Agenda item

(a)       Appeals Received

The Development Control Manager (Durham City Area Office) and the Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area Office) gave details in relation to the following appeals which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.

(i)         Appeal by Mr S A Baz

Site at Queens Head Public House, 3 North View, Ludworth, Durham, DH6 1NF

An appeal had been lodged by Mr S A Baz against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for subdivision of vacant public house to form 1 no. A1 retail unit and 1 no. A5 hot-food takeaway, with elevational changes to front of building, and erection of extraction flue to rear at Queens Head Public House, 3 North View, Ludworth, Durham, DH6 1NF. This was originally reported to Committee on 11 January 2011.

The appeal was now to be dealt with by way of an informal hearing as decided by the Planning Inspectorate and the Committee would be advised of the outcome in due course.

(ii)        Appeal by Mr Rathbone

Site at Barnsett Grange, Sunderland Bridge, Durham, DH6 5BX

An appeal had been lodged by Mr Rathbone against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of a conservatory to rear at 4 Barnsett Grange, Sunderland Bridge, Durham, DH6 5BX.

The appeal was to be dealt with using the Householder Appeals Service and by way of written representations and the Committee would be advised of the outcome in due course.

(iii)       Appeal by Mrs P Emanuel

Site at Poultry Farm, Off Dene Road, Dalton-le-Dale, Seaham, SR7 8QW

Planning Reference – PL/5/2010/0408

An appeal had been lodged against the Council’s refusal of the variation of a previous approval for the retention and use of a static caravan at the above site for security purposes.

Planning permission was refused due to the size and appearance of the caravan, and its location outside of the settlement boundary; and the proposal constituted an inappropriate form of development in the countryside for which no satisfactory justification had been provided with the application.

The appeal was to be dealt with by means of written representations, and members would be informed of the outcome in due course.

(iv)      Appeal by Mr J Oliver

Site at Hastings House Farm, Littletown, Durham, DH6 1QB

Planning Reference – PL/5/2010/0442

An appeal had been lodged against the Council for the non-determination of an application for the change of use from office accommodation and canteen building to include agricultural worker’s accommodation and associated alterations to elevations at the above site.

The appeal was previously reported to members on 1 February 2011 as being dealt with via written representations. It had been changed and was now was to be dealt with by means of a Hearing; members would be informed of the outcome in due course.

(b)       Appeal Decisions

The Development Control Manager (Durham City Area Office) gave details in relation to the following appeal, which had been considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

(i)         Appeal by Mr P Johnson

Site at 15 Brockwell Court, Brandon, Durham DH7 8QX

An appeal was lodged by Mr Johnson against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the erection of decking to the rear of the dwelling.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal, and in reaching his decision considered the main issue to be the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining dwellings in terms of any overlooking.

The timber decking had been erected in the rear garden of 15 Brockwell Court, a mid terraced property, part of high density housing built on sloping ground. The decking had been built into the slope, on the boundary with no. 14 and stood well above the ground floor level of the houses.

The Inspector considered the scale and elevated position of the decking affords views of the gardens and main habitable rooms on the back of the adjoining houses. In the case of no. 16 the intervening path reduced the degree of direct overlooking. However, with regard to no. 14 the Inspector considered the intensity of the overlooking to be oppressive, leaving little by way of private space. This, he did not consider, was ameliorated by the low screening that was incorporated into the decking.

As a result, the Inspector considered the enjoyment the occupiers might reasonably expect from these parts of their dwelling had been diminished. Accordingly, the development had brought about a harmful change in the living conditions of the occupiers of this dwelling, contrary to Policy Q9 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.    

He also took into account the views of interested parties in reaching his decision, including the appellant’s arguments, the fact the neighbour who complained had since moved and a similar development nearby, but these considerations did not persuade him to allow a development that he considered harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of an adjoining dwelling.

Resolved: That the report be noted.