Agenda item

Construction of roof balcony and first floor bay window to front and installation of first floor balcony and French doors to rear (resubmission of DM/21/01877/FPA).

The Planning Officer, Michelle Penman, 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 construction of roof balcony and first floor bay window to front and installation of first floor balcony and French doors to rear (resubmission of DM/21/01877/FPA) and was recommended for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Councillor R Ormerod, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor R Ormerod thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that Highgate was an excellent development, the best in the city, though now with many of the properties occupied by students, not the development’s intended use.  He noted the intention was for the development to be for high level professionals, and the studentification presented issues in terms of persuading families to stay in the city, adding that we needed families to stay in the city and therefore he was in favour of the application.  He noted some existing properties at Highgate already had bay windows and the proposed roof balcony was similar to those on properties opposite to Highgate.  He noted that if the proposals were rejected it could appear that there was one rule for individuals and families and another rule for large developers.  He reiterated that he would support the proposals by this family.

The Chair thanked Councillor R Ormerod and asked Mrs Eileen Grimes, the Applicant, to speak in support of her application.

Mrs E Grimes thanked the Chair and Members and noted that it was one single property that permission was being sought for at Committee, with many houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) at Highgate having been considered under delegated authority.  She noted the proposals for the master bedroom and bay window and cited numerous similar examples within the city in terms of the proposals for the room within the roof space and balcony, many of which were opposite the World Heritage Site (WHS).  She gave The Bowers at as a specific example.  She noted the photographs shown in the presentation were old and that trees had grown since that time.

Mrs E Grimes explained that the Millburngate development opposite to Highgate had three large terraces, and included uses such as food preparation, bar and barbecues, effectively party terraces that looked directly into her home.  She noted the City of Durham Trust commented that the balcony to the rear of the property will enhance the mews style of the houses and enhance the street appearance.  She noted the proposals were to help improve their quality of life and noted the impact of the pandemic in terms of loss of the driveway, their only outdoor space, as a result of parking passes being removed by the Council.  She concluded by asking Members to consider the application and to either approve the application or defer pending further work as may be deemed necessary by Members.

The Chair thanked Mrs E Grimes and asked Officers for their comments on the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted the proposed external alterations to the dwelling, explaining as regards the previous C4 use of the property and the current C3 use.  He added the key issue was the impact upon the Conservation Area (CA) and WHS, which was explained in some detail within the Committee report.  He noted the development at Millburngate referred to was not directly comparable to the application proposals as it was located within the commercial city centre and related to the redevelopment of the former passport office and as such the relationships to the castle, cathedral and conservation area were different to those at Highgate.

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

Councillor J Elmer noted some sympathy with the issues raised by the applicant, and the freedom for individuals to develop their properties.  He added, however, there was also a need for restraint in terms of the impact upon the CA, WHS and in turn tourism.  He noted the apparent inconsistency in terms of small scale versus large scale development, such as the hotel developments and the Council’s at one time new HQ building, however, he noted the Council’s Heritage Team had stated there needed to be a line held.  He added it had been noted that it had been felt that the bay window proposed could be brought in line with requirements and the proposed balcony to the rear had a lesser impact.  Councillor J Elmer noted the main issue was that of the proposed roof space balcony, with it having a significant impact on the currently continuous roof line, noting that there had been considerable thought at the time of the original Highgate development in terms of this.  He noted that he felt the application should be deferred in order to remove the proposed roof balcony and bring the application in line with the heritage of the city.

Councillor J Quinn explained he had issue in deferring the application, noting he felt the Applicant had worked to minimise impact.

Councillor L Brown referred to plans on the projector screen highlighting the proposed balconies.  She noted the Conservation Officer’s comments were fairly damning, citing conflict with CDP policies 44, 45 and Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) policies H1, H2 and asked what could be achieved by deferring the application.  She noted she supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillor A Surtees acknowledged the context of the CA and WHS and noted the bay window and rear balcony did not appear to be big issues.  She noted the roof balcony did not appear to present too much of a change and asked why not explore the issue. 

