Agenda item

Conversion of first and second floors to form two 5-bed HMOs (Use Class C4) including window changes to lightwell elevation.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Morina (LM) 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 conversion of first and second floors to form two 5-bed HMOs (Use Class C4) including window changes to lightwell elevation and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report. 

Councillor C Hood left the meeting at 11.08am

The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted that the City of Durham Parish Council maintained their objection to the application following the submission of further information by the applicant in respect of odour control.  It was noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had been satisfied subject to an additional condition to be added.  She added that while there was no requirement by the Council in terms of the applicant having to submit a CMP, given the size of the application, the applicant did submit a plan and therefore it would be included and form part of the conditions, as well as the additional condition relating to odour control, should Members be minded to approve the application.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) and asked Parish Councillor S Walker, to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that the City of Durham Parish Council objected to the proposal as its form before Members and asked that the application was either refused or that additional conditions were applied to the proposal prior to work commencing and first occupation of the proposed dwelling.

Councillor C Marshall left the meeting at 11.25am

She explained that the Parish Council believed that the use of the upper floor of the site for residential purposes would not give rise to conflict with existing uses in the area and therefore was in accord with DCNP Policy E3, Part 3 of CDP Policy 16, CDP Policy 9 and Paragraph 86 of the NPPF.  She noted that added to that, the Parish Council welcomed that the proposed development did not involve significant extensions or alterations to the exterior which would unacceptably alter the character or scale of the original building.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that previous concerns raised by the Parish Council in respect of odour had now been addressed by condition.  However, she noted that while the Parish Council considered that the principle of the use was acceptable, there remained concerns regarding the proposals and proposed conditions for waste management and bin storage in this part of the city, as well as details within the proposed Construction Management Plan (CMP).

Parish Councillor S Walker noted the design and access statement set out that refuse would be removed by a private contractor, and it was noted that the Parish Council considered that further details of the collection arrangements were required as the service yard was inaccessible with a lorry and the Parish Council were concerned that this would result in large bins being left on the street at Claypath.  She added to which the development of William Robson House behind will exacerbate this problem, resulting in an adverse impact on highway safety, contrary to the requirements of CDP Policies 16 and 21.

Councillor C Marshall entered the meeting at 11.27am

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that, at present, there was no requirement to ensure that the bins were collected weekly, or as frequently as required, as referenced in paragraph 89 of the Committee report and nor was there a requirement that they were immediately removed from Claypath and returned to the proposed storage area.  She explained that the Parish Council believed that proposed Condition 5 must be strengthened in order to reflect this requirement.   She reiterated that bins along Claypath, particularly industrial sized waste bins, were a constant problem in terms of accessibility, the street scene and sense of place for the area.

She noted that the issue must be mitigated against at this early stage in order to ensure that the problem was not simply passed to another arm of the County Council, namely the Clean and Green Team or Neighbourhood Wardens.  She noted the Parish Council would ask for a CMP, though welcomed the fact that the storage of materials would take place within the building, and that the Parish Council felt that there needed to be greater ‘firming up’ of details relating to deliveries.  She noted that it was proposed within the CMP, and at Condition 6 of the Committee report, that no external construction works nor internal works audible outside the site boundary shall take place other than between the hours of 7:30 to 18:00 on Monday to Friday, and 8:00 to 17:00 on Saturdays.  She noted that the Parish Council respectfully asked that if Members were minded to approve the application that the 7:30 start time be pushed back to 8:00 in order to safeguard the amenity of residents living at the care home, Claypath Court, directly opposite this application site.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked John Ashby, representing the City of Durham Trust to speak in objection to the application, noting there were accompanying slides that would be displayed as part of the representations.

J Ashby thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to make representation and explained he was speaking on behalf of the City of Durham Trust and also for the St. Nicholas Community Forum, which endorsed the Trust’s objections.

J Ashby explained that the City of Durham Trust considered that the proposals could be acceptable, indeed, student accommodation above retail was supported by the CDP and the DCNP.  He noted that the Trust however objected, unless practical and effective measures to prevent noise and waste management nuisance were imposed so as to prevent negative impact on retail and commercial activities and protect the general amenity of neighbouring properties and residential amenity as required by CDP Policy 16.3 and DCNP Policy E3.  He added that those issues were also highlighted by the County Council’s Spatial Policy Team.

J Ashby explained that it was particularly noted that there was the potential for harm to the amenity of nearby residents, notably the elderly residents of Claypath Court and students living above most of the units in Lower Claypath, and also the problem of wheelie bins being left on Claypath for many days, even weeks. 

