Agenda item

Erection of 1 no. 3 storey building comprising of 3 no. units (Use Class E(a), E(b), E(c), E(d), E(e), E(g)(i)) or sui generis (drinking establishment) to ground floor, 1 unit (Use Class E(a), E(b), E(c), E(d), E(e), E(g)(i)) or sui generis (drinking establishment) to first floor and 4 no. residential units (Use Class C3) ancillary to the commercial units to the ground and first floor to the second floor.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper 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 erection of 1 no. 3 storey building comprising of 3 no. units (Use Class E(a), E(b), E(c), E(d), E(e), E(g)(i)) or sui generis (drinking establishment) to ground floor, 1 unit (Use Class E(a), E(b), E(c), E(d), E(e), E(g)(i)) or sui generis (drinking establishment) to first floor and 4 no. residential units (Use Class C3) ancillary to the commercial units to the ground and first floor to the second floor and was recommended for approval subject to the conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement as detailed within the report. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the application was for a site where a previous application had been refused by the Committee, and the decision of the Committee to refuse the application had been upheld by Planning Inspectorate.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the current application was for three floors, the previously refused application having been set over four floors.  He noted internal consultees had responded with no objections subject to conditions.  It was explained that Seaham Town Council has objected to the application, and 19 letters of objection had been submitted.  The Principal Planning Officer concluded by noting that Officers felt the application was acceptable and therefore was recommended for approval subject to the conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of CAMMs Tier 2 Beachcare and Wardening programmes.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out a statement from Councillor K Shaw, Local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting.

 

The Committee Services Officer read out the statement on behalf of Councillor K Shaw:

 

“I am writing in my absence to raise my objection to this planning application on behalf of myself and Councillor L Kennedy and to further support the concerns and objections from and on behalf of my local community.

 

This application which has been resubmitted by the applicant was formerly refused by committee and the decision to refuse was upheld by the Planning Inspector in his decision dated 14th April 2023.

The Planning Inspector in paragraph 4 of his report states that when visiting the site, he “paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Seaham Conservation Area”

 

And he states quite clearly that: 

 

The main issues are:

(i) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Seaham Conservation Area (CA)

(ii) The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings

(iii) The effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with reference to parking demand and provision

 

I agree totally on the Inspector’s concise reasoning on what the issues are for this proposed development and the character and appearance of the Seaham Conservation area and support his reasons to refuse based upon primarily issue 1.

 

These concerns which led to refusal have not been addressed in any significant way other than to imply a slight reduction in the building’s height. 

 

However, the new proposal is that building will cover an even greater area of the proposed site than previously so in relation to its actual size mass and scale these impacts will as proposed be even greater and as previously outlined in the Inspectors report formed only a part of the much wider concerns and the reasoned refusal he provided.

 

The Inspector reasons within his report in paragraph 7:

 

7. The Seaham Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan 2019 (CAMP) identifies the appeal site as falling within Character Area 2 – North Area, with the significance of this part of the CA being primarily defined by buildings of architectural interest. Reference is made specifically to North Terrace in the CAMP, where it is noted that properties are largely two-storied terraces, with some extending upwards an additional level, through an extra storey or dormer windows. It is further noted that the roofline is relatively even, with only a few variations in the length of the terrace. Whilst reference is made to the former Harbour View Hotel as having been demolished, there is no explicit reference in the CAA to its replacement, which has subsequently been constructed. Figure 56 of the CAMP highlights a key vista in which the appeal proposal would be clearly seen. 

 

 

 

And this key vista is clearly still impacted therefore destroying a key aspect of the Seaham Conservation Area Management Plan reason for being which is to protect maintain and ensure the Conservation Area is not impacted by inappropriate development and maintaining the Vistas and Views form key locations.

 

Also, clearly due to the building's location size mass and scale and it being incongruous in its setting.

 

The inspector continues and states:

 

8. The reference point given on the plans submitted for the height of the proposal is the new development at No 18. It is self-evident that this is not only a high building, but one of some considerable bulk and massing in how it occupies its plot. By reason of its height, width and depth, the appeal proposal would itself be of a comparable scale, but it would have a greater visual impact, being located on a corner. Whilst there are buildings of height in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, notably the terrace at 1-7 Tempest Road and Barclay House which are identified as non-designated heritage assets, and the listed buildings that form Bath Terrace, those buildings do not have the same combination of height and depth as the appeal proposal would. They are, as a result, buildings that have a much lesser massing and bulk, and as a result they have a far less dominant impact. The proposal would not relate well to these existing buildings in terms of its massing, bulk and overall visual relationship.

