Agenda item

Erection of 1no. 4 storey building comprising of 3no. units (use class E (a)(b)(c) or Sui Generis (drinking establishment)) to ground floor, 1no. unit (use class E(d) to first and second floor and 4no. residential units (C3) ancillary to the commercial units to third floor (amended description).

The Senior Planning Officer, Leigh Dalby, 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 the erection of 1no. 4 storey building comprising of 3no. units (use class E (a)(b)(c) or Sui Generis (drinking establishment)) to ground floor, 1no. unit (use class E(d) to first and second floor and 4no. residential units (C3) ancillary to the commercial units to third floor (amended description) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

The Chair asked Councillor K Shaw to speak as Local Member on the application, noting he would withdraw from meeting after he had spoken on the application.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted in respect of the consultation that he had responded and that was why Members were considering the application at Committee, he noted that had not been mentioned within the preamble given by the Officer. 

 

Councillor K Shaw noted he was one of the two County Councillors representing the Dawdon Electoral Division, the other being Councillor L Kennedy who unfortunately was unable to attend the meeting.  He explained that he was speaking on behalf of the residents who opposed the application in its current form due the impact it would have on the town centre and local community.  He noted that he had been a Seaham Town Councillor since 2008 and a County Councillor since 2013.  He added that Seaham Town Council stood unanimously against the development in its current form, not opposed to the site being developed, but not in the current proposed form.

 

Councillor K Shaw explained he was born in Seaham, within the Dawdon Electoral Division, and had attended a local school, lived, and worked in Seaham all of his life and witnessed massive changes within the town, from the closure of the three pits in the town with the loss of around 3,000 jobs, seeing the town at its worst, to the thriving community it had now become, with a growing, and increasing prosperous town centre.  He noted that during his terms of office as both a Town Councillor and County Councillor he had worked to secure investment to improve Seaham, to make it a place people would want to visit, with now over 300,000 visitors a year.  He noted the success in the securing and siting of the “Tommy” sculpture on the terrace in May 2014, which had helped attract visitors from all over the country and indeed from further afield.  Councillor K Shaw noted the sculpture sat within yards of the proposed development, and also within yards of the proposed development was the international award winning marina and new water activity centre.  He noted the work of previous Cabinet Members, working together to bring high speed broadband to the area, especially the Portfolio Holder at that time, Councillor C Marshall.

 

 

He added that just over two years ago DCC had won just over £2 million of investment, town centre heritage funding, and noted the Members should be aware that as Town Councillors, County Councillors, and individuals, all had fought hard for the best for their town, its people and the visitors who now came in their thousands daily. 

 

Councillor K Shaw added, however, that “not all in the garden was rosy” and noted problems existed.  He explained that access to shops and businesses on The Terrace needed to be improved, including remodelling of the terrace green itself, and he noted it was at that point one began to hit upon the problems the proposed development would cause.  Councillor K Shaw noted the terrace itself on which the proposed development sat was about to have a major revision, cars that currently park on the front would be relocated on to the reconfigured terrace green car park, at the loss of some parking provision.  He added this would enable the footpath to be widened, providing better access to businesses.  He noted the roadway itself was the main arterial route into Seaham from Sunderland and also out of Seaham on to the A19.  Councillor K Shaw explained that it was a very busy road and the proposed development sat on the corner of a junction which led to a residential area, adding that Seaham had over 20,000 residents.  He noted that what Seaham did not have was a dedicated town centre car park, and that it was a matter of public record that the town centre car parking could not meet the current demand.  He noted the spokesperson for residents would give a more detailed insight into the additional car parking problems and impact upon residents the development would cause. 

