Agenda item

Variation of condition no.1 (approved Plans) of planning approval 4/10/00451/FPA (Sub-division of existing dwelling to form one 4-bedroom dwelling and one 6-bedroom dwelling) to allow conversion of roof space to provide an additional two bedrooms.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the variation of condition no.1 (approved Plans) of planning approval 4/10/00451/FPA (Sub-division of existing dwelling to form one 4-bedroom dwelling and one 6-bedroom dwelling) to allow conversion of roof space to provide an additional two bedrooms, at 85 Gilesgate, Durham, DH1 1HY (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. It was reported that since the officers report had been published, a further 2 letters of objection had been received, neither of which raised any new planning considerations.

Ms D Hardy, local resident, addressed the Committee, speaking on behalf of neighbours of the property and in support of the officers recommendation to refuse the application.

Ms Hardy did not object to the student population living in the area and indeed in 85 Gilesgate, rather her concerns related to parking and the unacceptable impact the additional parking would have on residential amenities, in particular, no.83 Gilesgate. Reference was made to saved policy H9 of the Durham City Local Plan which required that all developments protected highway safety and provided sufficient off street parking, particularly in relation to Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO’s). Ms Hardy advised the Committee that the application clearly contravened policy H9.

Members were advised that 85 Gilesgate had no sole parking facility, therefore parking outside the property proved at times to be inconvenient and dangerous.

Whilst it was acknowledged that the applicant encouraged tenants in the property to car share or use public transport, Ms Hardy advised that she had witnessed no evidence of car sharing. The entrance arch to number 83 Gilesgate was often blocked by vehicles from no.85 and it stood to reason that HMO’s would create intensive parking.

The Committee were advised that the road from 83-90 Gilesgate was outside of the remit of the County Council and the Highways Authority had indicated that the parking outside of no.85 was uncontrollable, though they concurred that should the application be approved it would impact further on parking.

In relation to residential amenity, Ms Hardy advised that the proposals would mean a significant increase in noise disturbance and increase of movement to and from the property. The Committee were advised that the applicant had not justified why they were seeking a variation of a condition, which technically should only be altered under certain circumstances. Ms Hardy urged the Committee to ensure the consistency of the site and refuse the application.

Mr P Smith, on behalf of the applicant Bill Free Homes, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that the grounds for recommendation for refusal was that the application contravened policies H9 and T1 of the Durham City Local Plan.

Mr Smith stated that policy H9 was not listed in the officers list of relevant policies which skipped from H2 – H16. Mr Smith was therefore concerned that the officer had drawn a conclusion on the case prior to all the evidence being assessed. Members were advised that the officer had written on 20 February 2013 to say that in spite of not having all statutory responses, he intended to recommend refusal of the application.

The applicant believed that he had complied with all of the conditions from the 2010 approval and further advised that he had a letter from the occupier of no.86 Gilesgate, which stated that no.85 was well managed and that the students did not block her car. It was pointed out that this resident was the only one who could be blocked in by occupiers at no.85.

The Committee were advised that the applicants were a highly accredited company, the only company in Durham to hold the coveted AFS Unipol Accreditation. Furthermore they were finalists in the Sunday Times Student Landlord of the Year competition to be announced in May.

Mr Smith advised that the Committee had evidence within the application from the head of The University Security, that he had never had a call regarding behaviour of tenants at 85 Gilesgate. The officers consultation with the police confirmed that they had not been involved in intervening in parking disputes to the front of the property, contrary to the claims of the owners of no.83. Mr Smith pointed out that the only time the police attended was to wrongfully arrest him personally, for defending the rights of the tenants and the occupier of no.86 in relation to a fence wrongly erected by the occupiers at no.83.

Mr Smith advised that he had letters from the alternative transport providers including a division of the largest Multimodal transport provider in Europe (Arriva), praising the applicants transport policies.

The Committee were advised that the objectors told of near misses on the road, however they were not recorded and there were no records of any accidents arising from parking issues. The applicant did acknowledge the danger at the brow of the hill and as such instructed their tenants to turn left at all times and make a loop back into Durham.

Mr Smith advised that the applicants were successful in what they did, which could not be achieved by ignoring the amenity of neighbours. The site was a well managed city centre site and every application they had made had always warned of disaster if approved. Mr Smith believed that the easiest way of making a risk assessment about the future was to look at the past. He reiterated that there had been no police visits, no university security visits and no accidents, however the objectors still stated that residents in no.85 were causing an affray. He called for the H9 argument to be dismissed.

In referring to policy T1, Mr Smith advised that the applicant had policies in place that provided for alternative transport which were in line with T10, which discouraged vehicle parking off the pubic highway in new development so as to promote sustainable transport choices.

On 5 February 2013, Mr Smith advised that the traffic officer wrote that the creation of two separate dwellings was likely to increase the expectation of residents for parking. The applicant had therefore pointed out that the property was already two dwellings and it was clear that the officer had not commented upon the current application but the previous one. Having drawn this to the officers attention a more considered reply was sent.

In the 2008 application, again for 12 bedrooms, Members were advised that the Highways Authority raised no objections adding that the new proposals may not lead to an increase in parking demand. Subsequently in the 2010 application for just 10 bedrooms, a negative conclusion was drawn from Highways, noting that it would raise the expectation for parking. Mr Smith as such argued there was a lack of consistency.

Mr Smith referred to an application for a bigger development in the city which was recently approved, though 85 Gilesgate was closer to the University facilities.

Reference was also made to an application which was made in Gilesgate in 2007 which was refused. Mr Smith was highlighting what he believed to be an inconsistent approach by the Highways Authority and he believed that sufficient evidence had been presented to show that the objection on the grounds of T1 was inconsistent with current planning policy T10. He concluded by requesting that planning approval be granted.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to all comments made as follows:

• Members were reminded that despite references made to previous planning applications and decisions, each application must be determined on its own merits, as different applications often related to different locations and circumstances.
• The objectors concerns were fundamentally the same as the concerns of the Planning and Highways concerns, relating to parking implications and road safety.

The Highways Officer was in attendance and addressed the committee. He advised that the issue of parking was well covered within the officers report at paragraphs 50 and 51, and having personally visited the site, he was particularly concerned with junction visibility and access onto Gilesgate. He therefore concurred that additional traffic would create increased risk of danger.

Councillor M Dixon queried why the variation to the original condition had not just been included in the original application. Having read the officers report, he accepted the expert advice of the Highways Officer and as such moved approval of the recommendation to refuse the application.

Councillor Blakey supported the motion, stating that having seen the site she would be concerned with the introduction of any more traffic to that area. Councillor Freeman also supported the officer recommendation, citing refusal on the grounds of parking demand, residential amenity and highway safety.

Resolved: That the application be refused for thereasons set out in the officers report.