 

9. The impact of the appeal proposal would be readily apparent from many vantage points in the surrounding area, including from the expansive open area in which the listed Seaham War Memorial is located and from near to the harbour looking back along the coastline and the town’s sea front. As a result of its scale, the proposal would not sit well within the row of properties on the North Terrace frontage or in the context of the aforementioned properties at Tempest Road and Bath Terrace, even noting the presence of the new development at No 18. There would be an equally harmful impact when viewed from along Tempest Road and from the road between Nos 7 and 9 Tempest Road. This would be in particular in terms of its comparative scale and massing when compared to the adjacent building at 4 Tempest Road, itself identified as a non-designated heritage asset, and the modern residential block that is located next to it. There would also be views of the proposal taken down North Road in between the terraces at Nos 1-7 and Barclay House/Bath Terrace, where the proposal too would appear as a visually dominant feature in the context of its surrounding buildings.

 

 

 

10. It is suggested that the proposal would ‘book-end’ this part of North Terrace, in conjunction with the development at No 18. However, whilst there is a highway running to the side of No 18, it is narrow in width and due to the scale of the newly built building, the road is not read as a visual break along the frontage. Instead, North Terrace is seen as a much longer frontage, and the appeal proposal would not form a book-end within such a context. But in any event, book-ending would not overcome the harmful impact that would arise from the overall scale of the proposal, and in particular its visual dominance and its harmful visual relationship to the buildings and street scenes that I have identified.

 

11. The proposed development would therefore, due to its height, bulk, massing and positioning, be an overly dominant feature that would appear incongruous in its surroundings, and one which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the CA. Whilst the proposal would not be objectionable in terms of its design and appearance taken as matters in isolation, this does not overcome the other harm that would be caused. Given the nature of the proposed development and that the harm would be relatively localised, I consider that less than substantial harm to the CA would be caused. This being the case, it is necessary to weigh the public benefits of the proposal against the harm that would arise to the CA, in accordance with Paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework)

 

In this regard, public benefits have been outlined which relate to the recycling of a disused site in a sustainable location and the provision of an active frontage at ground floor level, in addition to economic and social benefits through both construction jobs and jobs once in use, with an expectation of 80 full and part time jobs being created in addition to other indirect employment. These benefits carry moderate weight in favour of the proposal, in the context of the size of the development that is proposed. However, I have a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA and the harm that I have found would arise to the designated area is a matter which carries considerable importance and weight. Therefore, whilst there would be some public benefit from the appeal proposal, this does not outweigh the harm to the CA that would arise.

 

13. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the CA. Consequently, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies 29 and 44 of the County Durham Plan 2020 (CDP) where they seek to achieve well-designed buildings and places and to protect the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. The proposal would as a result also fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. Furthermore, there would be a conflict with The Framework, where it too seeks to achieve well-designed places, and because the harm to the CA is not outweighed by public benefits.

The Planning report has attempted to justify the decision to approve based upon an implied reduction of height which is very minor and indeed contradictory to the evidence produced within the application itself which shows no such thing from different vantages as this mitigates and is meeting the concerns upheld by the Planning Inspector as impacting the CA.

 

Size greater mass than previously submitted scale and incongruous to the location and destroying Vistas and views clearly all remain and public benefit outweighing the harm caused to the CA is purely based upon the aspirational provision of jobs. The number of which has also been reduced from the previous application significantly therefore reducing the previous benefit to balance the harm caused which whilst higher in number was, in itself, insufficient weighting to convince the Planning Inspector at that time.

 

The previous building of which this was to be the other bookend remains empty despite having being completed two years ago creating no jobs and providing no benefit whatsoever to any harm it may have caused and whilst that was successful in planning terms if benefit to harm was a consideration evidence exists that through the previous development no such benefit may exist with this and my fears are that the previous development was merely speculation.

 

I therefore request that the planning committee uphold the decision of the Planning Inspectors previous decision due to its impact on the CA with no benefit outweighing the harm and refuse this application”.

 

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Gary Maughan, local resident, to speak in relation to the application.

 

G Maughan explained that he was speaking on behalf of local residents that objected to the application.  He noted that it was felt to be a carbon copy of the application that the Committee had previously refused, with the Planning Inspector having agreed with that decision, rejecting the appeal.  He noted that the reasons for that decision had been in terms of the height, bulk and massing of the proposals, the proposals being incongruous in the surrounding area and would cause harm to the CA. 

