Agenda item

Construction of 12 townhouse dwellings with associated works.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Morina 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 Senior 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 construction of 12 townhouse dwellings with associated works and was recommended for approval subject to conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as set out within the report. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that since the publication of the report, additional objections had been received, noting concern of damage to neighbouring properties and the Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority had agreed the drainage scheme was acceptable.  She added that the viability assessment submitted by the applicant had been subject to several amendments and updates during consideration of the application.  It was noted those updates had sought to demonstrate that the scheme would not be viable in the event that financial contributions were applied in relation to open space, education and affordable housing provision.  She explained that having assessed that initial report and additional information, Officers considered that whilst it would be unviable to apply the full contribution in terms of the affordable housing contribution, a reduced sum in that regard could still be sustained.  She added that in relation to contributions for open space and education provision, Officers considered both requirements could be paid in full.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Susan Walker to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council in relation to the application.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker thanked the Chair and Committee and noted she would begin with an email from the Planning Officer, which was included in the fifth viability assessment submitted on behalf of the applicant:

 

“It would appear from the above that we have received an impasse on the viability information.  This is not only important in respect of the viability of the scheme and Section 106 payments but also with regards to the overall acceptance of the development.  The application is a high-density proposal, and it is acknowledged that there is harm from the development however, it is considered that the benefit of the proposal could outweigh the harm however, this would be subject to the Council being satisfied that this is the only way the site can be re-developed and that a lesser density or a reduced scale scheme would not be achievable.  As it stands, we are not in a position to recommend approval of the scheme.” 

 

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that as no scheme for a lesser density or a reduced scale had ever been submitted, one would not know whether it was possible.  She added that if the application was refused, and as the applicant does not own the land, there could be such possibility.  She noted there was a pot of s106 money for affordable housing and noted several community groups with the ability to set up Community Interest Company (CIC) which could take on such a project and produce something far better on the site when the need for profit was removed.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that the proposal over-developed the site, with the Neighbourhood Plan proposing four houses and the County Plan’s own assessment indicating six properties ‘provided that the scale of development and detailed design is appropriate’.  She added that the overdevelopment would be entirely out of character with the surroundings and residential properties in that part of the Conservation Area.  She added that therefore the application failed to meet the guidance of the NPPF Part 12, Paragraph 127 a), b) and c) which requires that developments “add to the overall quality of the area”, be “visually attractive” and be “sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting”.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker added that the application was in breach of Policy 44 of the County Durham Plan (CDP) which required that development must sustain the significance of both designated and non-designated heritage assets.  She noted that the Parish Council felt the application was in breach of Policy 6 which states: ‘The development of sites which are not allocated in the Plan or in a Neighbourhood Plan will be permitted provided the proposal accords with all relevant development plan policies and… is appropriate in terms of scale, design, layout, and location to the character, function, form and setting of the settlement’.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that it was felt the application also breached Policy S1 and Policy D4 of the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) with new development to harmonise with its context in terms of scale, layout, density, massing, height, materials and colour and to be of high-quality design reflecting the character and appearance of the area.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker added that the Parish Council felt the application breached CDP Policy 29, which was clear that a high-quality built environment should consider the amenity of both existing and future residents and consideration should be given to matters of privacy, outlook, natural lighting, ventilation, as well as local climatic conditions and which require developments to “contribute positively to an area’s character, identity [and] townscape”, further to “achieve zero carbon buildings” which were underpinned by core principles 5.292 to 5.296 and provide high standards of amenity and privacy.  She added there was no evidence in the application that those constraints had been adequately addressed.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that it was felt the application breached CDP Policy 15 which clearly stated to meet the needs of older people and people with disabilities, on sites of five units or more, 66 percent of dwellings must be built to Building Regulations Requirement M4(2) Standard.  She added for sites of 10 units or more, there was a requirement for a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of dwellings on the site to be of a design and type that would increase the housing options of older people.  She noted that those properties should be built to the M4(2) Standard and would contribute to meeting the 66 percent requirement as set out above.  She explained that no provision had been made for this type of accommodation as part of the proposal.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker noted the application was in breach of DCNP Policy T1: that development proposals should be supported by evidence of how they contribute to sustainable transport accessibility and design.  She noted there was no such evidence.  She added the proposals breached the Residential Amenity Supplemental Planning Document (SPD) in that the gardens were below the minimum 9 metres required.

