Agenda item

Proposed development of 5 dwellings and associated parking.

The Senior 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 a proposed development of 5 dwellings and associated Parking and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a s106 Agreement.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that there was an extant permission for 6 terraced properties on the site, though it had not commenced at the current time.

The Chair asked Councillor M Wilkes, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor M Wilkes thanked the Chair and explained to Members that he had asked that the application be brought to Committee as he felt the application represented inappropriate development.  He added that he, the Parish Council, and many residents saw the application as an attempt to develop the site in such a way that the impact upon neighbouring residents would be unacceptable.  He asked if the Planning Officer could display the site layout for the scheme as passed in 2018.  He noted that it would be useful for the Committee to note what the outline planning permission offered.  He explained that those properties were in keeping with the surrounding area as they were two-bed starter homes.  Councillor M Wilkes noted that proposal had included parking to the front of each of the properties and, at the outline stage, provided two visitor parking spaces which would not have interfered with the access for the properties on Front Street, adding that the outline permission clearly indicated an adoptable road and footpath proposal. 

Councillor M Wilkes noted the current, full planning application increased the number of bedrooms by 25 percent meaning the properties proposed would be three-bed, not two-bed, and therefore less likely to be starter homes and more likely to be houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) given the close proximity to Durham City.  He noted that the new application would remove parking spaces for existing residents and replace them with visitor parking spaces.  He added that the report stated that there were six residential, terraced properties to the front of the development site, and noted that there were, in fact, seven as numbers 5a and 5b were flats, as indicated on the 2018 plan.  He explained that existing residents needed the parking to the rear of their homes and had been using the area for parking for decades, perhaps even over half a century.  He noted that land was not owned by the applicant.  Councillor M Wilkes noted that the removal of two parking spaces in an already difficult place to park would make it impossible for residents.  He explained that other parking along Front Street was limited or already used by businesses and other residential properties.  He added that it appeared to him that the applicant, in attempting to suggest that there was sufficient parking, had simply chosen to include a ridiculous amount of unusable parking spaces on the plans for current application.  He noted three spaces, back-to-back, for some of the properties and added that no sane family would use the spaces as they would be required to move two cars in order to allow the third out.  He explained that the result would be that the visitor parking would be used, taking it away from existing residents and would likely be used by the new residents for parking, making parking issues even worse.  Councillor M Wilkes noted that the application, in removing the ability for existing residents to park, was incompatible with County Durham Plan (CDP) Policy 31 as it could clearly be demonstrated that the new development would have an unacceptable impact upon the health and living conditions of existing residents. 

He added that CDP Policy 29(e) stated that developments should ‘provide high standards of amenity and privacy and minimise the impact of development upon the occupants of existing adjacent and nearby properties’ and added that clearly the application did not do that. 

Councillor M Wilkes noted he had two questions in relation to the proposed s106 Agreement.  He noted that previously he had requested a condition be placed on the properties prohibiting them from being used as HMOs, as they were meant to be starter homes under the outline application, with the outline application having been passed with that condition in place.  He noted it appeared that the current application omitted that condition.  He noted the outline application stated: ‘The dwellings hereby approved shall only be occupied in accordance with the C3 (dwellinghouses) use class and are not authorised for C4 (houses in multiple occupation) use.  Reason: To define the consent and in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004’.  He asked why the condition had been removed rather than amended and updated to reflect the new CDP.

Councillor M Wilkes noted his second question related to highways adoptions and asked if Planning Officers could confirm that the Council would be able to insist that the road be brought up to adoptable standard, given that the applicant did not own all the land that was required to put in place the footpath and road.  He noted a development on a nearby road, South Terrace, resulted in a decade of issues caused by the same problem, taking up a huge amount of Council Officer time, with the road having not been adopted, with resulting impacts for residents.  He added that we could not be seen to be building new developments which would end up with unadoptable roads, noting that all could see the damage that had been caused over the last century elsewhere in the county.

The Chair thanked Councillor M Wilkes and asked Miss Nicola Brown and Ms Anita Harvey, local residents, to speak in objection to the application.

Miss N Brown explained she lived at 7 Front Street and noted she had reservations as regards parking during and after the proposed development.  She noted that six cars from numbers 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 7 and 9 Front Street used the east and north of the development, on the unadopted road, to park their vehicles due to the lack of parking space on and around the property.  She added that none of the residents had been able to acquire parking permits for Front Street, often enough there was insufficient parking for six cars due to the amenities on the front street.  She noted that her biggest concern was that once the houses were built and the new residents moved in, there would be disputes about parking and access.  She added that no doubt the residents and visitors of both Front Street and the new development must use the area to park their cars, in a marked bay or not.  

Miss N Brown asked what provision would be made for those cars that had nowhere to park and what would happen while the works were underway as the cars in question were not going to disappear. 

She added that the road was unadopted and would be used for visitor parking spaces for the proposed development, with one of those spaces blocking vehicle access to the garden of 7 Front Street.  She explained she had noticed that the gate into the garden of 9 Front Street had not been included on the application plans and access had not been provided to 9 Front Street. 

