Agenda item

Refurbishment into 5 individual self-contained flats.

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 for refurbishment into 5 individual self-contained flats and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Officer noted that since the publication of the Committee report, comments from Durham Constabulary had been received and she would update Members within her presentation.

 

The Planning Officer noted that the application was put forward by the County Durham Lettings Agency, which formed part of the Housing Solutions Team, and they were seeking permission for conversion of the existing health clinic into five flats.  She referred Members to slides relating to the application site location and photographs of various views of the site. 

She noted the site was within the defined commercial centre of Wheatley Hill, with several workshop units, located to the north-east.  She added residential terraced properties were located to the west along Dennis Street. 

Members were asked to note the aerial photograph showed the large wooded area to the rear, with built development on the remaining three sides.

 

The Planning Officer referred to a photograph of the front elevation and noted the proposals would include the removal of the front curtain walling and two front doors and two windows would be inserted.  She explained that the rear elevation photographs highlighted the vehicular access from Dennis Street and also razor wire and window security measures that would be removed under the proposals.  Members were referred to a rear view from the property, showing the remainder of the site and the woodland beyond.  The Planning Officer noted the gable elevation, facing Dennis Street, would be altered to include two new windows at the ground floor level.  She referred to photographs that showed nearby empty properties, with two of four properties in the nearby terraced block being boarded up at the time of the photograph being taken.  A final photograph showed the adjacent workshop as discussed.

 

The Planning Officer explained the site plan showed that the footprint of the building would remain unchanged, with resurfacing works proposed to the car park to the rear.  She explained the main changes would include the addition of two doors and two windows to the front elevation and replacement of the curtain walling with matching render.  She noted the proposed side elevation showed two new windows at ground floor level and doorway.  She added there were no changes intended for the rear elevation or other side elevation.

 

The Committee were referred to proposed floorplans and the Planning Officer explained the ground floor showed the layout of three of the five flats, each having a separate bedroom from the main kitchen/living area.  She noted the first floor plan showed the remaining two flats, with a separate kitchen/living area from the bedroom in each.

 

The Planning Officer noted statutory consultation responses included objections from Wheatley Hill Parish Council, their concerns including: the inappropriateness of the location to house homeless; already existing problems of anti-social behaviour in the area; future occupiers at risk of being vulnerable to problems in the area; future occupiers have complex needs and the area has no proper services to provide support; safeguarding of children and nearby schools; and the extent of the public consultation, the Parish Council noting a number of the nearest neighbours notified were empty properties.  She noted the Highways Authority raised no objections to the application.

In reference to internal consultees, the Planning Officer explained there had been no objections from the Ecology Section and the Nuisance Action Team had raised no objections subject to noise mitigation measures to protect future occupiers from daytime business noise from the workshops. 

 

The Planning Officer explained that late comments received from Durham Constabulary stated: “Having full strategic oversight of the project and its purpose, Durham Constabulary support the development.  It is noted there are pockets of Anti-Social Behaviour in and around the locality, but it is deemed that Durham Constabulary and partners will manage this as we do in many different locations.  That fact does not deter from the probative value

of having this building brought back into service to act as accommodation for those deemed appropriate by Durham County Council”.

 

The Committee were asked to note two letters of objection had been received, the Planning Officer explaining the concerns raised included: the extent of the consultation; the impact on the nearby community centre and service users, new occupants of the flats may bring additional pressure and footfall of existing users to the site; assurances were sought that proper safeguarding policies and procedures would be in place for effective day-to-day management; and the ongoing anti-social behaviour in the area.

 

The Planning Officer noted the in terms of the principle of development, the proposals were felt to be in line with Policy 6 of the County Durham Plan (CDP) relating to undeveloped sites and the site was in a central sustainable location, with access to services and transport links.  She noted there would be no loss of service as a replacement health centre had already been built and the derelict building, which was prone to vandalism, would be brought back in use.  While there had been concerns raised by objectors in terms of the proposed use and its location, it was highlighted that there were limits to the extent of control that could be afforded through the planning system in respect of future occupiers.  It was added that the applicant was notified of the issues raised and had provided clarity in terms of likely tenancy at the flats, confirming that the accommodation was to meet the needs of people at risk or homelessness as defined under the Housing Act 1985 which had a broader definition than just “rough sleepers”.  The Planning Officer noted the applicant had confirmed that there was no greater likelihood that clients would have complex needs or a criminal record than any other tenant.  She added it had been further clarified that the properties would be manged by the County Durham Lettings Agency, a department within Housing Solutions at the Council, and they would vet and manage all future tenants and provide a range of support services.