 

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that the fifth viability assessment, last month, insisted that the current scheme was only viable with an s106 payment of a figure of £13,000.  She added that, apparently, the applicant had verbally accepted a figure 20 times higher.  She noted the Parish Council had not seen any paperwork and had not been able to assess what that may mean for the quality of the final development and the requirements of CDP Policy 29.  She noted that the Parish Council could not see how any application could proceed without any reconciliation of the two highly contradictory s106 figures. 

Parish Councillor S Walker concluded by noting that, given that the Planning Department had consistently noted that the application was on a knifes-edge in terms of decision, the Parish Council could not see how the Committee could accept the report’s proposal for approval with any degree of confidence, and with a willingness to breach so many of its own Policies, and accordingly urged that Members refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked Councillor E Scott, Local Member, to speak in respect of the application.

 

Councillor E Scott thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that she did not attend Planning Committee to speak against applications very often, only where applications were in breach of policy and where there was strong local opposition, adding in this case there was both.  She noted that as Local Member for the Neville’s Cross division, she joined with local residents, the City of Durham Parish Council and others in strongly opposing the proposal and urged the Committee to refuse this scheme.

 

Councillor E Scott noted that it was important to stress from the outset that no party disputed the need for the site to be redeveloped.  She noted the site had been derelict for over 15 years and would benefit from an appropriate housing development that conformed with, and respected, the surrounding area.  She added that the potential for developing the site was examined during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and it was noted that the site was included in the County Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments, with the accepted assessment that the site could yield a total number of 6 residential units.  She noted that, in contrast, the developer justified the over massing of this site by suggesting that the scheme would be financially unviable if the site delivered less than 12 units.  Councillor E Scott added that at each stage, the developer had maintained their position that the scheme could not provide the full s106 payments that should be due to the Council for core services, such as affordable housing.  She explained that as it stood, the Housing Delivery Team had asked for a financial contribution of £776,250 towards off-site affordable housing provision and a fraction of that, £114,826 was on the table.  She noted that no other organisation than the County Council could be expected to pick up the shortfall, simply to meet the needs and profit margins of developers, if the proposal was accepted by Committee Members. 

 

Councillor E Scott explained that she felt two points were particularly striking from the process, first being that, generally, if there was a requirement for contributions under s106, the first area to take the hit should be the land value.  She noted the applicant had effectively conceded that the value they initially ascribed to the land, £525,000, was too high.  She added that the most recent appraisals had reduced this to £350,000.

Councillor E Scott noted that if the scheme could not deliver the planning gain required in policy terms, the land value should be reduced further.  She noted that nothing in any subsequent report had addressed the issue.

 

Councillor E Scott explained that the second point was that none of the four appraisals put forward by the applicant considered a lesser density or a reduced scale scheme other than the one that was before Committee.  She noted that Officers had been clear that Durham County Council needed to be satisfied that a lesser density or reduced scale scheme would not be achievable.  She added that nothing other than a high-density development which delivered 12 units on the site had been considered by the applicant.  Councillor E Scott explained that, as Officers have noted, the high-density nature of the proposal in itself causes harm, particularly in relation to the proposed height of the units.  She added that the proposal placed a vertical emphasis on the development and that was entirely out of character with the surrounding area and residential properties.

