Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a detached dwelling to the east of 20 Faraday Court, Neville’s Cross, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

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

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that 7 mature trees had been removed from the application site and was investigated at the time of removal. No action could be taken over their removal as they were not subject to any control by way of Tree Preservation Order (TPO). A TPO had been served since on the Sheraton Park estate to protect the remaining mature trees.

The Committee were informed of a further letter of objection to the application which had been received since the report had been published. The concerns contained within that letter accorded very much with objections already raised, relating to impact on privacy from elevated windows, the estate was already developed to maximum capacity; the design was not in keeping with other properties; the development would be too close to the remaining trees.

The Highways Officer clarified that there were no issues from a Highway perspective. 2 parking spaces were standard and would be provided. The issue of the shared driveway was not a consideration as it was not a public highway. The applicant could seek to access the area via the right of way to the rear of the properties, which would require an application for a temporary road closure to the Highways Authority and the landowner.

Mr S Lonsdale, local resident, addressed the Committee. Mr Lonsdale advised that he objected to the application on various grounds as follows:-

• There were already disputes regarding car parking on Faraday Court, which would only be exacerbated further should the application be approved;
• Although it was acknowledged that the scale of development had been amended, Mr Lonsdale found those reductions in size to be insufficient;
• It was highlighted that the Landscape Architect had objected to the original application as she had considered the proposal to be overdevelopment of the site – Mr Lonsdale queried whether that officer had made any comments since the plans had been amended;
• In terms of parking, Mr Lonsdale advised that any vehicles to be parked on the drive of the new dwelling would need to reverse some 100ft, which was felt to be extremely dangerous;
• The Committee were advised that one of the letters supporting the application was from a person who did not actually live on the estate, while another supporter was biased towards the application;
• Although it was acknowledged that there was an existing planted row of young trees to the east of the site, it was felt that contrary to the officers report, the growth of those trees would do little to soften the development;
• Concerns were raised that light pollution from the proposed development would have a detrimental affect on the surrounding conservation area;
• Mr Lonsdale suggested that paragraph 57 of the officers report was incorrect as there would be windows on both elevations of the property;
• It was felt that the application contravened the NPPF which stated that the natural environment was essential to wellbeing. Mr Lonsdale suggested that sustainable development should be about change for the better however the proposed development neither improved or restored the wellbeing of the estate;
• The trees which had previously been removed from the site had been an asset to the estate and the application offered no means of enhancement to the surrounding area;
• Mr Lonsdale suggested that the application contravened Saved Policy E14, Policy Q5 and Policy T1.

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

• Landscape Architect Comments – The Planning Authority took the view that irrespective of the concerns raised, in planning terms the scheme was acceptable;
• Light Pollution – In terms of light pollution from the development affecting the conservation area, it was reiterated that the Conservation Officer was satisfied with the scheme.

Dr P MacLaurin, applicant, addressed the Committee. He felt that the earlier site visit was not an accurate reflection. He stated that a neighbour had staged obstructions by parking 4 cars in the street and he reminded the committee that Highways Officers had reviewed the application and had no objections. He claimed there had been a campaign against development and he had been intimidated by neighbours since having trees removed from the site. Dr MacLaurin advised that house building was a priority in the area and he had spent a considerable amount of time with the architect on amending the original design to significantly reduce the footprint to be more in keeping with the street.

In referring to the letters of objection which had been received by the Planning Authority, Dr MacLaurin advised that although 8 letters had been received, they were sent from only 5 sources.

The Committee were advised that the trees had been professionally removed, as had other trees on the estate, though the only concerns raised had been in respect of the trees Dr MacLaurin removed. Furthermore the proposed dwelling was fully clear of any root protection zones and had the approval of the Planning Authority.

Councillor N Martin, local member, addressed the Committee. He clarified that the street referred to in paragraph 57 of the report should be Westhouse Avenue and not Westcott Drive. Councillor Martin drew attention to the 300 houses already approved at Mount Oswald and 250 approved near Merryoaks, and suggested that the applicants argument of much needed housing in the area, was not correct.

Members were advised that the original plans for the estate were designed to create a building line that should not be allowed to be extended. The direction of the footpath adjacent to the site was deliberate in that it provided a building line which should not be broken.

Councillor Martin advised that vehicle manoeuvrability was a major problem on an evening and weekend within Faraday Court. He also expressed concerns on the issue of ‘garden grabbing’, informing Members that the Government deliberately changed the designation of garden land from brownfield to Greenfield, in a bid to prevent garden grabbing applications.

The Committee were advised that the development was out of character with the surrounding dwellings and was concerned that lanes to the rear of the development would be used for building access, as the area was very well used by pedestrians.

Councillor Martin concluded by commenting that should the application be approved it could potentially exacerbate the disputes between neighbours regarding land ownership, parking and manoeuvrability.

Councillor B Moir was persuaded by the objections which had been raised, particularly in relation to the access issue. He was also concerned about the detrimental impact on the visual amenity on the border of the Conservation line and moved that the application be refused.

The Solicitor advised the committee that ownership of a shared drive was a private law matter between the applicant and their neighbour and could not be put forward as a reasonable reason for refusal.

Councillor C Kay did not believe that the argument of garden grabbing was sufficient grounds for refusing an application, noting that the NPPF encouraged development in sustainable locations. However he agreed that it appeared the layout of the path was such that the original intention had been for it to act as a building line.

Councillor A Bell felt that the removal of the trees by the applicant had been deliberate and queried whether the site could now be protected. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that protection could only be applied to land within a Conservation area or with a Tree Preservation Order, neither of which applied to this particular site.

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

• Garden Grabbing – The change of designation of garden land by the Government had particular relevance in the south of the country where there had been a mass of over developed land. In this area, the issue of garden grabbing was less relevant and so an assessment had to be made as to the harm a development would have, and in the case of the current application, no such harm was identified;
• There were no relevant planning grounds to prevent the build and refuse the application.
• Building Lines – Although a building line was perceived to be present on the estate that did not mean that development could not take place beyond that line.
• All key issues such as principle of development, highways issues and residential amenity had been thoroughly addressed within the report.

The Solicitor advised that the NPPF had revoked the document which referred to garden grabbing.

Councillor Freeman believed the site would be over developed and felt that the original development of the site set out a clear line of development. The proposed build would be a barrier between Clay Lane and would damage the character and appearance of the area.

Councillor Conway suggested the parking issue could lead to neighbour disputes and may also prohibit access for emergency vehicles. He added that the applicant statement in paragraph 43 of the report stated the reason for the build was to address changes to domestic circumstances. However the application was not for an extension of the present home but a separate detached building at the end of a terrace. He felt that a terraced dwelling would be more in keeping with the immediate area.

The Principal Planning Officer was unconvinced that the concept of a building alignment applied in this instance. There was no visual obstruction or loss of privacy and the relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring properties was acceptable on planning grounds.

The Applicant pointed out that there was a detached property to the north of the application site which was itself at the end of a terrace. He clarified that the reason for developing a detached property was to allow access on foot to the rear of both properties which could not easily be achieved with a terraced design.

In response to a query from Mr S Lonsdale, objector, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that there was adequate land on which a condition could be imposed on the permission to stipulate the inclusion of landscaping.

Seconded by Councillor Freeman, Councillor Moir moved refusal of the application on the grounds that the application contravened Policy H13 – Residential Areas and Policy Q8 – Layout and Design.

Upon a vote being taken it was,

Resolved:

That the application be REFUSED.