 

Councillor K Shaw noted that car parking would become more relevant as the Council’s Leisure Transformation Programme, introduced by the previous administration in March 2021, was about to be considered by the new administration in less that two weeks.  He noted the programme had itself had clearly identified that car parking was a major problem in the town centre and that a town centre car park was urgently needed.  Councillor K Shaw referred to the leisure transformation update that went before Cabinet in March 2021 and noted that three sites were currently being considered as a final location for the swimming pool leisure centre, two of which were proposed to be on existing car parks in the town centre.  He added that if either of those two were agreed, then car parking must be replaced, with the leisure transformation specifically aiming to provide a once in a lifetime opportunity to resolve the town centre parking to meet current and future need.  He noted that during the interim around 90 spaces would cease to exist, should either of the Seaham town centre sites were formally chosen. 

 

 

 

 

Councillor K Shaw referred to paragraph 68 of the Cabinet report which stated:

 

“Car parking displacement would be a key issue with both the development of St Johns Square site as a standalone facility or as part of the development of a dual site.  This was a key issue identified in both the technical assessment and the public consultation as car parking is an ongoing challenge in the town centre due to a lack of a central main car park”.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted further paragraphs of the Cabinet report stated:

 

“In looking at the current car parking provision, the land at St Johns Square provides limited appeal for users of the centre, whilst underused and derelict land at Green Street provides the prospect of a much improved gateway and enhanced aesthetic for the centre as well as consolidating a more accessible parking provision for the town.

 

An appropriate car parking solution is critical to the success of the scheme and without it alternative options may have to be considered.

 

The Council is committed to delivering suitable car parking as part of a comprehensive plan for the town centre and will explore all options as part of its acquisitions strategy in assembling the necessary land required”.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted the recommendation conclusion within the report stated:

 

“Recommendation conclusion: preferred option is St Johns Square with enhanced community, club and outdoor facilities at the existing site subject to resolution of car parking facilities at St Johns Square”.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted therefore that it was known that the car parking within the town centre could not meet current or future needs.  He noted his point was that within the Committee report there was a clear presumption stated was that though the development would create significant additional demand for car parking it could be met by town centre parking, which the Authority was on record as stating did not exist.  He added that further parking would be taken away to allow the leisure transformation offer to Seaham to be delivered in the short to medium term.  Councillor K Shaw noted car parking had been reduced around the terrace green, lost along almost the whole length of the terrace, did not exist in the town centre itself and may be significantly reduced to offer a long term solution.  He noted the small matter of 300,000 visitors to Seaham every year and added that number was growing. 

He noted that in view of the fact that the Council already recognised that car parking was not sufficient to meet current needs, he felt it was wrong to put forward within the application, that because there was normally a presumption that developments in a town centre setting can be supported in regards the car parking provision, when it was clearly not available and was a concern raised by the Council.  Councillor K Shaw noted that as the decision as regards leisure transformation was due to be made shortly, he proposed that the matter was deferred to allow the decision on the leisure transformation to be made and how the future car parking would be met as it was unsafe and put the Authority at risk if a decision on the application was made in full knowledge of the points he had raised.  He noted that he, and his five fellow Seaham County Councillors all shared those concerns and all Members of Seaham Town Council across both political parties were fully opposed to the development in its current form.  He added that the residents themselves opposed it. 

 

Councillor K Shaw noted that it was the wrong development, in the wrong place and definitely at the wrong time.  He added that the development was overbearing and impacted upon local residents’ amenity, and the impact would be significant on the town itself.  He noted it would not compliment the buildings in the conservation area, indeed was overbearing and unsympathetic, was far too large and would tower over the very close Victorian properties in the area.  Councillor K Shaw hoped that the Committee could support the residents, Town Council and six the County Council Members who want to see an appropriate development on the site, want to see more jobs, want to see continuing investment, and were able and willing to work with the developer in order to achieve an outcome that would be valued and supported, and work in everyone’s interest going forward.  Councillor K Shaw noted he would request that the application be deferred until after Cabinet had made the decision in the short term as regards its leisure offer for Seaham.  He noted that was material in the future countywide leisure transformation programme and that in turn may have material impact on what was proposed at Committee.  He asked if time could be taken to work together with the Applicant to seek a way forward on a development that could be supported by residents and that the town centre could accommodate.