Miss N Brown explained the application would affect her access, amenity and transport conditions.  She noted that surely residents that had maintained the road for a number of years should be able to have a say in how that road be used, adding it seemed the developer had not considered that.  She explained that she assumed Highways would take ownership of the road and that it would not be the responsibility of the new residents, and asked who would claim ownership of those parking bays. 

Miss N Brown informed Members that the last time works had been carried out at the site work vehicles had blocked access to the west of Front Street for around a week.  She asked where work vehicles would be parked while work was underway and what contingency plans were in place to prevent the blocking of access and conflict between residents and workers on site.  She noted there was also a safety issue with a number of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) deliveries throughout the day for the carpet shop.  She explained she had previously witnessed a close-call with a large vehicle and a young child and noted the children and disabled residents used the street for recreational purposes and, when the development of family housing was complete, there may be more vulnerable residents.  She asked if safety provisions could be put in place. 

In reference to affordable homes, as mentioned by Councillor M Wilkes, Miss N Brown noted that Framwellgate Moor had a lot of unaffordable housing, with 1,400 properties being built at Sniperley, with only 25 percent being affordable, adding she did not think the houses proposed in the application were affordable.  She added that she agreed with the points raised in relation to CDP Policy 29, adding she did not feel high standards of amenity and privacy were being respected.  She explained that, as there were disabled residents living in the street, Policy 29(f) was relevant, it stating that development should ‘Contribute towards healthy neighbourhoods and consider the health impacts of development and the needs of existing and future users, including those with dementia and other sensory or mobility impairments’.  She added she felt that policy was not being met by the application.

Miss N Brown noted she had hoped the developer would have been in attendance at Committee to help answer a lot of her worries about the development and to have been able to move the visitor parking as it looked as if access to numbers 8 and 9 Front Street would be severely impacted.  She noted earlier that morning the resident of number 9 had reversed out of her parking bay towards her garden at number 7.  She explained that if there was car parking bay in that location the resident of number 9 would be unable to get out. 

Ms A Harvey explained her son lived at number 8 Front Street and noted she jointly owned the property with him.  She explained her son had autism and had very high social difficulties, very rarely leaving the house.  She added that his garage was not shown on the plans and there was no turning space for his garage.  She explained that was needed, as her son’s carer was undertaking driving lessons to ensure she could get him out of the house.  Ms A Harvey noted she previously had a carer’s permit to be able to park on Front Street, however, that had not made any difference and she had been required to park some distance away, even with a permit.  She noted there was absolutely no consideration for the residents of those houses and explained the only reason that there was any community in the area was due to the access at the back of the properties.  She noted the impact on the current access and privacy to the properties and added that the building works were going to have a high impact upon her son particularly, as he used the outside communal area when he needed space and some air, something he was unable to do on the Front Street.  Ms A Harvey explained that residents were considering whether to put a caution on the register against first registration by prescription for use of that area.

The Chair thanked the speakers and asked the Officers to respond to the comments and questions raised.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in reference to the condition relating to HMOs, in the case of the application before Members it was not required as there was an Article 4 Direction covering the area, removing the permitted development rights in terms of a HMO, with any change to an HMO requiring a full planning application.  She referred to the plan setting out the fall back position of the extant outline consent, which also included adopted highway, footpaths and parking provision for the two-bed dwellings.  She referred to the plan for the current application, noting the footway all the way round, adding it would be possible, within a condition on the hard surfacing, in the details, to confirm that there would be dropped kerbs to allow access to the garage site.  In term of access, there would be a three metre gap that would allow access in and out of that particular garage site, and other accesses would also be retained.  As regards back-to-back parking, she added it would not be an issue that Officers could refuse an application upon, it not being unusual for parking to be laid out in that way. 

She confirmed that the hardstanding area currently available to residents at the rear related to a 4.7 metre width, with the proposal opening up that to provide better access into the site and larger space for manoeuvring cars in and out of garages.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the visitor parking would be available for the residents of 5 to 10 Front Street to use, it was free for use by anyone as an adopted road. 

The Principal Development Management Engineer, David Smith noted that the Highways Development Manager had assessed the proposals and noted that the Front Street was well served, was lit by streetlights and had good footpath connectivity.  He noted the proposed development would comprise a shared surface scheme, with a different textured material for the footpaths and road for shared use.  He added that there was sufficient space for pedestrians and vehicles to operate in that area.  He explained that in terms of the width there was no issues in terms of safe operation and that shared surface schemes allowed up to 100 vehicle movements, which would equate to around 12 houses, the proposed development being for five houses, therefore less than the maximum number of vehicle movements for such a shared surface scheme.  In terms of accessibility for residents he noted the kerbed areas would be lowered, as mentioned by the Senior Planning Officer, with all of the shared surface scheme being on one level. 