 

Councillor E Scott noted the application site was within the Durham City Conservation Area and whilst she acknowledged that there was a mix of different development styles within close proximity to the application site, that should not justify the development of new dwellings that were out of character with that part of the Conservation Area.  She noted that, as such, the application failed to meet the requirements of CDP Policy 6 sections (d) and (e) as well as DCNP Policies S1 and D4 which required developments to be high-quality and appropriate in terms of scale, design, layout and location to the character, function, form and setting of the settlement.

 

Councillor E Scott noted that, similarly, the development would result in harm to the significance of the Conservation Area, contrary to CDP Policy 44 and DCNP Policy H2 as well as Part 12 of the NPPF, as it would not reflect the positive characteristics of the area and cause harm by consequence.

 

Councillor E Scott reiterated that whilst she supported the principle of redeveloping the site, the current proposal represents a harmful overdevelopment within the Durham City Conservation Area.  She noted that the public benefits of the proposal were greatly diminished by the reduced s106 offer and, in any case, could not outweigh the harm the development would cause to the area and my residents.  She concluded by asking Members to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor E Scott and asked Councillor L Brown, to speak in relation to the application.

 

 

 

Councillor L Brown thanked the Chair and noted that no one was against the redevelopment of the area, the fact that the land had been vacant for over 20 years, and was frankly a bit of an eyesore, did not mean that the site should be developed at any cost.  She noted that indeed the Neighbourhood Plan and CDP recommended both four and six houses in their initial assessments, emphasising that the scale and design must be appropriate for the Conservation Area.  She noted that the Planning Officer had described, in her e-mail to the applicant in November 2022, a high-density proposal, together with the acknowledgement that there was harm from the development.  Councillor L Brown noted that the development was of two parts, all of which was in the Conservation Area.  She referred to the Newcastle Road side and explained this was an extension of George Street, an 1890s terrace, not 1920s as stated in paragraph 125 of the Committee report.  She added that when permission had been given for an extra house at the end of the terrace in 2016, Design and Conservation had been insistent that the house reflected the street with bay windows and chimneys.  She noted that similarly, student accommodation at the other end of the street build int 2015 reflected the vernacular architecture.  She added that what was planned for the application site did not.  She noted the Architect had taken their height cues from the other side of the road, outside of the Conservation Area as stated on page 30 of their Design and Access Statement.  She noted the statement did not contain a single picture of George Street.  Councillor L Brown noted that although the overall height had been reduced, there were still four storey town houses, a clear case of overdevelopment on a small site.  She noted the Committee report referred at paragraphs 129 and 130 to such.  She added that the plans were not even new and seemed to reflect work done elsewhere by the applicant, with references to flats and the ‘urban setting’, set out at page 6 of the Design and Access Statement.  She noted that, in planning terms, the terrace was in breach of CDP Policies 6 and 44, DCNP Policies S1 and H2, which considered the relationship between new build and the area.

 

Councillor L Brown explained that the area between the railway bridge and the A690 was sometimes the only sight that drivers on the A167 get of the Durham City Conservation Area, and therefore we should make it worth looking at.

 

She noted the proposed terrace at St John’s Road, again a street of Edwardian and Victorian houses, described by the Council’s own conservation report in 2015 as a green and leafy cul-de-sac, with a vibrant mix of housing types, character and age.  Councillor L Brown noted the developer had failed to recognise that, taking the height cues from buildings nowhere near the site.  She noted that would lead to some overshadowing of the buildings to either side of the planned development. 

