Agenda item

Construction of roof balcony and installation of first floor balcony and French doors to rear (revised scheme).

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 a revised scheme, having been deferred by the Committee at its meeting 12 July 2022, for the construction of roof balcony and installation of first floor balcony and French doors to rear and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer explained that the revised scheme now omitted the previously proposed bay window, and the proposed roof terrace was now within the rear roof slope.

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 noted that the Committee had deferred the application at its meeting in July.  He explained that he felt there had been substantial alteration made to the application and as the proposed roof terrace was at the rear, he felt that the proposals were now acceptable.  He added that there was still an impasse, with Officers recommending refusal, however, he felt it was time for the Committee to approve the application and move the matter forward.  He added that it was very telling that there had been no objections from any of the residents of Highgate, no objections from the City of Durham Parish Council and no objections from the City of Durham Trust.

Councillor R Ormerod explained that the properties at Highgate were not built as student accommodation and added that there had been a large number of the properties converted to homes in multiple occupation (HMOs).  He added that if one wanted families to stay in the city then they should be supported in the alterations they required for their homes, in order to maintain balanced communities within the city.  He concluded by noting he felt the application should be approved.

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

Mrs E Grimes reminded Members that the Committee had deferred the application and asked for a revised scheme to come forward.  She explained that the works were to modernise their home for their growing family and to provide some much needed outside space.  She added that, in relation to the rear balcony and attic conversion, they had been left with the feeling that Officers were satisfied, however, the report still recommended refusal.  Mrs E Grimes explained that the City of Durham Trust had noted that they felt the proposals would enhance the Conservation Area (CA), and she gave examples of several areas in the city centre where such balconies were present.  In reference to the attic space, there had been consultation with Council Officers and the position was moved as not to impact upon the World Heritage Site (WHS) and Framwellgate Peth.  She added that the visual impact had been also checked from Wharton Park and the train station and it was only possible to see the proposed works from the back street, therefore not impacting on the CA or WHS.  Mrs E Grimes noted that directly opposite Highgate, the newly constructed student properties and other riverside developments had balconies and roof terraces. 

She noted that this seemed to give the message that such balconies and terraces were fine for large scale developers, however, not acceptable for small residential developments.  She added that the pandemic had proven over the last two years the importance of access to outdoor space for mental wellbeing and added that parking regulations had resulted in the removal of the outside space that had existed for her property.  She thanked Members for their time and asked that they would approve the application.

The Chair thanked Mrs E Grimes and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Elmer noted he recalled the application when it had been previously considered by the Committee and noted that Members had deferred the application so that the applicant and Officer could look to bring the proposals in line with what would be acceptable.  He added that it seemed clear that the applicant had made such alterations and frustratingly the recommendation was still for refusal.  He noted that the balcony would only impact upon the rear of the property and explained he had walked to the rear of the property to look, and he felt it would not impact other than on the rear of the property.  He noted his frustration in terms of the pressure on a household application that he felt was absolutely in line with policy, and noted he felt the pressure should be on large developers.  He explained he was delighted with the changes that had been made to the original proposals and he felt that the revised scheme did not impact upon the WHS and CA.  He noted he would be the first to object if he felt a scheme did impact negatively, however, in this case he would propose that that application be approved, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation. 

Councillor A Bell explained that he had not been a member of the Committee when the application had been considered in July, however, as noted by Councillor J Elmer, it appeared to him that the applicant had looked again at their proposals and moved the roof terrace to the rear of the property.  He added that Conservation Officer had admitted within the report that there was no impact on the street scene and therefore he was puzzled why that the recommendation was for refusal.  He noted that the application was finely balanced, and he would listen to comments from Members prior to making judgement. 

Councillor K Robson noted he was at the meeting where the original application had been considered and he felt that the applicant had gone the extra mile to alter their application and therefore he would second Councillor J Elmer’s motion for approval.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the recommendation for refusal followed from the advice from Design and Conservation that the application still represented harm when applying policy, especially Policy H2 of the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) which noted proposals must enhance or improve the CA.

The Chair noted he felt that any impact on the CA would be negligible and that one would really struggle to find any impact.  He noted that balconies within the CA were not unique and therefore the application would not be setting a precedent in that respect.  He added that there were no objections from neighbours and therefore he would be minded to support the application.

The Legal Officer, Laura Ackermann noted that should Members be minded to approve there would be the requirement in terms of an appropriate suite of conditions and asked if the Members proposing approval would agree to delegate those conditions to Officers.  Councillor J Elmer and K Robson agreed.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED, with delegated authority to Officers in relation to an appropriate suite of conditions.