The Area Planning Committee (Central and East) met to discuss two planning applications. A mixed-use development including a retail unit and student accommodation at Land South of South College, The Drive, Durham, DH1 3LD was approved, and a change of use application for Bowburn Methodist Church, Ash Terrace, Durham Road, Bowburn, Durham, DH6 5AS to convert it into holiday lets was refused.

Change of Use to House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Refused

An application for a change of use from dwellinghouse (C3¹) to a house in multiple occupation (C4²) at 53 Frank Street, Gilesgate Moor, Durham, DH1 2JF was refused. Councillors voted against the officer's recommendation to approve the application.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper, explained that the applicant had reduced the number of proposed bedrooms from five to four to meet nationally described space standards³ (NDSS). He also noted that a recent appeal for a similar application at 58 Frank Street was allowed because Frank Street was not identified as a primary access route between a purpose built student accommodation (PBSA), a university campus, or the town centre. Paul Hopper stated that the percentage of HMOs within 100 metres was 7.4%, below the 10% threshold in the County Durham Plan (CDP) Policy 16.

Richard Hornby, a Parish Councillor speaking on behalf of Belmont Parish Council, asked the committee to refuse the application, stating that it failed key planning policies and would negatively impact the community. He argued that the parking provision was inadequate, creating accessibility hazards for disabled residents. He stated that the proposed parking spaces were below the minimum dimensions according to the Planning and Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

If I'm scooting along and a car is sticking out far enough to block enough of the pavement, I can't get past. I have to reverse along the pavement to find a dropped kerb or go another route completely. There's not enough space on a pavement to turn around in a scooter. Or alternatively, a third option, risk injuring myself and damaging my scooter getting onto the road without a dropped kerb. And then being in the road for as long as needed. Even if there is a dropped kerb right there, it's still a massive pain and depending on the length of the car, I'll either have to back up and go round, or scoot into the road (which is always risky and horrible to do). If the average car is going to overhang into the pavement that is a Big Problem because it sets the precedent of that being fine and disabled people (and parents with prams) just having to lump it. Knowingly permitting the blocking of public access is not okay and discriminates against those who can't just manoeuvre around.

Councillor L Mavin, a local Councillor, agreed with Richard Hornby's comments and stated that the application failed CDP Policies 16, 29 and 31, and that there was no need for such HMOs.

Councillor M Wilkes stated that the application was not sustainable development in line with CDP Policy 29, and that there would be an impact on amenity in terms of cycle and bin storage. He also stated that it was not acceptable for vehicles to obstruct the footpath, and that the proposals were not in line with Policy 16.

Neil Carter, the Lawyer (Planning and Highways), advised that any refusal based upon highway safety would be in costs territory should that refusal be appealed, because the NPPF⁴ sets a stringent test. The committee voted to refuse the application, as the Council considered that the proposed change of use included substandard parking provision which failed to meet the requirements of the council's Parking and Accessibility SPD⁵ and would result in vehicles overhanging the footway and would also unacceptably restrict access to proposed bin and cycle storage, such that the development would be harmful to highway safety and contrary to County Durham Plan Policies 16, 29 and 31 of the CDP.

Mixed-Use Development Approved

Councillors approved a detailed application for a mixed-use development at Land South of South College, The Drive, comprising a retail convenience store and 93 student bedspaces with associated facilities.

Spatial Policy officers advised that while the site is not allocated for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA), CDP Policy 16 allows for windfall PBSA developments provided certain criteria are met. The Housing Needs SPD recognises that need is more nuanced than the number of students registered, and therefore it is important applicants address qualitative need to increase choice for students.

Durham University confirmed that engagement had taken place between the University and the Banks Group, and that a retail offering within walking distance of the Mount Oswald, Howlands and Hill Colleges would encourage students to make journeys on foot, and reduce grocery deliveries being made to these Colleges.

Design and Conservation officers confirmed that revisions to the scheme would integrate the built development with the surrounding landscape and reduce the visual impact.

Landscape officers noted that landscape effects would be major and adverse locally at completion of the mixed-use development, given the anticipated change in character and baseline landscape conditions.

The committee approved the application subject to a Section 106 legal agreement to secure financial contributions of £22,320 in respect of the Health Impact Assessment requirements, and £66,402 in respect of Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) requirements.

Change of Use to Holiday Lets Refused

Councillors refused an application for the change of use of Bowburn Methodist Church from a religious building to seven holiday lets.

Cassop-Cum-Quarrington Parish Council objected to the application, citing a lack of parking provision, problems with building equipment accessing the location, no outside space for visitors, the location being next to a busy road, visitors adding to traffic, and uncertainty as to whether the roads are to an adoptable standard.

Councillor Jan Blakey objected to the application on the grounds of highways, environmental and amenity impacts.

The Design and Conservation officer stated that following a revision to the design, the impact on the non-designated asset is much less and not considered to be harmful.

The Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Nuisance) team advised applying a condition restricting the occupation of the premises to that of short-term holiday use, and requiring details of a noise management agreement/plan to control noise and behaviour of short-term holiday users.

The committee voted to refuse the application.