 

The Planning Officer noted the five flats proposed met the criteria of Policy 6 and the proposed C3 use was deemed acceptable.

 

The Committee were asked to note that the scheme was considered to have a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the area as it would bring a derelict building back into use.  It was explained Officers felt that there would be no negative impact upon existing surrounding occupiers based upon residential occupancy of the building and that the noise mitigation measures required due to the neighbouring workshop units could be secured via condition.  The Planning Officer added that all the flats met the national criteria in respect of space standards and two of the flats would be Disability Discrimination Act compliant.  It was reiterated that there had been no objections raised by Officers in terms of highway safety or parking.

 

Members were asked to note in respect of the extent of the consultation, it had exceed the requirements as set out within the development management procedure order and the other points highlighted as part of the consultation process had formed part of the consideration, however, had not been deemed sufficient grounds for refusal of the application as they would be limits to planning control that could be applied to future occupancy of the flats.

 

The Planning Officer concluded by reiterating the proposals were compliant with Policy 6 of the CDP, noting Paragraph 11 of the NPPF required that proposals in accord with an up-to-date development plan were approved without delay and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Jake Miller, Chair of Wheatley Hill Parish Council, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Parish Councillor J Miller thanked the Chair and Committee and noted he would be presenting a statement that had been unanimously agreed by all Members of the Parish Council and he would be speaking on behalf of both the Parish Council and residents that had raised concerns.  He noted that he wished to make it known that the comments from the Police referred to today at Committee were amended comments and that on Wednesday, 3 March the Crime Prevention Unit had published a comment on the Planning Portal stating that they had serious concerns with the proposed development.  He noted, however, the statement was only available for a short period of time before it was taken down and replaced by a statement of support from DCI Blakelock.  He added that the Parish Council was surprised that a DCI had commented upon such an application.  He noted the Parish Council had conversations with Police Officers who had stressed their concerns about the development and the Parish Council found it odd that such a U-turn had occurred within a short period of time.

 

Parish Councillor J Miller noted the objections of Wheatley Hill Parish Council were two-fold.  He explained that the objections were not to a homelessness provision within the village, adding he had himself worked within the homelessness sector for some time and therefore understood how high the need was for more homelessness services.  He added that to provide such services should be a top priority for all Local Authorities every year, not just during a pandemic. 

 

Parish Councillor J Miller explained the first objection was to the proposed location, the Front Street in Wheatley Hill rife with anti-social behaviour.  He added that the Parish Council was constantly receiving complaints as regards the level anti-social behaviour in that area and the damage being caused to surrounding homes and properties.  He added that there were also complaints as regards the length of time it took Police to respond to such incidents.  He noted the Parish Council regularly received complaints as regards youths causing damage in the area, with Arriva making contact with the Parish Council to explain they would no longer be operating in the area in the evenings as a result of anti-social behaviour.  He added that it had included stones being thrown at passing vehicles including busses, with one incident where a driver was hit and required medical attention.  Parish Councillor J Miller noted the local MP had become involved with the issue last year, after receiving a number of complaints from residents about such behaviour.  He added that since then two site visits had taken place with himself, County Councillor L Hovvels, the Police, Street Wardens, the Fire Service and Durham County Council representatives.  He explained this had been to discuss the problems that had occurred at the street behind the Front Street, Black Lane, and to discuss how action could be taken to tackle the issues.  Other examples of issues in the area included vandalism to the community centre vehicle, the vehicle being used to deliver meals on wheels to elderly residents in the area.  He added that without the quick reactions of volunteers on that day, meals would have not been delivered for some time, adding the community centre was located around the corner from the proposed development.

 

Parish Councillor J Miller explained the village Co-op store was located just along from the proposed development and recently the store had been trashed, and thefts had occurred on a number of occasions, with a theft also occurring at the funeral home next door in addition.  As a result of the anti-social behaviour and crime in the area, it was noted the Parish Council had recently asked Durham Constabulary to look into issuing dispersal orders to those involved in order to tackle the level of anti-social behaviour.  He explained that it was for those reasons that the Parish Council felt that placing the proposed provision within the centre of such issues would not only place tenants at risk of becoming victims of such anti-social behaviour, but would also put them at risk of becoming involved in addition. 

He noted that it was important to protect everyone involved, not just those living there or committing crime.

