The proposal, submitted by Peter Robson for a single-storey rear extension at 3 Lawson Terrace, aimed to increase living space in the property.
Initial plans included a loft conversion and rooflights, which were later removed.
City of Durham Parish Council and the City of Durham Trust both raised objections to the proposed extension, citing concerns about insufficient outdoor space for residents and the impact on the character of the Durham City Conservation Area.
The Parish Council, in particular, noted that the original plan conflicted with policies aimed at preserving amenity standards and requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.
Durham County Council’s committee report indicated that the applicant had made amendments to the proposal, including removing the loft conversion and rooflights and reducing the extension’s depth to three metres, to address some of the concerns.
Most read
Start 2025 Informed: Get 50% off an annual subscription or enjoy 3 months for just £3 with The Northern Echo. Dive into local news and fulfil your resolution to stay updated. Offer valid until Jan 31.
The council also concluded that the reduced yard space was proportionate and did not significantly harm residential amenity.
Concerns about privacy, overlooking, and overshadowing were deemed minimal due to the small size and location of the extension.
Durham County Council approved the application with conditions, which include that the development must begin within three years of approval and that the materials used must match the existing building.
The applicant emphasised that the extension aimed to improve living conditions for tenants without increasing the number of residents.
The property, a mid-terrace house, operates as a five-bedroom HMO and is located within the Durham City Conservation Area, subject to Article 4 Direction, which restricts certain alterations.
The property features a rear yard typical of Victorian terraces in the area.
The City of Durham Trust had previously raised concerns about the design of the extension, arguing that it would erode uniformity and historic features at the rear of the property.
The Trust also argued that the proposal failed to meet Nationally Described Space Standards for minimum bedrooms and overall internal floor areas.
The Trust claimed the proposed attic bedroom’s floor-to-ceiling height and usable space were inadequate.