Appendix 14

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

COMMITTEE DATE: 8th January 2020

DATE OF APPLICATION: 07.05.2019

APPLICATION NO: LA11/2019/0396/LBC

APPLICATION TYPE: Listed Building Consent

PROPOSAL: Retention of rear extension to Nos 56, 58 & 60 Northland Road to

provide 9no. 2 bedroom apartments over three floors in 3no. return

buildings in lieu of previously approved 9no. single bedroom over

3no. floors in 3no. return buildings together with minimal repair

works to the outbuilding to the rear of 56 Northland Road to permit

its use as a temporary refuge store.

LOCATION: 56 - 60 Northland Road, Derry, BT48 0AL

APPLICANT: Dunroe Properties Ltd

AGENT: Architect Eddie Kerr

ADVERTISEMENT: 25.05.2019

STATUTORY EXPIRY: 12.06.2019

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: This is an application for more than 5 units All planning application forms, drawings, letters etc. relating to this planning application are available

to view on www.planningni.gov.uk

1. Description of Proposed Development

This application is for Listed Building Consent and involves the retention of rear extensions to Nos 56,

58 & 60 Northland Road to provide 9no. 2 bedroom apartments over three floors in 3no. return

buildings in lieu of previously approved 9no. single bedroom over 3no. floors in 3no. return buildings

under Planning References LA11/2018/0712/LBC, LA11/2018/0711/F (Nos. 56-58) and

LA11/2018/0646/LBC LA11/2018/0667/F (No. 60).

This proposal also involves an extension to the footprint of the previously approved development and

includes the addition of a passenger lift shaft and hallway area between the buildings, as well as repair

Appendix 14

works to the outbuilding to the rear of 56 Northland Road to permit its use as a temporary refuge

store.

2. Site and Surrounding Area

As can be seen in Figure 1, the application site is a rectangular shaped portion of land. It consists of a

row of terraced dwellings which are Grade B2 Listed Buildings. They each have a small front garden

and rear yard area. The application site located on the Northland Road.

The site is located within Derry City and therefore within the development limit as defined by the

Derry Area Plan 2011 (DAP 2011). The site is within the Magee Conservation Area and Flats Policy

Area. It is outside, but bordering the Central Area boundary. It is within Zone C “all other areas” in

relation to Policy TR 5 which deals with car parking of the DAP.

Figure 1 – Site Location Plan/Application Site

Appendix 14

Figure 2 - Aerial View of Site

3. Site Constraints

Listed Building

Loughs Agency Consultation Zone

Magee Conservation Area

4. Neighbour Notification Report

Listed Building Consent does not require neighbour notification.

5. Policy Framework

Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035

Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) for NI 2015

Derry Area Plan (DAP) 2011

Policy BE1 Urban Design

Policy BE 2 Listed Buildings

Appendix 14

Policy BE 4 Conservation Area

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage

Policy BH 8 Expansion or Alteration of a Listed Building

Policy BH 11 Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building

Policy BH 12 New Development in a Conservation Area

Supplementary Planning Guidance Documents

Magee Conservation Area Design Guide 2010

6. Consultee Responses Historic Environment Division (HED): HB considers the proposal fails to satisfy the policy requirements of

paragraphs 6.13 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) and BH8 (Extension

or Alteration of a Listed Building) of Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built

Heritage.

7. Representations

There have been no letters of support or objection received in relation to this proposal.

8. Relevant Planning History

REFERENCE NO: SITE ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION:

LA11/2018/0564/LDE 56 Northland Road, Derry, BT48 0AL,

5 No. self-contained flats Permitted Development

LA11/2018/0561/LDE 58 Northland Road, Derry, BT48 0AL,

4 No. self-contained flats Permitted Development

LA11/2018/0474/LBC 56 & 58 Northland Road, Derry, BT48 0AL

Temporary removal of 6m section of boundary wall to the rear of 56 Northland Road to provide works access for repair and restoration of existing flats at 56 and 58 Northland Road

Permission Granted

02.04.2019

LA11/2018/0712/LBC 56 & 58 Northland Road, Derry, BT48 0AL,

Renovation of existing 9no. self-contained 1 bed flats and demolition of existing rear returns. 4 storey rear extensions to provide an additional 8 no.