 

Parish Councillor J Miller noted he had witnesses first-hand how easy it was for vulnerable people to become involved with things they may not have become involved with, had they not been vulnerable.  He added he appreciated the comments from the Council’s Housing Manager, Marion Rucker as regards clients not having complex needs, however, he noted that an individual did not have to have complex needs to be enticed into behaviour by a group of people, they just needed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, adding the Front Street at Wheatley Hill was completely the wrong place.  He explained that during community meetings, Durham County Council’s Housing Team had reported, month after month, high levels of empty properties that they owned, struggling to be occupied.  He added the Parish Council asked therefore whether it would not be better to invest the Government grant in those properties instead of renovating and converting an entire building.

 

Parish Councillor J Miller noted the Parish Council’s second objection was as regards the consultation and planning process undertaken, adding the Parish felt the transparency of the process had been clouded and that the Parish had not been involved in the original conversations.  He noted the Housing Manager had mentioned, within her supporting document, that Local Councillors were involved however Parish Councillors had not been involved, so it was assumed that had meant County Councillors.  He reiterated that the Parish had not been notified and had not been included in those conversations.  Parish Councillor J Miller noted that the application form did not mention the provision was for former rough sleepers or those at risk of homelessness, instead it was written in tiny font at the right-hand side of a document entitled “Proposed first floor plan”.  He added the Parish accepted that it was contained within the proposal section of a document entitled “Design and access statement”, however, they questioned why it had not been set out within the proposals section of the application form itself.  He noted that most people would check the application form and the Parish submitted that would have been more transparent to have included on the application and not on a plan of how the development would look. 

 

Parish Councillor J Miller noted the Planning Portal stated that neighbouring properties were consulted on the proposals, however, he explained the Parish felt that consultation could not have been effective as, of the 21 residential properties included, only eight were occupied.  He added that this meant 13 properties stood empty though were still involved in the consultation process. 

 

 

 

He added that Councillors had been informed that those properties were now occupied, however, the consultation had commenced on 5 January 2021 and the Electoral Register from 3 December 2020 showed 13 empty properties.  He noted this would indicate that the empty properties had been filled in just under one month, and over the festive period when many services would have been closed.  He noted that after months of attending steering group meetings listening to report after report as regards the County Council struggling to fill such empty properties, it was now being stated that 13 properties had been filled in less than one month.  He explained that of the 21 properties consulted one of them was School House, Front Street, Wheatley Hill, the property being considered for the proposed development, which meant that the County Council had consulted with a derelict building, which it owned, as regards a planning application they had made.  He noted this had not made sense to the Parish Council and had made it question the transparency of such an application.  Parish Councillor J Miller added that the Housing Manager had noted that the appropriate consultation had taken place as the flats proposed were not a specialist provision, however, within the third paragraph of the document it states “tenants will be offered housing management support in terms of paying bills, maintaining property standards and linking clients into employability opportunities”.  He asked whether that was not specialist provision.

 

Parish Councillor J Miller reiterated that the Parish Council was by no means in objection to homelessness provision within Wheatley Hill, adding there were a number of areas and streets where such provision would be better suited, somewhere quiet, somewhere with less anti-social behaviour problems and somewhere where former rough sleepers or those at risk of becoming homeless would be able to enjoy living.  He added that listening to youths throwing stones through windows or at buses, vandalising shop fronts and houses, and verbally abusing residents as they walked past was not an environment that he would consider enjoyable.  He noted it was not somewhere where a former rough sleeper should be housed.  Parish Councillor J Miller concluded by noting it was upon the objections he had set out that Wheatley Hill Parish Council objected, and continued to object, to the planning application and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor J Miller and asked Local Member, Councillor L Hovvels to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor L Hovvels thanked the Chair, Committee and Officers and noted it was only the second time she had felt the need to attend Committee to speak on a planning matter relating to her Electoral Division in the 10 years she had been a County Councillor.

 

 

Councillor L Hovvels noted she was representing the people of Wheatley Hill, providing a voice for the residents who felt they had not been consulted and felt that their opinions had not been taken into account.  She reiterated the points made as regards the empty properties in the area, the bulk of which she noted had been empty for a very long time.  She recalled the visit by the MP John Healy, around two years ago when looking at selective licensing and explained locally such visits had continued with multi-agency walkabouts, bring organisations together to try to address the issues in the area.  She noted the photographs of Dennis Street had shown two of the four properties in the street as being boarded up and added she would be very pleased if those issues were addressed and the empty properties were brought back into use, especially as those properties backed on to aged miners bungalows that were being developed. 

 

Councillor L Hovvels echoed the comments of Parish Councillor J Miller in agreeing there was a need for provision for vulnerable and homeless people to live, however, she explained that they needed to be safe and there was a duty of care to those individuals.  She added that she felt that not all of those factors were being taken into account when looking at the application.

