maintenance and upkeep and no external alterations were proposed and would not prevent their reversion to residential use at a later date.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted while there would be merit in retaining the properties as dwellings, the application for change of use was deemed as being acceptable and there were not solid grounds for refusing the application on the basis of loss of housing.  She added that as regards bus stops, while there may not be bus stops on Old Elvet, there were bus stops on New Elvet, just under 500m away.  She noted parking issues were discussed within the Committee report and that there was a number of methods of accessing the site including walking and cycling and that the reuse as offices did not impact upon the heritage value of the building. 

 

Councillor A Gardner declared an interest, as an employee of Durham University.

The Chair asked the Committee for their comments and questions on the application.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted he was a Local Member for Elvet and Gilesgate and that he had a lot of sympathy with the objection letter that was read out on behalf of the Residents’ Association covering the main points why the proposals were an unsatisfactory application.  He noted his concern was the loss of four domestic properties, with those properties having been occupied relatively recently, within the last few years.  He noted the University was claiming no one wanted to live there now, though he believed this was largely down to the actions of Durham University in letting the properties run down to a state where University staff would not want to live there.  He added that the properties were only metres away from other, non-student, residential properties and were not simply four student properties surrounded by office blocks, rather it was part of a residential street if one was to include the student properties.  He added that the properties were the last remaining relics of what was Elvet Railway Station, the buildings being originally cottages for railway workers and therefore there was a historic reason for preserving the properties for residential use.  He noted the historic environment of Durham was not just the Cathedral and Castle, it included the industrial heritage, with Durham once having three railways stations all within close distance to each other.  He reiterated that he felt there was an argument to preserve the buildings for their original use as residential properties.  Councillor D Freeman noted he found it difficult to see any benefits to the application, rather it was further damage by the University who he felt had a history of causing many of the problems his city experienced today.  He agreed with residents in their suggestion that the University should invest in the houses which would then allow University staff to live in the city centre rather than moving out because they cannot find a house within the city as they are full of students.  Councillor D Freeman noted the Residents’ Association had raised Part 16 of the NPPF and saved Local Plan Policy H2 and he added he felt the application was contrary to those policies.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that Councillor A Gardner had declared a pecuniary interest and therefore would need to leave the meeting.  The Senior Committee Services Officer noted he could remove Councillor A Gardner from the meeting and re-invite him once the item had been determined.

 

Councillor A Gardner left the meeting at 10.40am

 

Councillor B Coult asked for clarification regarding the floor layout and were there going to be doors to allow for movement internally between the properties.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted that this was not the case and all the properties would be accessed by their own individual external access, with the internal walls remaining to separate the buildings.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted with sadness the stark contrast between old properties and the new buildings and agreed with the comments from Councillor D Freeman and the comments from Mr A Hayton on behalf of the Residents’ Association.  He noted the beautiful looking railway cottages surrounded by the corporate cloak, enveloping rest of the area.  He also added that he felt it was difficult to make a case against the application, with the Planning Officer, JJ being right in the points she had made, and he felt that any refusal would not be sustainable at appeal.  He reiterated that he felt very saddened and he wished that the University would have proper participation within communities and play their part and do something nice for a change.

 

Councillor J Robinson asked for clarification as regards paragraph 35 onward of the report, noting the University had mentioned in their statement they could not afford to repair the houses, however, they would be able to afford to convert them to offices and then back to residential properties afterwards.  He asked would it be possible to condition the office use for a temporary period of one year for example.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it would be very difficult to impose that type of condition, the Planning Officer having assessed the application on the basis of a permanent change to office accommodation, if there were any doubts about the impacts such that a trial period was required to assess the impacts, then in those circumstances a temporary or time-limited permission may be appropriate, however, that was not the situation and therefore he did not believe there was justification for a temporary permission.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he agreed with both Councillors D Freeman and P Taylor.  He added the University appeared to get whatever they asked for from the Council and he felt residents within the city were sick of it. Noting an example being what he considered to be a monstrosity of a building on Durham Road, off Hallgarth Street, with residents from that area being up in arms as regards that development around 10 years ago.

 

The Chair noted she had a question as regards paragraph 17 of the report which referred to NPPF Part 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment and asked whether there was anything the Committee could add, in similar terms to the blue plaques that are attached to buildings of significant historical value in this particular instance, referencing the historic railway use.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted it could be suggested, however, she did not feel it would not be a requirement through condition. 

 

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he agreed with the Planning Officer, JJ and that if it was something the Committee wished to be communicated to the University as Applicant then that could be done, purely as an encouragement.  The Chair noted she understood that it would be a suggestion, rather than condition.

 

Councillor J Maitland noted that paragraph 35 of the report noted “temporary office use” and asked if the University could sell the properties as offices to a third party and whether there was anything the Council could do in that case in terms of reverting the properties back to residential use.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that he did not feel there could be a requirement for the properties to be changed back to residential use in the future, and in any case that change of use back would itself require planning permission, should the change of use to office use be successful.  He added that the University could sell the properties as office use, however, that was not an issue for the Committee.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted he wished to support the comments of the Chair and he would wish for the Council’s Design and Conservation Team to be bold in terms of protecting buildings within Durham City at all costs and the comments that the proposals would have a “neutral effect”.  He added that while the façade may remain unchanged, there would be an effect, the buildings were becoming offices and it represented another loss of residential properties within the city.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted a minor correction to what he had said, in that there would be some permitted development rights for conversion from office use back to residential use, subject to a prior approval regime, so the Council would have  some element of control, however, not total control.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted that, while it may not be an application that he or the Committee liked, he felt that from the information provided by Officers, the application was technically appropriate and therefore he would propose approval in line with the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor J Maitland seconded the motion for approval.

 

The Chair noted for a comment to be included to encourage the University to work with the Design and Conservation Section in future.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

 

Councillor A Gardner entered the meeting at 10.57am