Permission Granted

02.04.2019

Appendix 14

self-contained bedroom flats (16 units in total )

LA11/2018/0646/LBC 60 Northland Road, Derry, BT48 0AL

Restoration, renovation and extension to existing building to provide 8 no self- contained 1 bedroom flats.

Permission Granted

02.04.2019

LA11/2018/0667/F 60 Northland Road Derry BT48 0AL

Change of use from dwelling to provide 4 no self-contained one bed flats, and erection of 3 storey extension to same to provide 3 no self-contained one bed flats (7 units in total)

Permission Granted

02.04.2019

LA11/2019/0416/F 56-60 Northland Road, Derry, BT48 0AL, townland of Templemore,

Retention of rear extension to no's. 56,58 & 60 Northland Road to provide 9no. 2 bedroom apartments over three floors in 3no. return buildings in lieu of previously approved 9no. single bedroom over 3no. floors in 3no. return buildings together with minimal repair works to the outbuilding to the rear of 56 Northland Road to permit its use as a temporary refuge store.

Current Full Application

under Consideration

9. Planning Assessment, including Other Material Considerations

9.1 Section 6 (4) of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to make planning

decisions in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate

otherwise.

9.2 This is a retrospective application for Listed Building Consent. Previously, extensions were

approved to the rear of these properties to provide one bedroom apartment accommodation. These

extensions were reduced in size and scale during the processing of the application (LA11 2018/0667/F)

to ensure that they did not adversely affect the Listed Buildings to which they are attached and

therefore preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area at this location.

9.3 The principle of apartment development at the site has been established through previous

approvals on site.

9.4 As a result, the main consideration in terms of this proposal which is retrospective is in respect of

scale, design and appropriateness within the Conservation Area. Therefore, the assessment of this

Appendix 14

Listed Building Consent falls within Policies BE 1, BE 2, BE and BE 5 of the DAP, alongside Policies BH 7,

BH 8, BH 11 and BH 12 of PPS 6 provide the policy content in terms of good design, Listed Buildings, and Development

within Conservation Areas.

Figure 3 – Current Images of Application Site

Site frontage onto Northland Road

Appendix 14

Rear elevation from Eden Terrace

Appendix 14

9.5 This retrospective application for Listed Building Consent to provide nine two bedroom apartments

and lift shafts in a further extension to the rear returns previously approved LA11/2018/0712/LBC,

LA11/2018/0711/F (Nos. 56-58) and LA11/2018/0646/LBC LA11/2018/0667/F (No. 60).

9.6 As these extensions have been constructed on Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area,

particular consideration is also afforded to the overall design, finishes and impact on character of the

Listed Buildings and Conservation Area as a whole and therefore Policies BH 8, BH 11 and BH 12 will

also be considered below.

9.7 Policies BH 8 and BH 11 of PPS 6 state that the proposal must meet criteria (a) to (c) as detailed in

each policy context and Policy BH 12 requires proposals for development in a Conservation Area to

adhere to Criteria (a) to (g).

9.8 As can be seen in Figure 3 above, the original buildings at the front of the site onto Northland Road

have been retained in terms of their structural walls and external appearance on the front elevation.

However, as seen below in Figure 4 the rear returns as previously approved have been extended into

Appendix 14

the rear garden area of each property by an additional 5.7m from the rear wall as previously approved.

The width has also been slightly increased on each rear return. The lift shafts between the returns

have also created additional floor space. These lift shafts have a ridge height of approximately 11m

and therefore protrude slightly above the ridge height of the returns. The finishes include, timber

sliding sash with opaque paint finish, external wall finish shall be painted render, roof covering shall

be Bangor Blue natural slate or other locally sourced natural slate with blue/black ridge tiles and eaves

‘clipped’ and without exterior timber roof timbers and verges. Rain water goods to be cast iron or

cast aluminium. There will be open space to the rear of each building with a separate bin storage

area within one of the mews buildings.

