Agenda item

Erection of 12no. bungalows with associated access road and landscaping.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the erection of 12 no. bungalows with associated access road and landscaping on land to the rear of Wylam Terrace, Coxhoe (for copy see file of Minutes).

Tim Burnham, Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.  Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor J Blakey, local member, addressed the Committee in support of the application.  However, she referred to various environmental projects taking place across the Bowburn and Parkhill areas and informed the Committee that this application would result in a small length of road being unadopted and added that she would have liked for all this road to have been brought up to adoptable standards.

William Dennis; local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the proposal.  He informed the Committee that his property on Wylam Terrace had a conservatory which would overlook two of the proposed bungalows on the development and was only 10.4 metres from the bedroom windows of these bungalows, whereas normally a separation distance of 21 to 23 metres was required.  The current planning permission for bungalows on the site had a separation distance of some 20 metres.  A further problem was that the houses on Wylam Terrace had steps up to their back doors, which would result in the proposed 1.8 metre screening fence being inadequate in height.  Mr Dennis requested that the Committee defer determining the application or add a condition that the issue of privacy be resolved to the satisfaction of himself, the applicant and Planning Officers.

The Planning Officer replied that all representations had been considered adding that while Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan stated a 21 metre window to window separation distance this was a guideline and did not relate to every circumstance of development.  The proposed properties were bungalows which would have a 1.8 metre close boarded fence on the higher of the two land levels.

Mr Paul Elliot, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  The site currently had planning permission for the erection of 12 residential units, both bungalows and houses, which expired in 2015.  This application was a revised proposal which proposed 100% bungalow provision and was a lower density, higher quality development.  The proposed layout of the development would make provision for 2 car parking spaces per property as well as additional parking spaces, and existing roads would be brought up to adoptable standards.  The development would be built in a sustainable manner both in construction and in usage.  Referring to the issue of privacy, Mr Elliot informed the Committee that this would be addressed by the protection afforded by the proposed fencing on the site.  It was the intention of the developer to source as much material and labour locally and the scheme would bring a s106 contribution of £12,000.

Councillor Kay asked whether separation distances were similar for the current planning permission which was in place for the site.  While sympathising with the objector, Councillor Kay accepted the point made by Planning Officer that guidance on separation distances was taken as a balanced view of any application.  The proposed development was of a lower density than the current planning permission and only bungalows were being built, rather than a mixture of bungalows and houses.  The Planning Officer replied that this application proposed similar relationships to the current planning permission which was in place.

Moved by Councillor Davinson, Seconded by Councillor Kay and

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report and subject to the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.