 

She noted concern as regards the proposed amenity space, what could only be described as a north, not east, facing pit which would not be the sunken courtyard garden the architect refers to, and would be unsuitable for at least six months of the year.  She added that the design of the terrace again had no relationship with the other buildings in the street and had been designed with both eyes on exploitation for financial gain rather that sympathy with the Conservation Area.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that, until the report had been published, the developer had been pleading poverty, within the latest written viability statement in August 2023, their own consultant had argued that £13,000 was all that was available for s106, and the application was down to be refused.  She added that suddenly, and at the same time their consultant had submitted that viability statement, the applicant had been able to find quarter of the million pounds, although there had been no written report and no assessment by the County Council, and no chance for others to challenge the figures.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that at this point she would have hoped to provide Members with enough sensible reasons why the application should be refused, however, should Members be minded to approve the application, she would wish for a robust construction management plan to be put in place to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.  She added that we did not want to see a repetition of the fiasco when Sheraton Park was being built and vehicles blocked pavements and caused damage to grass verges which took some time to repair.  She highlighted that paragraph 149 referred to removal of permitted development rights, however, she could not see any such condition within the recommendation.  She noted her usual recommendation as regards construction within residential areas starting at 8.00am, not 7.30am Monday to Friday, she asked if it would be possible to forbid deliveries between 8.00am and 9.00am and 2.45pm and 3.45pm to protect pupils from the three schools in the area.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that, finally, she would like Members of the Committee to think very carefully about the application.  She noted the report had stated that it was very finely balanced and had come down on the side of approval.  She noted that the design review panel had given it a score of four reds, as noted in paragraph 121 of the report, and added that she was at a loss as to why approval was recommended.  She reminded Members that one red on the building for life traffic light system was enough to merit refusal.  She added the scheme had four reds and she respectfully suggested that the site should not be developed at any cost.  Councillor L Brown noted that residents deserved better, and she was sure that someone could, and would, come up with a design that respects the Conservation Area and aligns with the existing statements on what would be a sensible development of the site, which the proposals certainly did not.

Councillor L Brown left the meeting at 10.00am

 

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Debbie Conway and Clare Green, Local Residents, to speak in relation to the application.

 

D Conway explained she had been a resident of St. John’s Road for 30 years and that she and C Green represented the numerous objectors to the application. 

She added that the Committee would be aware of the strength of feeling by the number of objectors in attendance, being both voters and Council Taxpayers.  She noted there was serious concern in terms of several aspects relating to the applications, including the s106, highways, loss of trees and harm to the Conservation Area.  She noted that the report set out that there would be ‘less than substantial’ harm to the Conservation Area, however, there was no evidence in terms of the benefits being greater than the harm. 

 

D Conway noted that the Council had sufficient housing in terms of a five-year supply, and noted the site was not a nuisance site and the suggested option proposed was weak.  She noted that both the CDP and NPPF sought to protect heritage assets and asked how permission could be granted for 12 properties when six was set out within the CDP.  She noted that the ugly, ungainly design was for House in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), not family homes.  She added that, despite the developer’s claims in relation to Norman Cornish, the proposals represented greed and overdevelopment and was not for residential use.

 

C Green noted she had been a resident of the area for 23 years and explained that it was evident from the many objections that the proposals were out of character for the area.  She noted that St. John’s Road was a cul-de-sac and was a family area, close to three schools, and reiterated that the proposed 12 dwellings were not family homes and that the lack of parking for 12 households would impact on St. John’s Road.  She added there were safety concerns in terms of increased traffic from residents and deliveries, with subsequent issues of delays and impact upon parking.  She reiterated that the area was a cul-de-sac and that children played in the street and walked to school.  She explained to the Committee that there had been felt to be some discrepancy in terms of a dormer window to a property in the area having been refused, however, the proposal in front of Members was recommended for approval.  C Green concluded by asking the Committee to protect the City and refuse the application as it was in conflict with policy and that she hoped the applicant would submit a more sympathetic scheme in the future.

 

The Chair thanked D Conway and C Green and asked Helen Marks, Agent for the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

 

H Marks thanked the Chair and Members for the opportunity to speak at Committee in support of the application.  She noted that the proposals were to redevelop a site that had been vacant for 15 years, since its last use as a petrol filling station.  She added that the proposals would make good a derelict site and a suitable scheme had not come forward until this point.  She explained that the applicant specialised in the development of such sites and that the proposals were for a visually appealing redevelopment of the site. 