9.9 Potential Impacts on Listed Buildings/Archaeological Sites

The policy consideration in terms of scale, massing and design is provided by PPS 6 and the DAP.

The Listed Buildings Register states that these are Grade B2 Listed Buildings and describes them

individually as being one of a terrace of three mid-Victorian three-storey with attic two-bay Italianate

style townhouses located at the corner of Eden Terrace, which were constructed in 1869. The Listed

Building Register states that despite their poor condition they are undoubtedly of very high

architectural quality with the front elevation retaining much of its original character, style and

proportions.

Appendix 14

Figure 3 – Floor Plans & Elevations

Appendix 14

Appendix 14

Whilst the finishes of the extensions are considered acceptable in that they are traditional and

sympathetic to the listed buildings, Officers are of the opinion that as a result of the scale and massing

of the extensions they will have an adverse visual impact on the character of the listed buildings when

viewed from Eden Terrace and the Northland Road. HED reiterate these concerns and have stated

that linking the three returns would mean the existing rear, historic wall is almost entirely obscured

from view. They state that any extension should be subordinate to the listed building. They also

pointed out that they provided substantive responses relating to LA11/2018/0712/LBC,

LA11/2018/0711/F (Nos. 56-58) and LA11/2018/0646/LBC LA11/2018/0667/F (No. 60) and consider

these recent approvals have established the maximum capacity on this site and any further

development such as that constructed would have a detrimental impact on the listed buildings.

There are no archaeological sites which are nearby this site which could be adversely affected by this

proposal.

Having considered the above, it is concluded that the overall proposal is contrary to Policies BE 1 and

BE 2 of the DAP and Policies BH 8 and BH 11 of PPS 6.

9.10 Surrounding Context and Character of the Area

In terms of surrounding context and character, as detailed previously this site is located within Magee

Conservation Area. Policy consideration is therefore provided by PPS 6 and the DAP. The Magee

Conservation Area Design Guide is also a material consideration. It aims to encourage a well cared

for historic environment by promoting the retention of authentic historic fabric and the use

of appropriate materials and historic construction methods for repairs. It fosters a context for

the evolution of high quality contemporary architecture and landscape architecture in

extensions and new build proposals. It states that proposals for new buildings and/or

alterations or extensions that are considered to be inauthentic in their historic architectural

detailing, materials, or systems of proportion, and/or lacking in well considered creativity will

not be acceptable in the Conservation Area. The site is also identified as a Grand Terrace

within this document and the frontage of the application site along the Northland Road is also

identified in this document as an Excellent View. It is considered that together the three

dwellings have group value and the Magee Conservation Area is enhanced by their historical

authenticity and presence.

Appendix 14

Whist residential apartment development is considered to be appropriate in terms of character in this

specific area given the surrounding flats development and its location within the Flats Policy Area,

Officers consider that the height, scale and massing of the rear returns as constructed without the

benefit of planning approval is not in sympathy with the characteristic built form. Also, the irregular

roof line created by the lift shafts does not respect or enhance the roofscape. As a result, this

development adversely affects the character and setting of the listed buildings when viewed from the

surrounding public road network therefore these extensions adversely affect the character and views

of the Conservation Area. Officers are of the opinion that this proposal does not conform with the

guidance as set out in the Magee Conservation Area document as detailed above.

Therefore, it is considered that this proposal is not acceptable or appropriate within Magee

Conservation Area as the extension does not appear sympathetic to the existing buildings and

adjacent residential development.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposal does not comply with Policy BE 4 of the DAP and Policy

BH 12 of PPS 6.

9.11 Amenity

In consideration pf amenity, Part (d) of Policy BH 12 is relevant. The units overlook the public street

and rear amenity space therefore providing supervision of this public area thus helping to deter crime.

