Two self-contained flats at 18 Boyd Street, Durham

What was proposed

The application proposed dividing a three-bedroom house into two self-contained two-bedroom flats and adding a two-storey rear extension.

“8 The application site is a two-storey, three-bedroom terraced property located on Boyd Street, Durham which is predominantly a residential area. The front elevation faces directly onto the public highway, with a private garden to the rear, and Durham City Centre positioned to the north-west. 9 The property is unlisted but located within Durham City Conservation Area, forming part of an historic terrace.”

“The Proposal 10 Planning permission is sought to subdivide an existing three-bedroom dwellinghouse into two self-contained 2-bedroom, 3-person flats (Use Class C3), along with a two- storey rear extension to facilitate the proposed layout. 11 The ground floor flat will be accessed via Boyd Street to the front of the property and will accommodate two en-suite bedrooms, an open kitchen/diner/lounge area and several storage cupboards.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for larger houses in multiple occupation and a C4 conversion were refused, with one appeal dismissed.

“13 4/03/01239/FPA Change of use and conversion and erection of three storey and two storey pitched roof extensions to rear to provide 13 bedroomed house in multiple occupation – Refused 18th February 2004 14 4/04/00559/FPA Change of use, conversion and erection of two storey pitched roof extensions to rear to provide 10 bedroom house in multiple occupation (revised and resubmitted) Refused 27th July 2004 15 DM/19/00564/FPA Change of use from C3 dwelling to C4 house in…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a Parish Councillor opposing the application and the agent supporting it.

Members’ debate

Members questioned whether the flats could operate like an HMO, whether student accommodation was needed, and whether parking provision was adequate.

“The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted reasons given for refusal, noting Members interpretation of CDP Policy 16.2 and need, adding that in terms of demonstrating need, Officers had felt there had been sufficient evidence. In terms of adequate parking, and the requirements of the SPD in terms of additional off-street parking, the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) explained that Officer must assess reasonably the requirements against existing use and provision.”

“Councillor J Elmer noted, as regards his motion for refusal, that he would wish to include parking, however, he was nervous that doing so would weaken any case such that refusal could be overturned at appeal. He asked whether the application was SPD compliant.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor J Elmer moved refusal, Councillor A Schulman seconded it, and the committee voted on the motion.

“Councillor J Elmer accepted the comments from the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) as regards defending any second refusal reason based upon parking at any future appeal. He noted, however, that it was clear that the SPD and policy requirements were not being met and accordingly, he did not feel the defence at appeal, if subsequently lost, would attract costs.”

“Moved by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor A Schulman and upon a vote being taken it was:”

Minutes