She felt there was an opportunity to help a resident to continue to stay in the city centre and added she would support deferral of the application.

The Chair noted that Members had few concerns relating to the bay window and rear balcony, with the main point being the roof terrace.  He noted that Officers stated that element was contrary to policy in terms of the CA and impact upon the WHS.  He noted the comments from Councillor R Ormerod in terms of the context of the proposals against the development opposite at Millburngate and added that the value of the Highgate development had already been damaged by that development opposite and that Highgate was less valuable that in was before.  He noted the issues raised and those of an existing development when compared to a new development.  He noted the proposal for deferral by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor A Surtees.

Councillor J Elmer noted the many incursions into the heritage of the city centre and the need to look at developments and ask where one should stop.

The Principal Planning Officer noted the different elements to the application, firstly the bay window, with the Applicant willing to make changes as required.  He noted that in terms of the roof balcony, the Design and Conservation Officer had made it clear they were opposed to that style and any potential incursion in that way would result in a potential objection.  He added that if Members were minded to defer the application, he could not see an easy route to a solution, however, Officers would of course engage with the Applicant.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that Members had noted certain elements were acceptable, however, the Committee must determine against the proposals as set out, in terms of refusal if they agreed with the Officer’s recommendation, approval if they did not, or to defer.  He added the issue with deferment was that the Applicant had been invited to amend the application in order to make it more acceptable, however, they had chosen not to do so.  He added that if Members refused the application, that would not prevent the Applicant submitting an amended scheme in the future.

The Chair noted Councillor L Brown had proposed refusal of the application, however, did not have a seconder.  Councillor J Elmer noted that, further to the comments from Officers, he would withdraw his motion for refusal.  Councillor J Cosslett noted he would second Councillor L Brown’s motion for refusal.

Councillor A Surtees asked for clarification, if the application was refused, another application could come forward, however, that would have the associated costs of a new application. 

She noted she had the impression from the Applicant from their comments at Committee that they would work with Planners to try and progress their application.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that Officers always looked to work proactively with applicants, however, that did not represent a guarantee that an application could progress, noting the concerns as previously stated.

Councillor C Hood asked that if the application was refused, the Applicant would need to pay a new fee for another application.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the original application had included a free resubmission, however, this had been already undertaken and a new application fee would be required.  Councillor C Hood proposed the application be deferred.

The Chair noted that there was a motion for refusal by Councillor L Brown, seconded by Councillor J Cosslett.

Councillor R Manchester noted he was surprised Councillor J Elmer had withdrawn his motion for deferral, adding he felt he could accept the application in its current form and therefore he felt the application could be made acceptable if deferred.  Councillor J Elmer noted he withdrew his motion subsequent to advice from Officers.

Councillor L Brown noted her understanding was if the application was deferred and it came back including the roof terrace, that Officers could not support that in any way, and it would be again recommended for refusal.  She added that if the application was deferred, could any changes make a material difference.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted Members could not change the application and added that issues raised by the Planners and Design and Conservation Team were for the Applicant to take on board.  He noted the doubts as raised by the Principal Planning Officer, however, the willingness of Officers to work with the Applicant.  Councillor L Brown noted that therefore she would prefer deferment of the application.

The Chair asked if the Applicant would prefer deferral of the application in order to look again at the application.  Mrs E Grimes noted they would be happy to work with Planners to look at the issues raised.  She noted they had lived in the city for a long time and wished to protect the CA and WHS and thanked Officers and the Members for their consideration.

Councillor L Brown noted she withdrew her motion for refusal.  Councillor J Elmer again proposed the application be deferred, he was seconded by Councillor C Hood.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED, to seek amendment to the bay window and alteration/removal of the roof terrace.

Councillor L Brown left the meeting at 11.02am