Agenda item

Land adjacent to 67 Front Street, Pity Me, Durham DH1 5DE.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the development of 5 no. new dwellings at land adjacent to 67 Front Street, Pity Me, Durham DH1 5DE (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members of the Committee had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

It was reported that since the officers report had been published comments had  been received from local Members, Councillor A Hopgood and Councillor M Simmons.

 

Councillor Hopgood was against the development based on the density of the development on a small area, and that she felt the garden sizes for 5 bedroom dwellings, would be insufficient.

 

Councillor Simmons also objected to the application for the following reasons:-

 

• There is not enough space on the site for the proposed screen or to allow trees to grow

 

• Mature tree planting to the north of the site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order.  Construction work would necessitate the roots of these trees being damaged, otherwise the roots of the trees would be under the proposed dwellings.

 

• The development site is very small for 5 dwellings – cannot see how they will have much or any garden area.

 

• As family houses they are not on large enough plots of land.

 

• The proposed development is too dense on such a small site.

 

• The design of the proposed dwellings is out of keeping with the surrounding area – the proposed development is on a prominent site with old style terraced housing next to it.

 

• The proposed development is too close to a very busy road network, with the nearby Arnison Centre also generating a lot of traffic.

 

 

Councillor Wilkes, local Member, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that he was also opposed to the application.

 

Councillor Wilkes clarified that residents and local Members were not objecting to any development on the site, the objections were simply in relation to the scale of the proposed development and its impact on the surrounding area and future users. He suggested that 3 or possibly even 4 terraces on the site may have been appropriate, however it was felt that 23 bedrooms worth of family dwellings on an area the size of some gardens, was inappropriate.

 

In respect of landscaping, Councillor Wilkes stated that the original application from 2011 which determined that the land could be developed, was for the erection of one dwelling house. That application had been approved by Committee with an applicant statement that landscaping was integral to the application, as confirmed by officers.

 

Councillor Wilkes advised that Policy Q5 of the Durham City Local Plan 2004 stated that all new development which would have an impact on the visual amenity of the area in which it was located, would be required to incorporate a high standard of landscaping in its overall design and layout.

 

Members were advised that the current application provided completely insufficient landscaping and reference was made to the concerns raised by the Landscaping Officer. Councillor Wilkes advised that those concerns should be acknowledged and the area should be considered in the context that it was formerly an area of veteran woodland right on the boundary of the greenbelt.

 

Councillor Wilkes advised that the application had been due to be considered at the previous meeting of the Committee however was withdrawn due to concerns he had raised about the lack of proper information in relation to the issue of impact upon trees adjacent to the site which were covered by preservation orders.

 

In that withdrawn report, Councillor Wilkes highlighted that the Landscaping Officer had stated the number of dwellings should be reduced to avoid pressure on the preserved trees and to allow for a comprehensive landscape scheme to be undertaken.

 

Councillor Wilkes suggested that view could not have changed as there was no comprehensive landscaping scheme.

 

As such, his first reason for refusing the application was that it was in breach of Policy Q5 in that it did not incorporate a high standard of landscaping in its overall design and layout and also was in breach of Policies E14, E15 and E16 in relation to the protection of preserved trees, nature conservation and landscaping.

 

The Committee were advised that a report by the Council’s Tree Officer referred to British Standard 5837-2012. It indicated that the roots of the main preserved tree adjacent to the site would have to be cut to carry out the proposed development. However, further to that, the report contained no detail as to how the soil system would be enhanced to take into account the likely damage to the root system, as was a requirement under BS 5837 5.3b.

 

In addition to that, Councillor Wilkes advised there was an inference that the proportion of the root protection system which would be impacted was not sufficient to warrant concern about damage to the tree. However he felt that failed to take into account the following:

 

1.   In order to build a house foundations were required which would extend out further than the final visible area. In effect more of the tree root system would have to be dug out otherwise the house and steps could not be built;

 

2. There was no guarantee that the tree root system did not extend further than that of a normal tree. This was because almost all the tree roots must grow into the site and to the south and west as the north easterly side of the site was a cliff face. Tree roots would grow out to where they could and it was therefore probable that more of the roots would be destroyed by the development;
3. In stating that only a small proportion of the roots were affected, Councillor Wilkes felt the reports completely overlooked the fact that the roots which collected water for the tree were at the outer edge of the tree root protection area. It was therefore highly possible that up to half of the water gathering roots could be destroyed by the development.

 

Members were advised that the same British Standard referred to by the Tree Officer referred to the constraints posed by existing trees. Section 5.2.1 stated that above ground constraints could arise from the current height and spread of a tree, as well as characteristics such as branch drop, honeydew drip, density of foliage. Such attributes according to 5.2.2 could “significantly affect potential land use or living conditions, including the effect of the tree on daylight and sunlight.”

 

Councillor Wilkes felt it was clear that such impacts would occur in relation to the proximity of that tree to the proposed development, yet that was not explained in either the Council or the private company’s report, nor was it mentioned in the planning report.

