Agenda item

Proposed extension of time limit for implementation of 09/00756 for three terraced dwellings.

Prior to the consideration of the Planning Officer’s report, Messrs Cornwell & Priestly raised with the Chairman a matter of procedure, namely that they had decided to split their representations between the two applications i.e. one person was to speak for the full 5 minutes on item 3(c) and one person was to speak for 5 minutes on this application.  They felt disadvantaged because item 3(c) had now been withdrawn and requested more than 5 minutes within which to speak on this application.

The Chairman exercised his discretion by allowing 5 minutes to each of them but made it clear that he would therefore allow 10 minutes to the applicant.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the proposed extension of time limit for implementation of 09/00756 for three terraced dwellings(for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor G Holland, local member, addressed the Committee. He believed the issue was whether the existing planning permission should be extended or whether it should expire naturally, requiring the applicant to submit a new application.

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that there was an overload of student dwellings within the area of the site, in addition the site was within a conservation area.

The land was currently garden space associated with no.24 The Avenue, Councillor Holland was concerned that Government guidelines were against development on such sites.

Since 2009, Councillor Holland informed the Committee that numerous properties in The Avenue had converted to HMO’s (Houses in Multiple Occupancy), and he made reference to the objections detailed within the report by Planning Policy, who objected to the application on the basis that they considered the proposal would have a significant impact on the local area as it would significantly increase the concentration of HMO’s in the street. Councillor Holland highlighted that the proposals were contrary to policies H9, H13 and H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

In relation to the impact that the proposals could have on other residents in the street, Councillor Holland referred to Policy Q8 which stated that the impact on the occupants of neighbouring properties should be minimised.

Councillor Holland felt that the application should be rejected in light of the new planning landscape of 2012. Should the application be approved, Councillor Holland suggested that a C3 condition be applied to the permission to require that the property be for family use and not a HMO.

Councillor N Martin, local member, addressed the Committee. He felt strongly that recent years had seen an influx of students into the site area and highlighted that the increase in the student population had signified a change in tone from both the Police and from Planning Policy, with both vocalising concerns.

Councillor Martin called for the application to be rejected and although he agreed that if approval should be granted then a C3 condition be imposed, he highlighted that C3 was not exactly appropriate as the design of the development did not lend themselves well as family dwellings.

Mr S Priestly, local resident, addressed the Committee. Mr Priestly informed Members that he had resided in The Avenue for 18 years, during which time he had witnessed a real shift in the residential mix in the area. The street was now predominantly a student base and he feared that the introduction of more students to the street could drive families away. Quoting figures of students against families in The Avenue, Mr Priestly informed the Committee that should the application be approved and the site was developed as proposed, it would take the number of students residing in the street to over 200.

Mr Priestly informed the Committee of the problems which were created as a result of high numbers of students residing in residential areas, such as increased noise and anti social behaviour.

The Committee were advised that the families within The Avenue provided a vital service year on year in clearing the road during adverse weather conditions, a service which would not continue should families be driven out of the area.

Mr Priestly argued that it was unlikely that the developer would opt to market the property as a residential dwelling once developed as that would not be a viable economic proposition.

Mr R Cornwell, local resident, addressed the Committee. Speaking on behalf of Crossgate Community Partnership, Mr Cornwell called on the Committee to allow the existing permission to expire, a move which would be supported by the Police and the Planning Policy Team.

Mr Cornwell informed the Committee that the site was not previously developed land and that Policy H2 still applied, and he drew reference to the NPPF which stated that a safe and accessible environment should be created. The Police had acknowledged that the condition in The Avenue had changed considerably since the original planning permission had been granted.

Evidence from Durham University suggested that there was more likelihood of disturbance in areas where students were not managed.