 

Councillor K Shaw left the meeting at 11.12am

 

The Chair noted the issues raised by Councillor K Shaw and how they could be affected by the leisure transformation plan and how that plan could lead to further loss of car parking in Seaham.  He asked if the Solicitor – Planning and Development could provide advice as regards the request for deferral.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that she would wish for comments from the Highways representative as regards the issues raised. 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development added that Councillor K Shaw had essentially made what was known as a prematurity argument, for example that determining the application that was before Committee today would prejudice the leisure transformation process the Authority was going through.  She noted that, from her perspective, planning guidance was clear that applications should only be refused on the grounds of prematurity in limited circumstances.  She noted and example was that the NPPF states that where the development proposed was so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant that the grant of planning permission would undermine a plan making process, and that plan making process was at an advanced stage.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that the NPPF guidance and other guidance did largely relate to development plan documents as it was not generally anticipated that non-development plan documents would give rise to grounds for refuse an application.  She noted that the leisure transformation programme was not a development plan document, however, even if Members were to apply those principles to the leisure programme, they would struggle to justify an argument that the proposal was so significant that it would undermine the leisure transformation process.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted Members would be able to see from the Committee report, and hear from the Highways Officer in due course, that highways issues had been carefully assessed and judged to be acceptable.  She added that, subject to the comments of the Highways Officer, she did not think she could advise Members that there were any grounds to refuse or defer in reference to the leisure transformation programme at this stage.  She concluded by noting, as ever, it was open to Members to arrive at a different conclusion.

 

The Chair thanked the Solicitor – Planning and Development and asked the Principal DM Engineer to respond to the comments made by Councillor K Shaw within his request to defer the issue because of various highways issues relating to the leisure transformation plan and add to the picture in terms of the highways situation in Seaham, the leisure transformation plan and how it may be reducing car parking numbers, and how it could relate to the application.  

 

The Principal DM Engineer noted that in respect of the planning applications before Committee, each application was taken on its own individual merits and he noted the Engineer that had dealt with the application had undertaken a robust assessment for the mixed use, residential and gymnasium.  He explained that in terms of traffic generation, he noted the demand for parking within the town as mentioned by the Local Member, however, given the size and scale of the proposed development the types of trips generated were normally passer-by or link trips, people already on the network.  He added that those travelling into the town centre to bars or restaurants would be using them for those uses. 

The Principal DM Engineer noted there was not a large trip generator in highways terms for parking demand in the area around the “Tommy” memorial.  He added there was parking on-street, however, the development could only be considered on own individual merits.  He noted that looking at context of the street in was well served in that it had double yellow parking, bollards and the Engineer had looked to impose a condition to continue the parking restrictions around the side road and into the back street, protecting parking on the highway.  He added there were bays along the street for everyone to use, including the other businesses.  The Principal DM Engineer noted that Highways did not see a significant enough demand to refuse the application on parking demand as the trips associated with it were not severe enough to warrant highways refusal.

 

Councillor C Marshall asked if the Applicant was at Committee and noted that he felt that, in respect of the issues raised, that a conversation between the Applicant, Local Members, Officers from the Highways Team, and local residents could mitigate against some of the concerns that had been raised.  He added that, without the Committee determining the application today, the Applicant may voluntarily wish to spend a couple of weeks undertaking those discussions to try an alleviate those concerns with residents, with a view that the application could come back to the next Committee if those issues could not be resolved.  He noted he was not sure in terms of the timescales and noted it was over to the Applicant.  He added that the Committee could determine the application today and noted from his point of view he would wish to consider some of the concerns that would inevitably be raised by local residents and Councillor K Shaw.  He added that it was only right and proper to allow the Applicant at this stage to voluntarily entre into a dialogue, with a view to the report coming back to Committee as a sensible way forward.

 

The Chair noted to proceed to the remaining registered speakers, with the options in terms of proposing deferral once Members had heard from the objector and Applicant, indeed with the Applicant being able to note what they may be able to offer to Local Members.

 

The Chair asked Mr Gary Maughan, local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.

