Agenda item

1 no. Dwelling - Outline - all matters reserved except access.

The Committee considered the report of the Planning Officer regarding the development of 1no. dwelling – outline – all matters reserved except access, at Relley Farm Cottage, Front Street, Broompark, Durham, DH7 7RJ (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.  Members had visited the site earlier that day and were familiar with the location. Members were advised of a representation which had been received from the City of Durham Trust which objected to the application for the following reasons:-

·         Compensation (“allowance”) for a nearby Western Relief Road is not a material planning matter

·         It was premature to assume that the Inspector at the County Plan EiP would sanction the Western Relief Road and de-scheduling of the Green Belt

·         Even if the Western Relief Road got the go-ahead, it was still contentious whether “exception circumstances” could be justified in removing Green Belt status from the immediate vicinity of Relley Farm Cottage

·         The applicants were incorrect in stating that the Durham Local Plan would cease to be in force before the adoption of the County Plan, since several policies of the former had been specifically “saved”

The Highways Officer addressed the Committee. He advised that although the Western Relief Road (WRR) was not secure within the County Durham Plan as of yet, it was most certainly an aspiration. The route of the road had not yet been fixed though the geological layout would dictate where the route would be. As such, it was likely that the access would be via a roundabout at the Broompark Picnic area, approximately 100 metres from the nearest dwelling, though that could move approximately 15 metres in either direction. Members were advised that the Western Relief Road would go ahead subject to approval by the Inspector.

Councillor J Chaplow, local Member, addressed the Committee. She had been involved in talks with planning officers for 3 years in relation to the applicants situation and officers had been sympathetic to the issue. Members were advised that the potential WRR would be very close to the applicants property and as he was already in bad health, the WRR would only exacerbate his illness with increased pollution from fumes. As such, the applicant now had an opportunity to move but if action was not taken now then it would be too late.

Councillor Chaplow advised that it was a poor situation for the applicant to find himself in, they would certainly be affected by noise and fumes from a significant volume of traffic.

Members were advised that the application site was the applicants own greenfield and as such they were the only ones who would be affected by the loss of amenity.

Councillor D Bell, local Member, addressed the Committee. He concurred with the statement made by Councillor Chaplow and advised that although the WRR would be welcomed, it would affect the applicant, he therefore called for the Committee to approve the application.

Mr M Boyle, applicant, addressed the Committee. Mr Boyle advised that he was born in Esh Winning and had lived alongside the B6302 most of his life, so was confident in stating that there had never been a major junction added to that road, as such the Western Relief Road brought about a once in a lifetime change of circumstances to the locality.

Members were advised that Relly had been changing since medieval times, indeed a map which Mr Boyle had showed Relly in the 1600’s before the conurbation built up around Durham City and before most of the surrounding villages existed. The local character had evolved over time, a larger settlement existed in medieval times then again during the industrial period when Deerness Cottages brought the number of local houses up to 8. Members were advised that the cottages disappeared in the 1960’s and a new dwelling was added in the 1990’s bringing the current number of houses to 3. In 2004 a major scheme took place with the Relly Bridge reconstruction straightening and widening the road. Mr Boyle advised that during his 16 years at Relly, he and his wife had improved the look and feel and would maintain such standards with the proposed new development, thus improving the DH7 housing stock.

Mr Boyle advised that from the image supplied by the Council, the scale and extent of the road and roundabout was visible, together with its potential impact on the Green Belt and Relly Cottage. However Mr Boyle suggested that the Durham Plan maps placed the road even closer to his home than the Council image showed.

In effect, Mr Boyle suggested that the Relly settlement would be boxed in by the WRR, the East Coast main line and the B6302 by boundaries that were likely to be permanent thus preventing urban sprawl.

Mr Boyle advised that he had become aware of the WRR three years earlier and at the outset had been advised by Council officers that, in relation to the siting of executive homes on their one hectare site, it would be only fair that they got approval in light of the 2500 houses which were planned at Sniperley roundabout. However since then, despite following the advice of Planning Policy officers, Mr Boyle advised that he had failed to make satisfactory progress.

As such, Mr Boyles local Member, Councillor J Chaplow, had suggested he apply for planning permission for a single dwelling moving away from the WRR. The pre planning advice accepted the likely disturbance to Relley Cottage by the WRR, the secluded site location and accepted the access arrangements.

Mr Boyle suggested that looking around Durham, there were many other Green Belt sites either proposed, already approved or in the process of being developed. Such sites were being approved for development so Mr Boyle stated that the arguments used against his proposal were self defeating and contradictory because they did not show consistency in their Green Belt decision making. Members were advised that the 4000 houses, helping to fund the relief roads and the 4% loss of Green Belt, were in conflict with the planning policies quoted by officers as reasons for recommending refusal on his application. He felt it would be fair to refuse his application only if all Green Belt applications were always refused.

Mr Boyle stated that his proposal was for one home on land which would not be seen from the existing road or the proposed road because of the landscape and screening would provide a healthier environment for he and his wife, by dramatically reducing noise and air pollution. This was particularly important to him as he had industrial dust damage.

Members were advised that the application was in line with policies E1 and E7 plus NPPF guidelines part 9, in particular paragraph 87 which allowed for special circumstances, as well as paragraphs 88 and 85.

In summary, Mr Boyle stated that as one of the few homeowners directly affected by the WRR, he hoped the Committee would approve his application.

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

·         The officer’s case and reasons for refusal were clearly stated within the report.

·         The issues regarding the Green Belt were re-emphasised.

·         Moving House – it would be a possibility to look at the application again when the situation regarding the WRR was fixed as there would be a potential to review the position

·         Members were reminded that the proposal was not to replace a property, it was for the addition of a dwelling and as such the application was contrary to Green Belt policy.

The Highways Officer clarified that although there would be noise and air pollution from the WRR, appropriate mitigation would be undertaken.

In response to a query from Councillor Bleasdale, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Coal Authority defined how much at risk an area was in terms of safety and stability for development. For an outline planning application a detailed investigation would not be undertaken, rather it would be a condition imposed on any outline permission.

Councillor Moir had been on the site visit earlier that day and stated that the site was undeniably in the Green Belt.

Although he was unconvinced that living in close proximity to the road would have a serious impact on the applicant’s health, he stated that the application site was actually the applicants garden and so it was their own land which was Green Belt. He was therefore uncomfortable to dictating that their own land could not be developed.

Councillor Lethbridge stated that the Green Belt existed to mitigate against large scale urban sprawl of built up areas, however by contrast, the application was for one dwelling which would be quite secluded. Furthermore, it seemed that although the applicant had been dealt with somewhat sympathetically for 3 years, a template was now being slapped on his application with no room for discretion or flexibility.

Councillor Lethbridge felt it would be unfair to refuse the application and stated that to say the WRR was just an aspiration was untrue, his understanding was that it was a very determined objective.

He failed to see how the application was in any way harmful to the Green Belt and as such urged that the application be approved.

Councillor Dearden failed to see how the effect of noise and fumes experienced at the cottage would be any different at the application site, as there was very little difference between the two locations.

Councillor Freeman felt to cite the WRR as a special circumstance was premature as it currently didn’t exist. As such, the Committee were in effect dealing with open land and Green Belt. The application site was not a garden, it was a grazing field clearly situated in the Green Belt, as such Councillor Freeman was in support of the recommendation to refuse the application.

Seconded by Councillor Freeman, Councillor Dearden moved that the application be refused and upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons detailed within the report.