Agenda item

Erection of a single detached dwelling (resubmission of withdrawn application - DM/15/03197/FPA)

Consideration was given to the report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a single detached dwelling on land to the West of Corbrae, Todhills.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included plans and photographs of the site.  Members had also attended a site visit to the property.

Councillor Geldard addressed the Committee in support of the application.  As Local Member and Leader of Spennymoor Town Council, he was also aware of many key Councillors in favour of the application.  The application had been put forward by an applicant with a growing family, who had lived in the community for all of her adult life and whose family had lived in the area for generations.  This application would allow her to continue to reside in the area and free up her existing undersized property for her parents to occupy.  The site had formerly housed a farmhouse and farm buildings which had rendered the land useless for grazing or crops.  Without redevelopment the land would be left vacant and useless for years to come.  Although the land had been described as greenfield, there was clear evidence to argue that it was brownfield land and therefore meet the objectives of the NPPF.  He urged the Committee not to reject the application on grounds which were arguable, and not to uproot the family.

Councillor Thompson, Local Member, addressed the Committee in support of the application.  He expressed disappointment that the application was recommended for refusal and commented on the grey areas considering the absence of a Local Plan.  With reference to Paragraph 55 of the NPPF, he confirmed that the objective was to promote sustainable development in rural areas and housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.  The support that could be given to nearby villages was evident; Byers Green was 500m away via a DCC maintained footpath and the Primary School which was under capacity and had only been built 9 years ago, could be attended by the two children who would occupy this property.  With regards to the bus service, Councillor Thompson pointed out that it was adequate enough to support the village of Byers Green, which was home to a Pub, Club, Post Office, a recently established restaurant and it had also recently had an application approved for 6 apartments.  With this in mind, to hear Byers Green and Newfield being described as lower order settlements and having their sustainability questioned was surprising. To refuse this application would be bad news for rural communities.  He reminded Members that although the emerging County Durham Plan could not be given any weight, some consideration should be given as it progressed through the stages of preparation.  Consideration should be given to the suggestion that Mid Durham would provide 18% of the housing requirement in County Durham and of that, 11% would be windfall developments.  He urged Members not to dismiss the application as it would dismiss the right of many people to do the same.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee with regards to the reasons for refusal.  The development was referred to as isolated development in the countryside, however, in reality the existing properties in Todhills were far from isolated; the site was in the middle of a row of existing dwellings and the boundaries referred to were too outdated to be relied upon.  It was said that the site was unsustainable for new housing development, yet for decades it had housed a farm house and outbuildings up to the 1980’s and there was a bus stop right outside of the boundary.  Although the site had been cleared, the foundations had not, which had left the land with no agricultural value.  The applicant was an established member of a community in which residents wanted her to remain.  This development would free up the property in which she was currently living, for her parents to move into.  The NPPF stressed that a range of housing could be considered and it was for the Committee to decide whether, on balance this development was acceptable.  With reference to Local Plan Policies, he confirmed that they were so far out of date, they would be disregarded by the Planning Inspector.

The Chairman reminded Members that any reference to the County Durham Plan should be disregarded and asked the Senior Planning Officer to clarify points raised regarding greenfield/brownfield land and bus services in the area.  She confirmed that the NPPF considered previous development which was occupied by previous structures as brownfield land but excluded any agricultural buildings.  In addition land on which buildings had blended into the landscape over the process of time was considered to be greenfield.  With regards to this site the land had, over time, been grassed over and blended in to the landscape, therefore it was considered to be greenfield.  With regards to bus services, there was a bus stop, but services were limited with no service on a Sunday.  The area was isolated and there were no immediate amenities - to access them, it would be necessary to travel to neighbouring villages and there would be strong reliance on a private car.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that he had attended the site visit and had taken the opportunity to walk around the site, observing clear remains of the former buildings.  The land was not fit to graze animals on and he did not consider it was greenfield.  In addition he considered that the development was suitable for the existing area and could not support the recommendation to refuse, therefore he and seconded the application for approval.

Councillor B Armstrong confirmed that she also lived in a rural community and unlike this application, there was no nearby school and lacking a bus service.  She agreed with the speakers and saw no problem with the proposal.  Although the site had been described as greenfield in the report, Councillor Armstrong expressed uncertainty and considered it could be difficult to defend a decision to refuse at appeal.  In her own locality, there had been applications refused on land where buildings had sat 40 years previously and following appeal, sited houses.

Councillor Tinsley added that the Committee should seek to support rural communities and there were arguable facts regarding whether the land was greenfield or brownfield, or whether it was an isolated location.  It was clear from the site visit that there were remains of former buildings, in addition to a large industrial site 10m from the site boundary, and a cattery and other residential buildings stood at either side.  Situated in the next settlement, there was a Primary School and a Secondary School within 1.5 miles – these were far below the usual distances for a traditional rural village.  He referred to the photograph which identified that the land had previously been developed and regarded the description of greenfield land as debatable.  Based on the evidence which had been put forward, he was in favour of the proposal.

Councillor Zair referred to Paragraph 55 of the NPPF which clearly cited that developments should not be permitted in isolated locations in the absence of special circumstances.  He confirmed that evidenced by two local Councillors, there had been enough special circumstances to satisfy the Framework.

Councillor Patterson disagreed the site was in an isolated location.  It was on a main through route with a bus service and it was within walking distance of a local Primary School.  She also supported the application.

Councillor Davidson reiterated that questions had been raised regarding whether the previous development had blended into the landscape and could be defined as greenfield land.

Resolved

That the development, by virtue of its location, siting and access to surrounding facilities consisted of sustainable development and represented an acceptable design and would contribute to the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development. The adverse impacts of the scheme were not therefore considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies of the NPPF, taken as a whole and the application was approved, subject to Conditions being agreed by planning officers in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.