Agenda item

Erection of dwelling with integral garage (outline) (description amended 25/02/14).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a dwelling with integral garage (outline)(description amended 25/02/14) at land at 10 Redhills Lane, Durham, DH1 4AJ (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. Members were advised that since the report had been published an objection had been received from the City of Durham Trust on the grounds of over development and in terms of potential height and size of development on limited site and loss of garage at no. 10 Redhills Lane.

The issue of ground levels had arisen on the site visit earlier that day, Members had expressed concerns regarding the striking differences between levels on the site. As such, the Principal Planning Officer suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, that a condition could be imposed to control site and floor levels.

Councillor N Martin, local Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had originally wished for the application to be considered by the Committee because of several concerns he had about the original plans for the development. He was therefore pleased that those plans had now been amended.

Councillor Martin advised that imposing a condition relating to the exact location of the dwelling, was essential. The height of the dwelling and the number of bedrooms were also factors which Councillor Martin had had concerns about.

In particular, Councillor Martin had reservations as to the future use of the dwelling, aware that the applicant ran a student accommodation company within the city. He therefore requested that should Committee be minded to approve the application that a condition be added to impose a class use restriction, to ensure that the dwelling did not become a HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy).

Councillor G Holland concurred with Councillor Martin’s comments. He highlighted that although only outline planning permission was being sought at this stage, the report had been written for a building and so the Committee had an insight into the applicants plans. He felt that the dwelling which had originally been proposed had been too large and inappropriate in size.

Although he acknowledged the current application was outline only, Councillor Holland concurred with Councillor Martin that future plans for the dwelling should be restricted by conditions.

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

·         Condition regarding future use -  Members were advised that the planning application specified a dwelling, and there was nothing to indicate that an HMO was intended.  The reserved matters application would clarify the position, and it would not be considered appropriate to restrict the use of the dwelling at this outline stage.

·         General form and layout – Members were referred to condition 1 on the report which stated that “approval of the details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale shall be obtained from the LPA before the development is commenced”.  This would ensure control over the height and form of the development through the reserved matters application.  Members were advised that the Planning Authority wanted a development which would be entirely appropriate and would fit in with the surrounding area. As such, it was recommended that a condition pertaining to the ground levels, plus informatives to give recommendations on guidelines of size of property, ridgelines etc, should be imposed on any permission granted.

Councillor Conway queried the separation distance between the properties. The Principal Planning Officer advised that it was currently unclear as to what the new boundary would be, as such clarification may be required.

Seconded by Councillor Lethbridge, Councillor Dixon moved approval of the application.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the additional condition requiring details of site levels.