On the issue of noise nuisance, J Ashby noted the Trust were grateful to the County Council’s Officers for addressing the need for measures to protect the proposed new student bedrooms from external noise, with a suitable condition proposed within the Officer’s report to ensure that noise levels are satisfactorily mitigated.  He added that the Trust also welcomed the voluntary CMP.

J Ashby noted that however, management arrangements for household waste were not conditioned satisfactorily.  He added that the Trust were pleased that paragraph 89 of the Committee Report stated that:

“Precise details for the means of refuse removal in that case is by private contractor who would move the bins to Claypath in line with the method previously employed for the offices and collected weekly or as frequently as required which is considered acceptable and this could be secured via planning condition.”

He noted that, unfortunately, the list of proposed planning conditions in the report only required:

“5. All domestic waste generated by the HMOs hereby approved shall be stored in the area identified for bin storage on Drawing No. 315-005-01 entitled ‘Proposed Site Plan’ until such time it is removed from the site.”

J Ashby noted there was no requirement to ensure that the bins were collected weekly or as frequently as required, nor that they were immediately removed from Claypath and returned to the storage area.  He explained that large waste bins standing on Lower Claypath were already a familiar problem, obstructing pedestrians and especially people with prams, pushchairs or mobility vehicles, and indeed blocking the entrances of the ground floor commercial properties.  He added that the absence of such a requirement in the proposed conditions may be merely an oversight however, given that paragraph 89 says this could be secured by a planning condition, the Trust would asked that Condition 5 be extended to include that requirement, otherwise, the Trust and St. Nicholas Community Forum maintain their objection to the application on the grounds of CDP Policy 16.3 and DCNP Policy E3.

The Chair thanked J Ashby and asked Steve Major, Agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

S Major noted he welcomed the good news from the Parish Council in terms of some elements of the scheme.  He noted that the Officer’s report and included applicant’s statement set out and explained how the application met policy requirements. 

He added that in terms of impact of noise on future occupants, the previous use had been as offices for a number of years and the mixed use would be separated with separate access, fire, noise and odour control.  He noted there would be minimal impact upon the streetscene, elevations and commercial use.  He noted that in terms of noise, sound mitigation could be certified and with a guaranteed performance, mitigate any potential issues.  He noted that the standards for the development exceeded minimum Building Control regulations. 

In reference to the refuse compound, S Major noted it would be enlarged as compared to the existing compound and private contractors would remove the bins when the lorry was ready to collect.  He noted that this would avoid any bins being left on Claypath, adding if Members felt it necessary to have that underlined further within the Condition, the applicant would be acceptable to that.  He noted that it was the same contractor that serve the 28 bed student accommodation and collections would be weekly or as required.  He noted works would be carried out at the same time as those for the 28 bed student accommodation and the CMP had been approved by Officers, with only unloading and moving materials to storage to take place from Claypath.

The Chair thanked S Major and asked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) to address the points made.

The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted if Members were minded Condition 5 relating to bin storage could be more detailed as required.

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways), Laura Ackermann noted that Councillor C Marshall had briefly left the room and asked if he considered he could make a decision on the application.  Councillor C Marshall noted had only stepped out briefly for a medical reason and explained that he had read the report, and listened to the speakers, and felt he would be able to come to a considered decision on the application.

Councillor C Marshall noted that it had been a while since he had seen such an application where an applicant had worked through the issues that had been raised by those in objection.  He noted that therefore he would move that the application be approved, subject to an amended Condition 5 as mentioned, to contain additional detail in respect of bin storage and collection.

Councillor J Elmer asked if the CMP set out hours of operation, and whether they were set out as 8.00 start weekdays, as per the Parish Council’s comments.  He asked for confirmation that a private contractor was collecting residential waste, and whether it was only for the Council to undertake such collections. 

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that use of private contractors was not precluded, and the condition could specify no storage on Claypath.

The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted that in terms of the CMP, the start times were set out with the same detail as contained in Condition 6, 7.30 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and 7.30 to 14.00 Saturdays, and these mirrored the previously approved conditions relating to William Robson House.  Councillor J Elmer noted that on that basis he would second Councillor C Marshall’s proposal for approval, subject to additional detail in Condition 5.

The Chair asked for clarification from the Officer as regards amended Condition 5.  The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted that detail would be added relating to removal, disposal of waste and return of bins to the storage area, and for bins not to be left on Claypath other than during the process of emptying, and reminded Members of an additional condition relating to odour control.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions set out within the report, an amended Condition 5 in respect of bin storage and an additional condition relating to odour control.