Agenda item

Erection of 5 no. detached dwellings and 4 no. semi-detached dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 5 detached dwellings and 4 semi-detached dwellings on land to the rear of 7 and 8 Meadow Close, Middleton-in-Teasdale.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included plans and photographs of the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a late representation had been received from Middleton-in-Teasdale and Newbiggin Parish Council, however the issues raised had been previously submitted and a summary was contained in the report.

Councillor Henderson had submitted a statement which was read out in his absence on behalf of himself and Councillor R Bell.  As Local Members they had concerns regarding the risk of flooding in the area following heavy rainfall and as the site would be built on a gradient, the water would run downhill and cause flooding to the bungalows in Meadow Close.  There were also concerns raised regarding the roads of the existing houses as the previous developer, who was a relative of the current applicant, had failed to complete the roads and drainage up to the required standard.  This had impacted on the residents now for 10 years and should the Committee approve the application, Councillor Henderson requested that conditions were attached in order to alleviate the risks and reservations of the current residents.  Finally, he requested that that Members visit the site before making a decision.

Mr Selby addressed the Committee on behalf of a group of residents in Meadow Close.  His statement had been circulated to Members in advance of the hearing.  Residents of the existing development were concerned that the development could increase flood risk in the area.  He regarded the assumptions by Northumbrian Water Ltd, that the existing infrastructure was capable of hosting the increased water flow, as being flawed.  The new development would require substantial earthworks to construct the new homes and the installation of new drainage systems.  Any resulting land slip or drainage malfunction may lead to the properties on Meadow Close becoming unstable.  The site was greenfield and considering the building going on in nearby Barnard Castle and Startforth, there was no special circumstances to build the properties on it, a requirement of the NPPF.  Mr Selby confirmed that residents were requesting the Committee to attach a number of conditions with regards to the proposal, as follows;

·         Resurfacing of the access road on Meadow Close and adoption of the highway by the Council before work commenced.  The road had not been surfaced adequately by the previous developer the additional traffic from nine properties would worsen the condition of the road.

·         An alternative layout for the development which would improve the visual impact of the proposal, create fewer issues regarding the loss of light, and reduce flood risk.

·         Proper screening and fencing of the site for health and safety reasons and the assurance that the provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996 were complied with.

·         A time limit for completion of the works.

·         Plans to maintain the landscaping of the area, either by the County Council or Parish Council.

The Applicant addressed the Committee and confirmed that she was the daughter in law of the aforementioned developer of the properties on Meadow Close, and wanted to see the site completed.  She confirmed the need for modern starter homes and homes for retiring locals to move in to as there was a shortage of these types of properties in the area.  She concluded that the site plans had been designed following advice from Planning Officers and the relevant planning policies - the four semi-detached properties were unable to be located alongside the existing semi-detached properties due to the gradient of the land.  The Applicant’s Agent and Architect confirmed that with regards to the concerns of residents regarding flood risk, a large on site storage container was proposed to alleviate any flood risk and although there was no intention to develop the highway before work commenced, it had been scheduled in accordance with advice from the Highways Authority.

In response to a question from Councillor Davidson the Applicant’s Agent confirmed that a water tank would be located underneath the site to accommodate surface water runoff and reiterated that Northumbrian Water Ltd’s existing infrastructure was capable of dealing with any additional flow generated.

The Chairman reminded Members that the conditions requested by Mr Selby were not something that the Committee could insist upon and the Solicitor confirmed that any conditions imposed would need to be in accordance with planning policy.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Drainage and Coastal Protection Team and Northumbrian Water Ltd were both satisfied that the proposed system was adequate.  With regards to the road surface, it was not practical to complete before work commenced, as it was the access road to the site and the top layer would not withstand the work process.  He referred to condition 14 which required that upon completion of the seventh dwelling the work be completed and in addition, the final two properties not be occupied until it had been completed.  He was satisfied that the conditions attached were adequate and that no further conditions could be added to the proposal.

The Solicitor confirmed that the change in layout of the site which had been requested could not be pursued as it would essentially change the permission sought.

Councillor Davidson confirmed that there were no grounds to refuse the application and felt reassured by the statements of the Senior Planning Officer.  He therefore moved that the application be approved.

Councillor Tinsley had concerns regarding condition 14.  If the final two properties were not occupied, residents would be left with an unfinished road once again.  He suggested the removal of the final sentence, that of which stated that the dwellings were not to be occupied until the road was completed.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that should the Committee wish to put forward a motion to amend the condition, this was a possibility, however Councillor Armstrong suggested that the removal of the paragraph would not be within the interests of the existing residents.  It would allow the properties to be occupied first, which would then give the developer an unlimited amount of time to complete the resurfacing of the road.  She suggested that the final sentence added pressure to the developer to finish the road as it was in their best interests for the dwellings to be occupied as quickly as possible and completing the road was the only way to ensure that.  Councillor Tinsley concurred and withdrew his suggestion to amend condition 14.

Councillor Armstrong seconded the recommendation.

Resolved

That the application be approved on the grounds outlined in the report.