 

G Maughan noted that height had been a significant factor in the refusal and noted that the reduction in one floor in the current application still left some uncertainty in terms of the height of the proposed development.  He referred the Committee to a slide highlighting the current roof line of North Terrace, with a line drawn across from the top of the proposed development. 

 

 

 

He noted that while it was unclear what the final height of the proposed three storey development would be, it would still be significantly higher than the other neighbouring two and three storey properties and therefore not addressing the concerns raised by the Committee and Inspector in their refusal and dismissal.

 

G Maughan noted that in terms of the bulk and massing of the new proposals, the three-storey building proposed included retail and flats and represented a footprint of around 525m², while the previously refused proposals had represented a footprint of 450m².  He added that therefore this represented a 75m² increase across three floors, reduced from four.  He noted that in terms of the previously refused application the Committee and Planning Inspector had noted that the 450m² had been deemed as overly dominant and therefore the larger proposed development did not seem to have mitigated the concerns raised.

 

G Maughan noted that the Planning Inspector had stated that the site fell within the Seaham Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan area and that the visual impact of development of that scale and massing on the prominent corner site would not sit well within North Terrace and surrounding area.  He reiterated that the Committee and Planning Inspector had noted that the scale and visual dominance would not be in accord with the surrounding area and CA.  He noted that the Seaham Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan was a document that industry, businesses and the Council must take notice of and be sure that any plans were able to demonstrate as being harmonious with the Plan.  He noted that 173 page document was material and noted that the Case Officer had not once referred to the Plan within their Committee Report.  He noted that appeared to be an oversight and given the reasons stated he did not see how the current application could be approved and therefore he would encourage Members to refuse the application, else the decision would fly in the face of the previous decisions by the Committee and Planning Inspector.

 

The Chair thanked G Maughan and asked Andrew Moss, Planning Consultant for the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

A Moss thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that as there was a detailed Committee report he would keep to the main points.

 

He explained that the proposed development was materially different from that which the Committee considered in 2021 and noted that the footprint was not as large as described, with an element including under cover parking which had been included in original calculations. 

 

He noted that the current application sought to make us of a disused parcel of brownfield land surrounded by existing development in a range of uses close to the centre of Seaham, a main town in the County with a consummate range of services and facilities.  He noted that therefore it was a highly sustainable site and one that should be reused. 

 

A Moss referred Members to the analysis in Paragraph 87 of the Committee Report which found that the proposals represented a positive reuse of the vacant gap within the Seaham Conservation Are and that the development was acceptable in design and heritage terms when assessed against the CDP and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  He added that the paragraph continued, noting that the proposal accorded with Sections 66 and 72 of he Listed Buildings Act.

 

A Moss noted he agreed with the analysis within the Committee Report that the proposed development was suitable in principle, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology, connectivity, contamination and drainage terms.

 

He confirmed that the applicant was agreeable to the payment of a financial contribution in respect of Coastal Access Management Measures, to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.

 

A Moss noted that in relation to conditions the applicant was, in principle, agreeable to the imposition of the recommended 26 conditions, albeit he would ask that Condition 22 be tweaked such that it was not a pre-commencement condition.  He added that in that respect, he would suggest that it be amended to require the submission of details before any development above the base course, similar to a number of the other recommended conditions.

 

A Moss concluded by requesting the Committee follow the recommendation and grant planning permission, subject to conditions and entry into a Section 106 Agreement in respect of Coastal Access.

 

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

 

Councillor I McLean noted the reduction by one storey in comparison to the previously refused application.  He noted that Planning Officer had noted in detail how they had come to their conclusion, however, when looking around about, the proposals would still be above the level of other buildings.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the removal of the uppermost storey by definition had reduced the bulk and mass of the proposed development in comparison to the previous application. 

He noted that Planning Officers took advice from other professional Officers within the Council, in this case from those in the Design and Conservation Team who had noted that the proposals were acceptable in principle.  Accordingly, the reduction in height was a factor in which Officers had felt reduced impact was to a point such the proposals were acceptable.