Given the surrounding context and separation distances, there will be no adverse impact on amenity

in terms of overlooking or loss of light to the adjacent properties. EHD have been consulted have no

objections. However as seen in Figure 4 below, Officers are of the opinion that the current private

rear amenity space provided for the residents is not appropriate and is therefore substandard,

contradicting the layout as proposed in Drawing 04.

Appendix 14

Figure 4 – Rear of Apartments

Appendix 14

Therefore, in its current form, given the layout and inaccessibility of the rear amenity space, it is

considered that the proposal fails to comply with Policy BH 12 of PPS 6.

9.12 Mews buildings

It is noted that this application also proposes to convert one of the mews buildings in the rear garden

to a bin store. These are also Listed and as such HED have also provided advice. They have stated that

the outbuildings to the rear of the site contribute significantly to the historic understanding and significance

of the listed terrace. They requested further information as the information submitted was considered

insufficient. Further drawings/additional information were received however HED stated that as there

have been no changes to the application drawings, they reiterated the advice provided in the previous

consultation response.

9.13 Consideration of Supporting Information

Following a meeting with the agent and the applicant in October 2019, the agent provided a

supporting statement which is summarised below;

It stated that prior to the purchase of the properties by the applicant had agreed a Housing

Association partner however this Association did not want to take over the 12 units in the

properties at the front which were complete first whilst work was ongoing in the units to the

rear. Therefore, this resulted in them seeking a new partner.

The NIHE confirmed that they would be keen to use this as part of their emergency housing

programme but required two bedroom units for small family units.

The agent has also provided figures to demonstrate that there is a need for this type of

accommodation.

The agent also stated that Building Control advised that a passenger lift could not be

integrated into the listed section and should be provided in the rear extension.

They advise that they attempted to liaise with HED but were unsuccessful.

The agent feels that they have restored an iconic landmark on an arterial route.

This proposal has support from local residents and elected representatives.

Whilst Officers welcome the retention and conversion of the Listed Buildings and acknowledge the

circumstances as set out above alongside the need for this type of accommodation in this area, this

cannot be afforded determining weight. It is considered that the impact of the extensions as erected

on the Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area adversely affects the setting of these Listed

Appendix 14

Buildings and therefore the appearance of the Conservation Area. These extensions do not conform

to the guidance provided by Historic Environment Division (HED) and the Magee Conservation Area

Design Guide, and consequently refusal is recommended as the proposal is contrary to policies BE 1,

BE 2 and BE 4 of the DAP and Policies BH 8, BH 11 and BH 12 of PPS 6.

10. Conclusion and Recommendation

In conclusion, it is considered that whilst flats/apartments are acceptable in principle at this location

within Magee Conservation Area, the extensions to the Listed Buildings (which have been erected

without Planning Permission) and the conversion of the Listed Mews Building are unacceptable. The

current level and quality of rear amenity space does not permit a quality living environment. The

extensions are considered to be incongruous in terms of scale, height and massing and insufficient

information has been provided to assess the impact on the mews buildings at the rear. It is also considered

that due to the scale and massing of the extensions, this development does not appear sympathetic

within Magee Conservation Area. Therefore, it is considered that this proposal does not comply with

all applicable Planning Policy specifically Policies BE 1, BE 2 and BE 4 of the DAP and Policies BH 8, BH

11 and BH 12 of PPS 6. Therefore, refusal is recommended for the reasons below.

11. Proposed Reasons for Refusal

1. The proposal is contrary to Policies BH 8 and BH 11 of Planning Policy Statement 6 Planning,

Archaeology and the Built Heritage, Policies BE 1 and BE 2 of the Derry Area Plan 2011 and the Strategic

Planning Policy Statement 2015 in that the scale, form and massing of the development adversely

affects the setting of the Listed Buildings.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy BH12 of Planning Policy Statement 6 Planning, Archaeology and

the Built Heritage, Policy BE 4 of the Derry Area Plan 2011 and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement

2015 in that the development detracts from the character and appearance of Magee Conservation

Area as the scale, form and massing of the rear extensions does not respect the characteristics of

adjoining Listed buildings and does not conform with the guidance set out in the Magee Conservation

Area Design Guide.