 

Councillor L Hovvels noted that she felt the application was rushed and linked to the funding attracted to the scheme and reiterated that a conversation with the local residents of Wheatley Hill had not taken place.  She noted that NPPF Part 8, as referred to at paragraph 11 of the Committee report, referred to “Promoting healthy and safe communities” adding that was an area Members should look at, in terms of “Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space and community facilities”.  She noted she believed such provision required wider consultation with the community, adding notices in the street would not be effective, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic people were not outside looking for notices.  She continued by noting that NPPF Part 8 stated “Developments should be safe and accessible” adding it was not felt the area was a safe place to accommodate vulnerable people.  Councillor L Hovvels noted the high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour in the area, with the Police and other agencies and Council staff openly admitting the issues.  She noted that all were familiar with the area and had a duty of care to vulnerable people.  She noted NPPF Part 8 also stated “An integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted”.  Councillor L Hovvels noted that the Crime Prevention Unit had made representations and they had been taken off from the Planning Portal quite quickly, on one day and off the next.  She noted they had expressed concerns and emphasised that they provided advice to those seeking such advice on crime prevention. 

 

 

Councillor L Hovvels explained she had a copy of the representation that had been made and correspondence in relation to the application and the timescales in respect of funding and works required to commence on or before 31 March.  She added she was interested in Wheatley Hill becoming a better place, a safer place, and she did not believe that the proposal would enable that to happen.  She explained she felt it would add to problems that were being dealt with and she hoped that the Committee, having heard the concerns of the residents, would reject the application on the grounds it was not in accord with NPPF Paragraph 8 - promoting healthy and safe communities.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor L Hovvels and asked the Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

 

In respect of the Police statement, the Planning Officer noted that the original statement was received on 3 March and it had remained public throughout the process, it had not been removed, and the subsequent response received on 5 March was also made public.  She noted Officers understood the situation in respect of anti-social behaviour, however, she reiterated that the application was for the conversion of the building to five flats, and therefore did not fall within any other policy other than Policy 6, reiterating Officers felt that it was in accord with policy.  The Planning Officer noted that the application was presented as the refurbishment of a building into five flats and the specifics in relation to occupiers of the flats was not an issue that could be controlled in planning terms and therefore would be difficult to put forward as a refusal reason.  She noted the applicant had clarified the management process and therefore the issue would be for Committee to consider.  In terms of the consultation process, the Planning Officer noted that Planning had gone over and above what was normally required, with a wider than usual consultation with residents surrounding the site.  She acknowledged the point raised as regards site notice, however, she explained that weekly planning lists were circulated, and this would likely have been where the Parish Council would have noted the application.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked the Housing Manager, M Rucker, representing the Council as applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

The Housing Manager thanked the Chair and noted for clarification that the scheme was the development of five flats within the building for those as defined under the Housing Act 1985, adding the Act had a very broad remit.  She noted representations had referred to vulnerable people, complex people, and rough sleepers, however the Housing Act covered any person that becomes homeless.  She explained that could be a person leaving home needing their first own home or a person going through a relationship breakdown and requiring a place to live. 

The Housing Manager noted occupiers would not be vulnerable and complex, adding the Council had other housing schemes that it had developed across the county for such individuals and it would be inappropriate to house those individuals in a development such as that proposed for Wheatley Hill.  She explained that was a benefit of Housing Solutions managing the scheme, the team being able to know at all times who would be occupying the flats.  She added that the team would gather a lot of background information as regards an individual when they contacted the Housing solution service and therefore, they would be able to allocate the flats appropriately. 

 

In reference to consultations, the Housing Manager noted discussions in relation to notices going to empty properties.  She explained that the owners of those empty properties had the right to be consulted and comment on the proposals.  She noted in respect of scheme, that it was to help with housing across the county, adding that currently there were no available properties in the east of the county and there was a shortage in terms of the provision of both flats and accessible flats for those with disabilities.  The Housing Manager noted the building had been identified a few years ago as being suitable and the Council had been working to secure funding to develop a scheme.  She noted there were associated time constraints linked to the funding, as there would be with any such funding schemes, and she reiterated that the proposals were to bring the building back into use for five flats, and to manage those flats effectively.  The Housing Manager explained the flats would be for use by general people who had been through the homelessness service, not for people with complex needs or vulnerabilities, the Council having other suitable accommodation such as the complex needs facility opened on 1 February elsewhere in the county.

 

The Housing Manager explained that tenancy support services were offered to anyone that came through the Housing Solutions service, and she noted this was what was referred to within her response.  She explained that the service saw many users come back as a consequence of being unable to manage bills, set up direct debits, or claim benefits which they were entitled to and therefore the support was offered via Officers within her team to any user that needed such help to maintain their tenancy.  She added the support and management offered was in the best interests of all and would help prevent users with a tenancy crisis representing to the service in the future, the long-term goal in respect of tackling homelessness within the county. 