 

Mr G Maughan explained he was a resident of Tempest Road and that his family home was only a few metres away from the proposed development.  He added he was speaking on behalf of neighbouring residents who had all objected to the development.  He noted that the modern four-storey development would sit on an elevated site of 0.72 hectares in the heart of Seaham’s Conservation Area.  He added it would occupy retail and leisure floorspace of 1,260 square metres on a prominent corner plot of North Terrace. 

Mr G Maughan noted it was in close proximity to a large number of residential properties either designated as listed buildings or buildings of significant interest by DCC.  He noted that the proposed development was described as being in similar scale to the ongoing development in the centre of North Terrace, The Harbour View.  He explained he had submitted photographs as additional evidence to demonstrate the scale of that development, and photographs of the development site.  He noted they demonstrated the scale and height of the proposed buildings in comparison to neighbouring buildings. 

 

Mr G Maughan noted objectors referred to the character appraisal and management plan of Seaham’s Conservation Area Appraisal for much of their initial objection.  He added that the Appraisal document could be found on the DCC website and noted that the 181 page document stated that its purpose was to offer guidance, increase the wider understanding of the Conservation Area, and establish a framework for its preservation and enhancement.  He noted the document also stated that it was a material consideration in the decision process for planning applications.  He added that he had been unable to find any reference to the document within the planning application, the consultees’ comments, or the Planning Team’s considerations and assessment. 

 

Mr G Maughan explained the document contained a number of considerations that objectors believed supported their objections and noted he would outline the main points.  He noted that on page 168 of the document at Policy 22 it stated: “The council will seek to preserve or enhance the character, appearance or setting of the district's conservation areas by: i) Not allowing development which would detract from the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area; ii) Only permitting development within, adjoining or affecting conservation areas where it is appropriate in terms of its siting, layout, site coverage, height, roof style, detailed design and materials; iii) Protecting important views into and out of the conservation area”. 

 

Mr G Maughan noted that the second point related to vistas, viewpoints and settings on pages 90 and 91, the document stated: “Seaham Conservation Area is dominated by long views and vistas… the key views within the conservation area include… North Road, North Terrace and Tempest Road.  The design of new buildings should ensure that these views are preserved or enhanced, wherever possible.  Planning permission will not be granted for developments which impair or deteriorate these views unless there are demonstrable public benefits which outweigh the harm”. 

 

 

 

Mr G Maughan noted the development was proposed to take place at the junction of Tempest Road and North Terrace.  He added that just by its sheer size and height, the development would impact the view both north and south along North Terrace and east and west along Tempest Road, in the heart of the Conservation Area, altering important views.  He noted the development would tower above the neighbouring Victorian/Georgian residential properties.

 

Mr G Maughan noted thirdly that developments must not “…adverse impact upon the tranquil or isolated character of the area”.  He noted that one of the primary proposed uses was for a gym open from 8.00am until 11.00pm, employing 120 full and part-time staff, with the addition of gym-goers.  He added there would be inevitable increase to street parking.  He noted that even if the use was changed from a gym to something else, the size of the building would suggest similar staff and visitor numbers.  He explained that in the near future there would be 74 car parking spaces around the terrace green and North Terrace, many of which were already taken up by employees or owners of the local businesses.  Mr G Maughan added that planning considerations had noted that the proposed development made very little provision to mitigate the parking issues so objectors could not see how the immediate area could cope with the extra demand given the significant issues already faced with parking and congestion.  He noted that, with visitors having nowhere to park, the economic impact on the businesses of North Terrance was potentially very damaging and would make Tempest Road even busier for its residents.

 

Mr G Maughan noted, in summary, residents were objecting to the development as the Conservation Area Appraisal document had not been used as a material consideration in the decision process and the development did not meet those considerations.  He added objectors considered that the development was inappropriate in terms of its size and scale and noted he could not emphasise enough how much bigger the building was when compared to the surrounding buildings.  He noted the development would impair and deteriorate key views and spoil the peace and privacy of immediate neighbours, and that the area could not support the additional parking.

