Agenda item

Erection of 58 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping. 

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application to erect 58 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping at the former ITEC site, Neville Road, Peterlee (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.

Mr Race, local resident, addressed the Committee. He was speaking collectively on behalf of residents of Stainton Way which was directly opposite the development site.

He objected to the application as he had concerns regarding how the development would directly affect his responsibilities with the main sewer. As he had a contract with Northumbrian Water for the sewage main, he expressed concerns regarding the impact which construction could have on that pipe.

Mr Race added that there would be an increase in traffic accessing Neville Road and Burnhope Way which was already difficult especially during peak times. He suggested that the developer consider opening the cul-de-sac to the roundabout at the south of the site which would ease the volume of traffic on Neville Road.

Mr Wolfe, local resident, addressed the Committee. He referred to Plot 24 and raised concerns over ‘right to light’ and privacy issues.

He highlighted that the distance of the proposed property from his main lounge was 9 metres which contravened Planning Regulations, with the recommended separation distance being no less than 10 metres.

Mr Wolfe stated that both his ‘Right to Light’ and his privacy would be affected by the development and he took the opportunity to clarify that his patio door did not serve any light to within his property.

Mr Wolfe also had concerns regarding flooding issues and pointed out that the previous application for 52 dwellings had been restricted, he therefore believed those restrictions should apply to the current application. He further advised that the removal of boundary bushes would exacerbate any flooding problems.

He queried whether there were plans to remove a weeping willow tree which would ultimately encompass his drive and requested a meeting to discuss his issues further.

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

·         ‘Right to light’ – Members were advised that the impact on the neighbour’s amenities including loss of light was addressed within the report and it was not considered sufficient to warrant refusal, while ‘right to light’ was a separate legal matter

·         Flooding – a Flood Risk Assessment had been undertaken which did not predict any problems associated with the development, indeed both the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water were satisfied with the proposals.

In addition the planning case officer responded to some points which had been raised, as follows:-

·         Separation Distance – The Committee were advised that a site visit had been carried out, measurements had been taken and clarification had been sought from Mr Wolfe as to which windows served which rooms within his property. Officers believed that Mr Wolfe’s study conversion had not been developed as such all windows served the lounge only. Mr Wolfe responded to advise that indeed the conversion had been done and as such re-emphasised that only 2 windows served his lounge.

• Willow Tree – the planning case officer advised that protective fencing measures would be required for the tree.

The Highways Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• Regarding Mr Race’s concerns over increased traffic, he advised that similar developments had been surveyed and based on 2 cars per household the average would be an additional 35 two way movements per hour, not all of which would be heading in the same direction. As such it was determined that the increase was not a material concern;
• Access – opening the cul-de-sac onto the roundabout would cause disruption to the B1320 which was the main route in and out of Peterlee.

The Legal Officer confirmed that the ‘right to light’ matter was a separate legal issue and therefore should not be given any weight by the committee.

Councillor Laing referred to paragraph 48 of the report regarding the reduced number of visitor car parking spaces within the development. The Planning Officer clarified that 23 visitor spaces were available within the development and each dwelling would have 1.5 parking spaces.

Councillor Laing expressed concern regarding possible damage to grass verges during any building works, the Highways Officer clarified that the contractor would be responsible for repairing any damage.

Councillor Alvey, local member, informed the committee that he would also be monitoring any damage caused to grass verges. He further advised that the traffic was already exceptionally busy in that area and as such he was concerned about any additional traffic.

Councillor Jewel felt that possible damage to the main drain was a real concern and sought clarification as he would not want Mr Race to incur any costs associated with the development. Councillor Laing advised that the drain was in close proximity to a grass verge and that any damage should be covered by the developers.

Seconded by Councillor Bleasdale, Councillor Laing moved approval of the application and upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.