 

In reference to remarks as regards potential criminal backgrounds of individuals to be housed at the property, the Housing Manager explained that they would be subject to Police checks and the service worked very closely with the Police and would continue to do so. 

 

She reiterated that the flats would be effectively managed and that the service already managed a number of properties across the county effectively, with a 100 percent success rate in managing tenancies, with tenants being settled within communities with no issues.  She added the proposals were an opportunity to provide regeneration as part of the first works within the area, alongside other work in respect of selective licensing and empty homes in Wheatley Hill and the east coast area of the county.

 

The Chair thanked the Housing Manager and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor A Laing noted reference to “regular visits” and asked how regular those visits were and whether there would be any age limit, or starting age, that would be required for tenants of the flats.  She noted that the owners of the empty properties would have likely not seen the letter that had been delivered as part of the consultation.  She asked if the Police checks referred to would highlight issues such as drug misuse.

 

The Housing Manager noted the age for a tenancy was 18 years old or over, though there would be consideration in terms of who else was living within the area and within the flats and there would be a balance.  She added that the process was part of the overall management policies as the Lettings Agency.  She noted that levels of contact would depend upon the needs of the individual, however, at least 3-4 visits per week, with routine during the pandemic having been to telephone tenants daily.  In respect of Police checks, the Housing Manager noted it would depend upon the response from the Police, however, if the Council was aware of certain issues then the Council would look to avoid putting individuals with certain issues in areas with those issues.

 

Councillor D Brown noted the apparent overlap between planning regulations and social issues, or issues with anti-social behaviour, and asked for some advice from the Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter on what weight could be afforded to the issues raised in terms of possible refusal of the application.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that the application was for C3 residential use and, as stated by the Planning Officer, Policy 6 was the relevant policy, containing a number of criteria.  He added that generally the planning system would look as regards uses of land or buildings rather than the particular individuals that may occupy a property.  However, he noted that issues of anti-social behaviour and the fear of anti-social behaviour and crime were potentially material planning considerations. 

 

 

He noted the difficulty in respect of the application, in terms of the query from Councillor D Brown regards refusal, was that the Police did not support a refusal reason based upon exacerbation of an existing anti-social behaviour or crime and disorder issue.  He noted the most recent consultation response from the Police, their amended response, made it clear that there were existing pockets of anti-social behaviour, however, they made it clear they did not see bringing the property back into use as exacerbating that issue.  He added that it could be suggested that it could be of benefit in respect of that issue as, once a property is brought back into use, there would be less chance that property would generate the sort of anti-social behaviour that was associated with empty properties. 

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development concluded by noting that, in terms of framing a refusal reason around the reason of anti-social behaviour and crime and disorder, it would be very difficult for Members to come up with reason around those issues that would be sustainable upon appeal, predominately as there was not the support from the Police for such a reason.

 

The Chair thanked the Solicitor – Planning and Development and asked whether the flats would be used a short-term measure for those tenants in order to develop their confidence prior to moving on to other providers.  She also asked whether potential tenants could come from anywhere within the county, and therefore be unaware of the area or situation.  The Chair asked if the building was currently on the Council’s asset register and listed for sale and whether, if the property were to be sold and a similar scheme came forward from a private developer, would there be potentially be less safeguards than the currently proposed Council scheme.

 

The Housing Manager noted that occupants would be allowed to remain at the property for up to three years, the Council having to protect itself against right-to-buy through non-secure tenancies agreements, managed through the Lettings Agency.  She noted the support work that took place with Social Providers to help those people find longer-term accommodation.  She explained that it would be hoped to take individuals from the east of the county to the proposed scheme, it was not intended to move people from other parts of the county.  The Housing Manager added she believed that people needed to be their local area and in many cases the homeless offer from the Council had to be within a certain area that the individual had chosen, generally close to where they live and where possible properties were reserved for those local to the area.  In respect of the property, the Housing Manager noted it was on the Council’s asset register and therefore there was a possibility of it being sold, adding it one of a number of properties Housing Solutions were working through across the county.

 

Councillor A Laing noted she was disappointed, in terms of the response the question raised by Councillor D Brown relating to potential refusal reasons.  She noted Councillor L Hovvels had mentioned NPPF Part 8, however, on consideration of the advice given by the Solicitor – Planning and Development, she would move that the application be approved.  Councillor D Brown seconded the motion for approval.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

 

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