 

H Marks noted the concerns that had been raised, however, the proposals before Members had been developed carefully within the constraints of the site, within policy, and had taking into account comments from third parties.  She added that a number of changes had been made to the application, in line with policy, including in relation to access, noting no access through the site.  She added that the overall scale of the proposed development within the Conservation Area was not opposed by Officers, and it was acknowledged that the site in its current state did not contribute to the city or the Conservation Area.  She noted that in relation to St John’s Road, Officers had noted that the proposals represented ‘less than substantial harm’ and Paragraph 191 of the Officer’s report stated that the public benefits outweighed any minimal local harm and therefore rendered the proposals acceptable.

 

In respect of financial contributions, H Marks explained that the full amounts were being put forward in terms of open space and education, alongside a reduced amount in relation to affordable housing.  She that position had been agreed after extensive consultation with Planning Officers.  She reiterated the point in terms of viability, that while the 12 properties proposed could give a viable scheme, the six properties referred to by objectors had not been subject to any detailed viability assessment.  She noted that the Officer’s report highlighted that there was an opportunity to bring forward residential development in a sustainable location and concluded by noting it was hoped the Committee would approve the application as per their Officer’s recommendation and lead to a positive contribution to the City.

 

The Chair thanked H Marks and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor J Elmer asked if the Officer from the Conservation Section could elaborate on the process and reasoning behind their conclusion of the harm to the Conservation Area from the development as being ‘less than substantial’, and how they could be so precise in that conclusion.  The Principal Design and Conservation Officer, David Sparkes, noted that an assessment was carried out in terms of the impact of the development on the Conservation Areas as a whole, rather than a small proportion of the Conservation Area. 

He added that when looking at whether a proposal was harmful it was to ascertain whether there was substantial or less than substantial harm, and in this case, it was felt it was less than substantial harm in terms of the NPPF and CDP.  Councillor J Elmer asked as regards the nature of the harm.  The Principal Design and Conservation Officer noted it was in terms of the scale, massing, context and relationships to existing structure and form.  Councillor J Elmer asked as regards the benefits from the proposals. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted they were set out within the report at Paragraph 188 onwards, reiterating the less than substantial harm, the bringing back into use a redundant site, and some direct and indirect economic benefits.  She added that while the benefits were limited, the harm was also only limited and therefore Officers felt in this case the harm was outweighed.  Councillor J Elmer asked if the same benefits could be achieved from a less densely developed site.  The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that the application to be determined by the Committee was that for 12 dwellings, as set out within the agenda papers, and reiterated that Officers felt that it represented limited harm and the reasons why the benefits were felt to outweigh the harm had been set out.  He added that there could be no weight attached to any potential alternative schemes and reiterated that the application before Members was that which required a determination by Committee.

 

Councillor C Kay noted he had been intrigued by the comments from the speakers present, especially in relation to one of the policies from either the CDP or DCNP having stated that four properties was felt to be the maximum to be built upon the site.  He noted that given that information, the proposals were for treble that number of properties on the application site.  He noted that initially the developer had sought to put forward only £13,000 of s106 monies, then suddenly it had risen up to £766,000 and asked where such a large increase had come from.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of viability, the Council had a specialist consultant that had reviewed the original viability assessment that had been provided and therefore the Council had pushed back and challenged the viability statement from the applicant.  He added that the Council position had not changed, and that the applicant had gone away and looked at the issue and it had been agreed further contributions.  He added that in terms of the density of the proposals, he felt those issues had been addressed within the Agent’s comments.  He added that in terms of final numbers the density was such to not included a detailed scheme assessment. 

