Agenda item

Conversion of existing garages into residential Bungalows.

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion of existing garages into residential bungalows at Arnold Close, East Stanley (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included photograph of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. In addition Members had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the site and surroundings.

He advised that a petition had been received since the publication of the report containing 123 signatures. This was in addition to those already received. It was noted however that upon inspection those signatures and addresses contained within were not all from residents in the locality.

Councillor C Marshall. local Member, addressed the committee to object to the application. He started by thanking those residents who were in attendance and those who had signed the petition.

He advised that there had been issues relating to consultation however, he along with some 35 residents had attended a meeting with Derwentside Homes to determine whether any of the issues could be overcome. He further raised concerns regarding the use of garages and advised that the current garages were well used despite claims that they were not. The proposed area of land was also regularly used by residents as a turning circle and it was noted that due to the design of the properties, there was no vehicle access to the front of the homes.

He further made reference to the loss of amenity, visual impact and displacement of vehicles which would be caused by the development and felt that if approved the proposals would change the character and appearance of the estate. In conclusion he noted that the application contravened GDP1 and TR2 of the saved local plan and contravenes principles of the NPPF.

Mr G Graham, Stanley Town Council, addressed the committee to object to the application noting that Derwentside Homes had shown disregard for the view of local people and the impact this would have on residents life.

He further raised concerns regarding the impact upon the highway and confirmed that the garages were indeed well used and well maintained by tenants. He asked that the committee take on board the concerns and objections raised by residents.

Mr J Simpson, local resident, addressed the committee to object to the application. He commented that when the estate was designed in the 1970’s the developer had the foresight to realise that car ownership would dramatically increase, hence the inclusion of garage blocks. The current garages were well used and maintained. He considered the proposals to be detrimental to the residents of the estate and although he appreciated that there was a need for bungalows in the area he considered the location within  a crowded cul-de-sac to be inappropriate.

In conclusion he commented that the proposals would result in emergency services having difficulties when entering and existing the estate.

Mr R Edwards, Applicants Agent, addressed the committee to support the application. He advised that an assessment of sites had shown that there was high demand for bungalows within the area which were both sustainable and affordable and would support healthy communities. The location of the development within the housing estate provided passive security for its residents and would be integral to the wider community.

Regarding the loss of garages, he advised that of the 30 garages on site 14 were occupied by residents within the proximity. Alternatives had been offered to those tenants affected. He further advised that pedestrian access would be unaffected, as was vehicular access. Furthermore the scheme did not require the removal of any trees.

In conclusion he added that he felt the concerns of residents had been addressed and the development being both innovate and sustainable, would be of positive impact to the area.

In response Councillor Wilson raised a number of points regarding access, parking, existing garage usage and loss of amenity space. Councillor Maitland further asked whether the properties would be for sale or rent. It was confirmed that the dwellings would be for rent only.

Councillor Cordon commented that he was aware that there was a shortage of bungalows in the area and considered the Husk principle to be extremely innovative. He acknowledged that the developer had worked with residents to resubmit revised plans and felt that he could see no materials reasons for the application to be refused.

Councillor Shield added that he was somewhat troubled by the report, making reference to a similar project which had been undertaken in his area. He furthermore added that he felt that the application contravened Part 4 of the NPPF and TR2 of the saved Derwentside Local Plan, however, was overridden by the lack of objection made by the Highways Officer.

Councillor Temple queried why a new build proposal on the same site would be deemed unacceptable. In response the Principal Planning Officer advised that a new development would be seen as introducing new relationships rather than the conversion of an existing structure. Further discussion and debate took place regarding this issue and Councillor Temple further agreed that the application should be refused.

Further to discussion regarding reasons for refusal the Solicitor advised that TR2 of the local saved plan would not be a valid reason for refusal, however did note that suggestions made to use GDP1 of the local saved plan and Part 4 of the NPPF would be acceptable.

AT this point the Highways Officer provided an overview of the position of the highways department regarding the application, noting that the highway ended at the start of the garage land and the council could not dictate what happened on the private area of land. Furthermore assesments of the site had shown that there was adequate space for vehicles to manoeuvre with clear sight lines and roads which were above the standard road width.

Councillor Wilson at this point moved that the application be refused on the grounds of GDP1 of the Derwentside local saved plan. Councillor Thompson seconded the proposal.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused on the grounds that:-

1.         The proposal would result in the loss of a number of garages which represent an important, established and valued amenity of the neighbourhood resulting in displacement of parking onto estate roads and to remote locations, hindering the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles therefore adversely changing the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy GDP1(A) and GDP1(H) of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

2.         The development would result in an unacceptable relationship in terms of the residential amenities that the occupiers of the proposed new dwellings could reasonably expect to enjoy contrary to policy GPD1(H) of the Derwentside District Local Plan.