 

Mr G Maughan explained that the objectors were supportive of the regeneration of Seaham and not against something being built on the site, however, objectors strongly felt that allowing the development to go ahead in its current form was a mistake.  He noted that the building would end up being one of Seaham’s tallest buildings, on a prominent seafront corner plot in a key part of the Conservation Area.  He added the character appraisal referred to a number of older developments which, in hindsight should not have been allowed, and noted that objectors felt that if not scaled back, the proposed development could fall into that category in the near future.

The Chairman thanked Mr G Maughan and asked Mr Andrew Moss, representing the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr A Moss thanked the Chair and explained that the application sought to make use of a disused parcel of brownfield land surrounded by existing development in a range of uses close to the centre of Seaham, a main town within the County with a commensurate range of services and facilities.  He added it was therefore a highly sustainable site and one that should be reused.

 

Mr A Moss noted that it was appreciated that the site was in a sensitive location and it was important that the development integrated sensitively into the character and appearance of the area generally and the Conservation Area specifically.  He added that it was acknowledged that concerns were raised about the design approach initially proposed.  He noted that, in response to those concerns, the Applicant and his architects had worked with the Council’s Officers and amended plans were submitted earlier this year and amongst other things, the height of the proposed development was now similar to the height of the approved development at 18 North Terrace, The Harbour View, which would give the terraced block two matching bookends. 

 

Mr A Moss noted the DCC Conservation consultation response on the amended plans was also to be noted, which stated: “The applicant has amended the proposed plans as requested and updated the information within the design and access statement.  No further comments from a design and conservation perspective”.  He added the comment was recorded in Section 19 of the Committee report.

 

Mr A Moss noted he agreed with the analysis in the report that the proposed development was acceptable in principle and in heritage terms and agreed with the assessment in paragraph 77 of the report that the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of Seaham Conservation Area and would preserve the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings.  He explained that he also agreed with the analysis in the report that the proposed development was acceptable in streetscene, residential amenity, highway safety, parking, ecology, and connectivity terms, subject to the impositions of detailed conditions which would retain control over the development to the Council and to the payment of a financial contribution in respect of Coastal Access Management Measures.

 

Mr A Moss confirmed that his client, the Applicant, was agreeable to the imposition of the recommended 22 conditions and to payment of a financial contribution to be secured through Section 106 Agreement.

 

 

Mr A Moss requested that the application be determined today, whether that was approval or refusal, with his personal view and request to the Committee was that the recommendation be followed, and planning permission be granted subject to conditions and to entry into a Section 106 Agreement in respect of Coastal Access.

 

The Chair thanked Mr A Moss and asked Officers for any comments on the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in reference to the Seaham Conservation Area appraisal, while the Conservation Team had not explicitly referenced the document, they would have considered the special significance of the Conservation Area as required in the NPPF and set out within that document.

 

The Principal DM Engineer noted the issues raised as regards parking around the town centre and reiterated that Highways did not feel they could put forward significant refusal reasons for that.

 

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

 

Councillor C Marshall explained it was a difficult case and noted the comments from the Applicant and that there had been a bit of back and forth in terms of the designs.  He added he had spent a lot of time in Seaham and added to the 300,000 visitor count and explained he felt that there should be an aspiration to double or treble that visitor number.  He noted that needed to be done in keeping with the needs and aspirations of local people.  He noted the Town Council and local residents had struggled for many years with highways issues and parking issues in and around the town.  Councillor C Marshall noted, when he had visited, the difficulty with the notorious Seaton Lane Junction, which the Council had managed to secure funding from Government, and he admitted there were significant challenges with Seaham, with development and regeneration over a number of years which he felt was welcomed by most people, with jobs and improvements to the area not necessarily having taken into account the huge increase in visitor numbers over a short space of time.  He explained that the conclusion that he had reached was that one could not put on to a local developer the issue of parking that pre-exists, not necessarily what Members take into account as part of decision making at Committee.  Councillor C Marshall noted he would say there was a significant need for the Council and its Highways Team to engage with residents and the Town Council, to have a proper plan for how visitors access and interact with the community and how local residents could access the amenities in the town centre, whether that was by car, footpaths, or cycle routes. 