 

The Chair noted the point raised by Councillor C Kay and asked how the CDP could set out six properties as being the maximum for the site, while it was felt that for viability, there was a need to increase the maximum to 12. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the viability information provided had been robustly assessed by the consultant and the quantum of development had been shown to be 12 in order to make the development viable.  Councillor C Kay noted he had not been aware that viability was looked at be external consultants and asked whether the numbers of 4 and 6 properties, as set out with the DCNP and CDP, had also been arrived at through use of consultants.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the DCNP was the Parish Council’s document.

 

Councillor D Sutton-Lloyd noted that, while on the site visit, there was major objection to the height, impact on the Conservation Area, and access issues and traffic, especially the access to St. John’s Road.  He added that the junction at the traffic lights was already a nightmare and suggested that where the Council had created it’s CDP, he felt such policies must be adhered to.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he had some concerns as regards the affordable housing not being delivered onsite, adding he felt there was a better balance for communities when the affordable housing was delivered onsite, and asked why the developer was allowed to provide a contribution for off-site affordable housing.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that when speaking with the Affordable Housing Team, it was noted that it would not be possible to get providers onsite, and therefore it was agreed for off-site provision.  Councillor J Elmer noted that perhaps there could have been some push back in that respect and noted there was no housing for the elderly via condition.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that Condition 11 referred to M4(2) standards and being confirmed to that standard prior to occupation, with the developer having confirmed that could be achieved.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he had reflected upon a range of issues and noted Members’ concern included design concerns, and he noted he disagreed as regards the wider benefits being greater than the harm to the Conservation Area.  He noted it was a subjective judgement and added that he felt it was important to hold out against the bit-by-bit erosion of the Conservation Area.  He noted that the fixtures and fittings were not required as per ‘normal residential standards’, reiterating there was a need to protect the Conservation Area and the heart of the city, adding there was a reason that people and tourists held the city in such high regard and value.  He noted he would move that the Committee overturn the Officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

 

Councillor S Deinali noted she would second refusal of the application.  Councillor K Shaw added he felt that, as per other decisions at recent Committee meetings, that all aspects of the Conservation Area, in terms of character, landscape and special circumstances, he noted that development should preserve or enhance the Conservation Area. 

He added that the massive overdevelopment in this case, represented harm in terms of scale and massing and therefore he would be also voting against the application.  Councillor D Sutton-Lloyd noted he felt similar to Councillor K Shaw on the application.  Councillor J Cosslett also agreed.

 

Councillor C Kay noted that while Planning Committee Members could apply their subjectivity, there was a need for material planning considerations to be able to come to a decision.  He noted ‘in his gut’ he agreed with the Members who had proposed refusal as regards overdevelopment, however, he would wish to hear some more information as regards reasons to refuse the application before coming to a conclusion.

 

The Chair noted that Members had referred to overdevelopment and harm to the Conservation Area and would refer back to Councillor J Elmer.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that policies he felt could be used in relation to refusal would be that the application was contrary to CDP Policy 44 in terms of the significance of impact on heritage assets, DCNP Policy S1 in relation to conserving the significance and character and of benefit to local communities.  He added that he felt the application was also contrary to DCNP Policies D4 and H2 in terms of the character and appearance of the area and reminded the Committee that the policies within the DCNP had been developed over a period of time and had been subject to consultation with local residents.  He noted there was persistent resistance and lack of adherence with the DCNP by developers.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Members had referred to adverse impact in terms of impact on the Conservation Area by virtue of the scale, massing and being of a design that was incongruent and asked if that also included reference to NPPF Part 16, in terms of ‘less than substantial harm’ being felt by Members to be greater than the benefits from the proposals.  Councillor J Elmer noted that was correct.

 

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED as proposal would, by virtue of its scale, mass and design appear as an incongruous addition to the streetscene that would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area including the Durham City Conservation Area causing less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset, which would not be outweighed by the wider public benefits. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Durham City Neighbourhood Plan Policies S1, D4 and H2, County Durham Plan Policy 44, Part 16 of the NPPF and section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Councillor L Brown entered the meeting at 10.30am