Agenda item

Erection of an extension to the rear of the property and internal reconfiguration of lower ground floor and ground floor of existing HMO (C4 Use Class).

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 Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting. 

The application was for the erection of an extension to the rear of the property and internal reconfiguration of lower ground floor and ground floor of existing HMO (C4 Use Class) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Susan Walker, to speak as regards the City of Durham Parish Council’s objections to the application.

Parish Councillor S Walker thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that the Parish Council very much welcomed the removal of additional bed spaces within the amended application.  She noted that, however, the Parish Council still maintained objection to the application in terms of the impact upon residential amenity.  She added that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advised to create high standards for existing and future users.  She explained that therefore there should be no negative impact in terms of overlooking and visual intrusions unless there was satisfactory mitigation to provide high amenity standards and privacy for nearby residents.  Parish Councillor S Walker noted that was the crux of the matter and added that the proposals broke the Residential Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) standards, those being 21 metres separation distance, with the distance proposed being only 13.4 metres, representing only 63 percent of the minimum requirement.  She added it was felt this was shocking to be deemed acceptable and the Parish Council disagreed that the proposals were ‘characteristic’ and that as the area was so bad the proposals did not make the area so much worse.  Parish Councillor S Walker reminded the Committee of the hard won policies within the CDP and noted that they should not now be forfeit, adding they must be applied to new applications.  She explained that a nearby resident, Professor Weeks, had raised serious concerns as regards sight lines to two windows, being the bedrooms of his property.  She concluded by noting the Parish Council would urge refusal of the application as it was in breach of CDP Policies 29 and 31, the Residential SPD, and Paragraph 127(f) of the NPPF.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked Roger Cornwell, representing the City of Durham Trust, to speak as regards the objections raised by the Trust.

R Cornwell thanked the Chair and Committee and reminded Members that one of the purposes of the CDP was to ‘provide the blueprint to deliver long-lasting improvements’, a direct quote from the CDP introduction.  He added that this was likewise for the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) and explained that proposals that might have passed under earlier development plans had to be judged against the latest versions of those Plans and their supporting documents. 

He noted that the Parish Council broadly agreed with the Officer’s report, until the discussion of impact upon residential amenity, beginning at paragraph 55 of the report.  R Cornwell noted that paragraph 60 stated there had been no objections from 9 John Street to the application, this was not a surprise as Mr Durie was the owner of both properties in question.

R Cornwell noted the same paragraph of the report stated ‘It is noted that the first-floor elements of both dwellings are comparable in terms of levels’.  He noted that, in fact, Hawthorn Terrace stood 3.8 metres, or over 12 feet, higher and Members would have noticed this on their site visit.  He explained there was a lower ground floor which was roughly at the same level as the ground floor of the buildings on John Street.  R Cornwell added that consequently the ground floor of 50 Hawthorn Terrace was level with, if not slightly above, the first floor of the properties in John Street.  He noted that meant that it looks over the wall in the yard into the windows of the houses beyond.

In reference to paragraph 61 of the report, R Cornwell noted it quoted the Residential SPD to say that the standards should not be applied rigidly, however, the proposals took a separation distance that was already, at 16 metres, short by 5 metres of the current standard and pushed it 2.6 metres closer to John Street.  He stressed that this was less than two-thirds of the standard, going beyond ‘relaxed’ or being ‘rigid’.

R Cornwell noted that Professor Weeks had stated that ‘The proposed extension would add a further two windows with a line of sight into my bedroom and that of my daughter’.  He noted those windows were still in the revised plans and they were considerably closer than 21 metres to Professor Weeks’ house at 7 John Street.

R Cornwell noted that the conclusion within the report stated that ‘the development would not entirely comply guidance within the Council’s Residential SPD’.  He put it to the Committee that the application did not comply, full stop, and while there was some flexibility, the existing building had used all available flexibility and then some.  He reminded Members that the CDP and SPD were in place to drive up standards and therefore the application should be refused as it fell so short of the requirements of CDP Policy 29 and the Residential SPD that the get-out clause of flexibility could not be used.  He noted the City of Durham Trust urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Chair thanked R Cornwell and asked the Planning Officer to respond to the issues raised.

The Planning Officer noted that it was acknowledged that separation distances were below the recommendations within the SPD, however, those recommendations were not intended to rigidly applied and paragraph 3.6 of the SPD noted that the distances could be relaxed given reference to characteristics of the area.  She noted that within the terrace there were a number of properties with extensions at the second floor height and already with separation distances less that those set out in the SPD.  She concluded by noting that therefore the separation distances were considered acceptable and not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

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

Councillor J Quinn noted that the site visit had been particularly valuable in this instance.  He explained that the property stuck out within the terrace more than neighbouring properties as itself did not have an extension.  He noted that he felt that as long as the conditions within the report were adhered to, and given there were no additional bedspaces proposed, he would support the application.

Councillor C Kay noted the points raised by the Parish Council, and agreed they were very valid.  He added he felt uncomfortable in the minimum separation having been reduced from 21 metres to 13 metres.  He noted that the figure of 21 metres had not been ‘plucked out of the air’ and rather had been arrived at after consideration.

Councillor A Bell asked for the street view of the property to be shown on the projector screen.  He noted that the properties either side had been extended and noted that while he had much respect for the Parish Council and City of Durham Trust, he felt he would have to go against their recommendation of refusal.  He added he felt that perhaps a three-storey extension may have been more appropriate, however, he would move that the application be approved as set out within the report.

Councillor J Elmer noted he had attended the site visit and that the neighbouring properties had the same type of extensions as proposed in the application.  He noted that however, those neighbouring extensions had been approved under different schemes and regulations and therefore a decision needed to be made against the existing CDP, DCNP and the Residential SPD.  He noted the minimum recommended separation distance of 21 metres and that the distance proposed was a significant diversion from that recommended within the SPD.  Councillor J Elmer noted it was a case of deciding where one would draw the line and added he felt that it was not acceptable to say the development was ok just because previous regimes had allowed for similar extensions in the area.  Accordingly, he moved that the application be refused.  He was seconded by Councillor C Kay.

Councillor A Surtees noted she had listened to the arguments put forward and seconded the motion for approval as put by Councillor A Bell.

The Chair noted the motion for refusal had been put and seconded first, therefore that motion would be considered first, and asked Councillor J Elmer for his proposed refusal reasons.  Councillor J Elmer note he felt the application was contrary to Policy 29 in that the development failed to comply with separation distances.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter asked Councillors J Elmer and C Kay whether the issue was the impact on amenity from reduced separation distances.  Councillor C Kay noted he felt the application was contrary to various policies, including Policy 31 and Part 127 of the NPPF.  He added that there were issues in terms of privacy, noting he would not wish for such small separation distances to his daughter’s bedroom, adding he would not wish for 19th Century standards for our residents, rather for applications to comply with modern standards.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) asked if the reasons were the same, with the Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper confirming Policy 31 referred to residential amenity.  Councillor J Elmer noted his refusal proposal was on the basis of the application being contrary to Policy 31.

Upon a vote being taken, the motion for refusal was LOST.

The Chair noted the motion for approval by Councillor A Bell, seconded by Councillor A Surtees, upon a vote being taken it was;

RESOLVED

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