He noted he was not sure what powers the Planning Committee had, however, he suggested it may be useful for the Chair to write to the Portfolio Holder and ask for an urgent review from the Council and a plan to be drawn up to deal with the pre-existing highways and parking issues in the town.  He reiterated it was a pre-existing problem and he felt the Council needed to work with the Town Council and local residents to overcome those challenges.

 

Councillor E Mavin explained that he visited Seaham often and noted that parking was shocking, and one could not get parked at the best of times.  He noted he was erring towards agreeing with the comments from Councillor K Shaw and for the application to be deferred.

 

Councillor D Brown noted he had listened very carefully to all those who had contribution to the application today.  He explained that it was his understanding that, as the Highways Officer had mentioned, each application was taken on its merits and to his mind 50 percent of the discussions had been outside of the facts relating to the application.  He noted it had been already discussed how thoroughly the research was done in terms of reports, with everything taken into consideration and taken on balance.  He noted in respect of the application he was minded to move acceptance of the application.

 

Councillor C Kay noted Councillor E Mavin was minded to move toward deferring, providing a round-robin discussion as regards the thorny subject of parking in Seaham.  He asked if that was an option for the Committee in planning terms.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted deferral was an option that was open to Members to arrive at today, however, Members had heard from the Applicant’s Agent that he would wish to proceed to a determination today.  She noted she would like to understand from Planning Officer whether the Council was still within the determination period, as it may be open to the Applicant to appeal for non-determination if a decision on the application is not reached within the statutory time period.  The Senior Planning Officer noted there was an extension until tomorrow to make a determination on the application.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that once again the local community and Parish Council very much opposed to the application and he felt that should weigh strongly on Members’ decision making.  He added that he was a great supporter in localisation in terms of decision making as people who live in an area tended to know best about what their needs were and what would meet their future needs most effectively and tended to get the decision right.  Councillor J Elmer noted parallels between this application and the previous application in terms of the difference of opinion in relation to the treatment of heritage assets. 

He noted it concerned him that there could be on two subsequent occasions completely different opinions presented in relation to the heritage impact, one arising from local people and local communities, and one arising from the Council.  Councillor J Elmer noted that surely, we could be at odds with each other so frequently.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development responded to the point raised by Councillor J Elmer in relation to what was and was not relevant in terms of determination of applications.  She explained that the Council was required by statute to determine applications in accordance with the development plan and any other material planning considerations.

 

Councillor C Marshall noted he had listened to the views and opinions and noted two issues that stuck out for him.  He noted Members could not make the Applicant liable for a pre-existing parking issue in Seaham, however, what Members could do was to look to try and mitigate the impact of the proposed development on making that problem worse.  He noted the risk to the Council was not making the determination by the deadline, and then the Applicant would be within their rights to take the matter to appeal.  He noted that if Councillor E Mavin was moving to defer the application to allow a discussion between the County Council and the Applicant and Local Members he would be happy to second that on the basis that between those three stakeholders he would hope the County Council would start to work with local residents in mitigating the pre-existing car parking places, so that Members could determine the application in the very near future with some assurances from the County Council that issues with parking were going to be dealt with.  He noted that he would be much more comfortable with that as there was a decision imminent on 29 September on the leisure transformation strategy.  He accepted the Solicitor’s advice but noted that he did think that period of time might allow for the three main stakeholders in the area, the local community represented by the Councillors, the developer, and the County Council to come up with a solution or a plan as to how to deal with the parking issues as he felt hat was the main issue with the application.

 

The Chair noted there was a proposal to defer by Councillor E Mavin, seconded by Councillor C Marshall and asked for final comments from the Solicitor and Planning Officers prior to moving to a vote.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that Members had received her advice that she did not think there were any realistic grounds upon which to sustain a refusal or deferral.  She noted she was not clear what could be achieved, in planning terms, in relation to the application and was not sure what a deferral was hoping to achieve.  She added she suspected that the Applicant may go to a non-determination appeal with potentially a costs claim against the Authority and added that would be her concern.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted he had nothing further to add to the comments from the Solicitor – Planning and Development.