 

Councillor A Bell asked if there was a comparison of the current proposals’ height to that of the previously refused application.  He noted that Seaham Town Council, the two Local Councillors and many residents had objected to the application.  He noted the Planning Inspector’s decision dismissing the appeal against refusal of the previous application had made reference to the massing of the proposals.  He noted that while it was a brownfield site, it was in a beautiful area, and he felt it was a shame that such an application came to Committee without all people being in agreement.  He added that, given the nature of the refusal by the Inspector of the application at appeal, he felt visual depictions of the proposals rather than simple black and white elevations would have been useful.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that he understood the reduction of one storey was from 14 metres to 10 metres, a reduction of 4 metres.  He referred Councillor to a 3D image and associated site photographs on the projector screen.  He reiterated that Officers felt that the reduction in height made the proposals acceptable.

 

Councillor L Brown asked as regards separation distances from 27 North Terrace and whether they met the minimum requirements.  She noted a site visit would have been helpful to see the site in context.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the elevation referred to was not a facing elevation and therefore such minimum separation distances did not apply, and it was not felt it would have an adverse impact.  He noted that all other separation distance requirements were met.  Councillor L Brown asked as regards the height of the proposals compared to properties at Tempest Road.  The Planning Officer noted the proposals were taller than the proposals at Tempest Road.

 

Councillor L Brown referred to CDP Policy 6 and noted she was not happy in terms of 4.115 which stated that “…proposals should not significantly

increase the size or impact of the original building…”. She noted that should the application be approved, Condition 13 should be implemented the whole way through.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that clearly there would be an impact in terms of design and heritage, and noted that the Local Councillors, Seaham Town Council and residents in objection, clearly cared about the site. 

 

He noted it was another case of where the position of the Council’s Design and Conservation Team was the polar opposite of that of Local Councillors and local residents.  He explained he felt development on the site was not the issue, however, the location and residents deserved a building that respected the heritage of the area.  Councillor J Elmer noted that, given the two different opinions in this regard, it may be helpful in future, if an Officer from the Design and Conservation Team could attend Committee to explain how they had come to their conclusions.

 

Councillor D McKenna note he lived at Seaham, however, he was not one of the Local Members for the Dawdon Division.  He noted that all wanted Seaham to do well and the redevelopment that had taken place to date and the increase in tourism to the area had been very important.  He noted he felt that the proposed height was not in keeping with the character of the area and that this would have an impact upon residents, adding he felt the proposals would not sit well in the location.  He noted that had there been a site visit, Members would have only seen an area of waste ground, however, he noted it was important to have the right development for that area of land.  He reiterated that Seaham now had a lot of visitors, and they were coming to the areas in part due to that heritage and therefore that heritage should be kept in mind.

 

Councillor I McLean noted the reduction in height by one floor in comparison to the previously refused application, however, the proposed height still bothered him.

 

Councillor I Roberts noted she agreed with the comments from other Members in respect of the height of the proposals and asked as regards any parking or traffic issues and how that might impact visitor safety in the area, adding she felt that any development should be in keeping with the heritage of the area.

 

Councillor L Brown proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of highway safety, he would draw Member’s attention to the comments from the Planning Inspector in reference to the previous application, where he had noted proposals were acceptable in highways terms, with the current application being the same in that regard, though Highways colleague may wish to comment.  He asked, should the proposal for refusal be seconded, if Policy reasons for refusal were set out by Members.  Councillor L Brown noted Policy 44 in respect of the CA, Policy 6, and Policy 31 in terms of residential amenity.

 

 

The Lawyer, Planning and Highways, Neil Carter noted that matters of scale and massing and how that impacted upon the CA and heritage assets was subjective, and while Members had heard the Officer’s view on the issue, Member were able to take the contrary view should they choose.  He noted that he would be concerned in respect of any refusal based upon impact to residential amenity and asked what for specific reasons.  Councillor L Brown noted within Policy 31 it referred to visual dominance and she felt that the proposal would be visually dominant.

 

The Chair noted the motion for refusal had been proposed, however, there had been no seconder.  Councillor I McLean noted he would second the refusal of the application as referred to be Councillor L Brown.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the Planning Inspector had felt the previous proposals had been acceptable in highway safety terms, and the current proposals in that regard had not changed, only a reduction in height by one floor.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED as the proposal would, by virtue of its design, appearance, characteristics, mass and scale appear as an incongruous addition to the streetscene that would have a detrimental impact upon Seaham Conservation Area resulting in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset which would not be outweighed by public benefits.  The proposal is therefore in conflict with County Durham Plan Policies 29 and 44, Parts 12 and 16 of the NPPF and section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.