 

He believed that the likely impact upon the occupants of that property would be detrimental to their amenity in terms of branch drop, honeydew drip, shading, moss, algae and other such issues. He also queried whether the occupants would be able to secure sufficient insurance cover.

 

Councillor Wilkes stated that all those points raised made the development in breach of Policies E10 and Q8.

 

Councillor Wilkes raised concerns about 5 bedroom dwellings being developed without any garden space. A small back yard, he felt, did not demonstrate that the properties would have the amenity value required for a 5 bedroom dwelling. He felt this to be a prudent point given that the children living in the dwellings would need somewhere to play given the proximity to the A167, the Pity Me roundabout and Front street with numerous cars travelling on it every day.

 

Policy Q8 stated that the development should be appropriate in scale, form, density and materials to the character of its surroundings. The proposed development consisted of four and five bed properties whereas the terrace properties along Front Street were all 2 and 3 bedroom. As such the proposed dwellings could not be considered to be in character to the surroundings in their scale.

 

Councillor Wilkes advised that the density on the site was in excess of 53 dwellings per hectare. When considering the number of bedrooms and the likely number of residents, he suggested that was significantly higher than adjacent properties.

 

He pointed out that the County Durham Plan, in policy 35, recommended densities on the periphery of villages of 30-50 dwellings per hectare. The proposed development clearly exceeded the top end of that recommendation.

 

In summary, Councillor Wilkes requested that the Committee refuse the application on the basis of the following points:-

 

1.         That the proposed development of 3 x 5 bed and 2 x 4 bed houses on the restrictive site represented an overdevelopment of the site as the proposal failed to provide adequate private garden areas and was inappropriate in terms of scale, density and character, contrary to Policies Q8 and E10 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004. Furthermore that it was in breach of Policy Q1 in failing to take into account the layout and design requirements of users.

2.    That in relation to the overdevelopment of the site, the development was in breach of Policy Q5 in failing to incorporate a high standard of landscaping in its overall design and layout and would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of both the area and the users. Furthermore that the proposals were in breach of Policy H14 in failing to improve and create more attractive residential areas and to improve the environment of existing residential areas.

3.         That the impact of development upon the preserved trees was too great and was in breach of Policy E14 in its effect on existing trees, in breach of Policy E16 in failing to protect and enhance nature conservation and failed in its ability to provide sufficient new trees and landscaping due to its overdevelopment as encouraged in Policy E15.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

 

• Whilst acknowledging that the dwellings were large, Committee were advised that physically the design was acceptable;
• Density – the proposed dwellings were terraced and so by their very nature, would be compact. In terms of footprint the density did not differ to the adjacent properties;
• Garden Space – the proposed garden space was approximately 12m deep, although would be partly on a slope. However the design of the gardens was not untypical and was deemed to be adequate;
• County Durham Plan – The Committee were advised that the County Durham Plan was not in force at this time;
• Multiple Occupation – The requirements of the NPPF were that some changes of use had to be applied for by way of an application to the Planning Authority. Should the Committee wish to restrict the C3 use class from being amended to a C4 use class in the future, a condition could be attached to the permission not to change the use class without referral back to the Council;
• Trees – The Planning Authority was satisfied that the Tree Officer had no objections to the proposed development, though it was acknowledged that the report had been previously deferred due to there being outstanding arboriculture issues which had since been clarified.

 

The Council’s Landscape Architect addressed the Committee. She confirmed that there had been initial concerns relating to the damage to the Ash tree currently on the site. Several reports had since been done in relation to that tree and assessments had been carried out on the root protection area. It had been concluded that there would be some slight damage.

 

Members were advised that there would be a 10.54m root protection zone which lay in natural ground, and that zone did not actually reach the neighbouring road.

 

It was unlikely that the tree would have a symmetrical root flow, but the authority had to adhere to the root protection area based on diameter of the tree at breast height. Members were advised that the canopy of the tree did not overhang the roof of the end property at the current time.

 

In relation to the soil, the Committee were advised that it was completely natural ground so taking any action may prove detrimental.

 

In response to a query from a Member regarding the enforcement of a condition restricting change of use, the Principal Planning Officer advised that should a condition be attached and in the future that should be ignored by the developer, it would be up to the Planning Authority becoming aware of the situation and then taking appropriate enforcement action. Alternatively the developer could apply to the Planning Authority to have the condition lifted.

 

Councillor Kay queried whether the parking arrangements for the dwellings adhered to relevant guidelines. The Highways Officer clarified that currently the Highways Authority had a maximum standard of 1.5 parking bays per property. However Cabinet were due to consider a report which recommended a minimum standard of 2 parking bays per property. The proposed development included 11 parking bays for 5 dwellings so was within both the current and the proposed standards.

 

Councillor Freeman found the application to be overdevelopment of the site and out of character with the surrounding area. Furthermore he felt there was insufficient garden space for family homes.

 

Seconded by Councillor A Laing, Councillor G Bleasdale moved that the application be granted. Upon a vote being take in was:-

                         

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report.