Mr Cornwell cited instances which he was aware of where the police and the university security had to be called to attend to issues with students in The Avenue and argued that the applicant would not personally manage any students residing in the developed site.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the issues raised by all objectors as follows:

• Student Population – The Committee were advised that although objectors expressed concerns regarding a potential overload of student accommodation within The Avenue and wanted something better, he put it that there were no alternative proposals for the site. It did not necessarily have to be assumed that once developed, the property would become student accommodation as opposed to family dwellings.
• Since the last planning permission had been granted, it was accepted that there was possibly more students living in The Avenue, however that was not quantifiable as properties could be shared without being registered as student accommodation.
• The Committee were informed that there were no guidelines, limits or policies which specified a ceiling limit on the number of students which could inhabit an area.
• Members were informed that there was a current planning permission in place on the site and Government guidelines suggested that unless there were significant changes or new policies which superseded previous policy, then an extension request should not be refused.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the site was technically Greenfield land, it could be argued that the location was sustainable and the development would have no detrimental visual impact.

Mr C Fish, representing the applicant Mr P Copeland, addressed the Committee.

He informed Members that the decision was taken to withdraw the previous planning application from the meeting agenda due to the depth of feeling amongst objectors, the applicant had thus felt it better to withdraw the matter rather than see it forced on local residents.

Mr Fish stressed that the proposed development was not an HMO, highlighting that the definition of an HMO was a property housing more than 6 people, whereas the proposed properties would house up to 6 residents.

The initial application for the site had been approved 3 years earlier and whilst it was generally accepted that the properties would become student accommodation, Mr Fish stressed that they did not have to be. He informed Members that ultimately the market would determine the usage of the properties based upon whatever would be the most appropriate investment at the time.

Mr Fish informed the Committee that his clients operated a number of high value single family lets in addition to the larger dwellings.

In addressing the existing permission on the site, Mr Fish informed the Committee that within the last 3 years a lot of off-site work had been undertaken along with other works such as an archaeological report, ecological studies and arboricultural studies. A site investigation programme had been undertaken to assist with the design of the foundations for the properties. Furthermore the applicant had worked extensively to discharge all conditions on the original planning permission, all of which had now been done. Mr Fish stated that all of these works demonstrated a significant commitment to the site on the part of the applicant.

Members were informed that the current economic climate had prevented construction works commencing on the site, it was a commercial project and currently the borrowing of significant funds of that nature was difficult. Mr Fish was confident that the applicant was now in a position for work on the site to commence within a six month period should the application be approved, with a view to the development being completed within 3 years.

Mr Fish informed Members that his client would not object to a C3 condition being imposed on the application, restricting the occupancy of the property to a maximum of 6.

In relation to the impact of students in the area, Mr Fish informed the Committee that this was a long standing issue which he believed stemmed back to the start of the University. He highlighted that there was no empirical evidence or unbiased study which evidenced that students did have a detrimental effect when inhabiting predominantly residential areas. Furthermore, the Council had not provided any guidance on what would be considered an acceptable level of students in an area.

In relation to the issue of student related crime in The Avenue, Mr Fish informed the Committee that having researched the Durham Constabulary crime statistics for that specific street, he had discovered that there had only been one report of anti-social behaviour in the previous 14 months, and in total only 9 crimes had been reported in that period, the majority of which had been motor vehicle theft.

On the issue of parking in the street, Mr Fish stated that it was a County Council responsibility to control and was not a matter for the applicant.

The Principal Planning Officer provided clarification to the Committee on the current regime of the use classes order and highlighted the difference between a C3 and C4 class.

Councillor Freeman felt that the proposals of development went against the creation of balanced communities and believed that the current permission should be allowed to expire, requiring a fresh planning application to be submitted.

Councillor Taylor felt that it was difficult to object to the recommendations within the report as a planning permission on the site already existed and there had been no change in circumstances, he therefore moved that the application be approved.

Councillor Charlton concurred that the previous planning permission could not be disregarded. She argued that a lot of the economy of Durham relied on the student population, and could not agree with the vilification of students. Councillor Charlton agreed that the application should be approved and that a C3 condition should be imposed on the permission.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the addition of a condition restricting the use of the dwellings to Use Class C3.