The Principal DM Engineer noted that in terms of parking provision, the developer had overprovided in respect of in-curtilage parking, with the average provision for a three-bed dwelling being 1.66 spaces per dwelling.  He added the 0.66 would refer to the visitor parking element and reiterated there was overprovision in terms of in-curtilage parking and with two visitor spaces.  He noted those visitor spaces would be on a first come, first served basis.  He referred to parking permits and noted that he had raised the issue with colleagues from the Traffic Section and explained that as the area was within the controlled parking permit area, residents would be able to apply, via The Parking Shop, for parking permits.  In respect of displaced parking the Principal DM Engineer explained that Officers could only consider what was contained within the application area with parking being able to be contained within the development.  He noted the element that could be controlled was in terms of whether the parking provision was up to the Council’s standards, and it was, and whether there was safe access on to the highway, and he noted it complied with the requisite Manual for Streets Technical Design Standards and therefore there were no technical grounds for refusal.

In respect of the adoption of the highway, the Principal DM Engineer noted that the Highways Development Manager had agreed for the road to be adopted so that they could be street-lit, adequately drained and constructed to highways standards. 

He concluded by noting on technical grounds and highways safety grounds, there was nothing that would amount to a highways refusal.

Councillor M Wilkes noted it was still not clear, his question was whether the Council could insist that the road be brought up to an adoptable standard, given the applicant did not own all of the land.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter explained that as he understood, the access that was proposed, and in front of Committee for consideration, did involve access to an adoptable standard, however, Members had heard there may be some ownership issues.  He added that if that was the position it may be, though he did not know, that the applicant was unable to enter into a s38 Agreement.  He added that in those circumstances, the road would not be something that could be dedicated as a highway and adopted by the Council, however, it would still need to be built to an adoptable standard as that was within the scheme before Members.  He noted that it may not end up as an adoptable highway.  He noted that the Council could not insist upon it being adopted, however, the Council could insist upon it being to an adoptable standard, in accordance with the proposals before Members.  In reference to the issues raised in respect of access and parking as raised by residents, they were predominately private law matters between the residents and the applicant, not something the planning system could control.  He noted that, for example, if residents had particular private law rights that prevented the scheme that was before Members coming forward, that would be a matter for applicant to address. 

Councillor M Wilkes asked if the application could be passed without a condition that the street had to be adopted.  He noted comments relating to shared use of the back street and reiterated that very large HGVs reversed and drove into the site to deliver to the carpet shop and asked if the Council was suggesting that shared surface scheme, with no pavements, would be suitable where HGVs manoeuvred next to a housing development and next to where children would potentially play.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that the Council would not be able to insist that the road was actually adopted, however, it was proposed to be an adoptable standard as controlled by Condition 5 which required details of that surface treatment to be provided to the Authority.  He added that whether the road then was subsequently adopted by the Council was not something the Council could insist upon as part of the planning application.  The Principal DM Engineer noted on the turning head feature, as set out on the plan, there was space for a refuse vehicle to manoeuvre, and therefore if someone was using the shop floor area, they would be able to manoeuvre a vehicle within that area.  He noted that with all such cul-de-sac features one would expect deliveries from time-to-time, however, the number of movements per day would be under the 100 vehicle movements, even when including the shop, and therefore there was no technical reason in relation to trip generation to refuse the application, being light traffic levels within the cul-de-sac. 

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper reiterated the points made by the Principal DM Engineer and noted Councillor M Wilkes had referred to CDP Policy 29(e) in terms of loss of the existing parking as an amenity loss. 

He added that, as the Solicitor – Planning and Development had noted, the area in question was unregistered and was subject to an adverse possession claim in terms of residents looking to prove some level of ownership.  He added that the supporting text to Policy 29(e) provided some narrative as to how Officers would apply that particular part of the policy.  He explained that it stated that ‘…consideration should be given to matters of privacy, outlook, natural lighting, ventilation, as well as local climatic conditions’.  He noted that the Committee report detailed Officers’ assessment of that at paragraphs 57 to 61.

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

Councillor C Marshall asked if Officers could confirm if land ownership issues were material planning considerations, and if Highways could confirm the parking provision was in excess of that required for new build properties under policy.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that land ownership issues were civil matters and fell outside of the scope of planning.  The Principal DM Engineer noted the amount of allocated and non-allocated parking proposed was in excess of the Council’s parking standards, a good mix of visitor and in-curtilage parking.

Councillor K Shaw referred to CDP Policy 6 and noted a sum in the amount of £2,970 as regards alternative allotment space and asked whether that was a sufficient amount and whether there was an ability to deliver such space.  The Senior Planning Officer noted the matter had been discussed with colleagues from spatial planning in terms of the Open Space Needs Assessment and it was noted that, in general, there was a shortfall in respect of allotment space.  She added that accordingly there was deemed a need for that contribution to be made as regards additional allotment space or upgrading of existing allotment space within the Parish area.  She noted that had also been a condition in terms of the previously granted permission.

Councillor D Brown noted he had never heard so much discussion in respect of car parking, however, having listened intently and read the Officer’s report he would propose that the application be approved, as per the Officer’s recommendation.  He was seconded by Councillor K Shaw.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report, with a s106 Agreement in relation to provision of alternative allotments within the local area.

Councillor C Marshall noted he felt Members in objection to an application should make their objections known and give valid reasons rather than simply voting against an application.

Councillor M Simmons entered the meeting at 10.29am