 

Upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

 

Councillor D Brown moved that the application be approved, he was seconded by Councillor C Kay.

 

Upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

 

The Chair noted that if Members wished to reject the application there would need to be a proposal, together with policy grounds to reject.

 

Councillor C Marshall noted the issues of parking, the issues of amenity and the impact upon the amenity and visual amenity of the Conservation Area were those that were more prominent to him.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted she would be keen to hear from Planning Officers as to whether they thought there was reasonable prospects of success at appeal on those grounds.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the concerns of Councillor C Marshall centred around parking, amenity, and the impact on the Conservation Area.  He noted that, from what was contained within the report, Officers were of the opinion that the scheme was acceptable in that regard, adding that the Committee were able to take their own view on that.  He added that one might expect that the Applicant would seek to appeal that decision, the option would be open to them, and Officers would defend that position.  He noted that it would be helpful if Members could be specific as regards their concerns and refer those back to CDP policies and policies in the NPPF, those policies listed to some extent within the Committee report.

 

Councillor C Marshall noted Members were not Planners and were looking at material planning considerations.  He added the Officer had highlighted the various policies within the report that substantiated the discussions of the Committee.  He noted he felt the information was all there, material planning grounds had been given and the Committee needed to move on with a decision.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted she would, with the Planning Officers, go through the refusal reasons and suggest relevant policies, noting the first one mentioned by Councillor C Marshall was parking.  The Principal Planning Officer noted CDP Policy 21 would be relevant in that respect.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the second reason mentioned had been amenity, with the final reason being impact on the Conservation Area. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted if referring to residential amenity, CDP Policies 29 and 31 would be relevant, and in reference to the impact on the Conservation Area, CDP Policy 44 would be relevant.  He asked, in respect of residential amenity, whether Members were referring to privacy, noise and disruption.

 

Councillor C Kay noted the visitors attracted to the development would result in a loss of residential amenity for the people living in the very area surrounding that in that those people had to park somewhere and there was only limited parking in the area and therefore they would lose that residential amenity that was off-street parking.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that if that was the Member’s assumption, the concerns raised in that regard would be a material consideration in determination of the application.

 

Councillor S Deinali noted that the Highways Officer had mentioned that any visits made to the building would be linked visits.  She added that the Highways Officer had not mentioned where the employees were going to park their cars.  She explained that she visited Seaham many times and had to return home as there been no parking and noted that was something that needed to be looked into again.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted Members had referred to the character and impact on the Conservation Area and asked what specifically it was about the proposal that was of concern to Members, whether that was appearance, scale, or design.  Councillor J Elmer noted the scale of the proposed building in comparison to surrounding buildings in the area, and whether it was consistent with the characteristics of the surrounding Conservation Area.

 

The Chair noted Councillor C Marshall had moved that the application be refused, Councillor J Elmer noted he would second the proposal.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1.    It is considered that the proposal would, by virtue of its design, appearance, characteristics, mass and scale appear as an incongruous addition to the streetscene that would have a detrimental impact upon Seaham Conservation Area resulting in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset which would not be outweighed by public benefits. The proposal is therefore in conflict with County Durham Plan Policies 29 and 44, Parts 12 and 16 of the NPPF and section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.    It is considered that due to its scale, height, design and proposed use the building would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity and privacy of nearby occupiers in terms of overlooking, overbearing and increased noise and disturbance contrary to Policy 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan and Section 12 of the NPPF.

 

3.    It is considered that the proposal would generate increased parking demand which could not be satisfactorily met by existing provision resulting in unauthorised parking within the immediate locality to the detriment of highway safety contrary to Policy 21 of the County Durham Plan and Section 9 of the NPPF.

 

Councillors C Kay and C Marshall left the meeting at 11.53am

 

Councillor K Shaw entered the meeting at 11.54am