Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved except access and layout for residential development of 6 executive dwellings

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application with all matters reserved except access and layout for residential development of 6 executive dwellings at land at Brackenhill House, Brackenhill Avenue, Shotton Colliery, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. 

Mr G Hoban, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Mr Hoban raised concerns regarding the additional traffic which would be generated on the access to Brackenhill House, an access which was only 11ft wide. The route was regularly used by pedestrians, despite there being no pathways. The route was also frequently used by horses and cyclists, furthermore there was a care home and a school nearby. There had already been minor incidents in that area. Mr Hoban advised that the area would regularly freeze and so could become very dangerous.

It was feared that the development would double or triple the population of the lane and so considerable investment would be required to bring the lane up to a suitable standard.

Mrs J Hoban, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Mrs Hoban raised concerns regarding the impact of development on the biodiversity of the area, advising that hundreds of birds were ringed in the area and four species were on the red list. The loss of habitat which would be caused by the development would inevitably have a significant impact on local wildlife. Members were advised of a report which had been prepared by a senior Ecologist which warned of the negative impact on biodiversity should the development go ahead.

Ms S Tullin, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. She felt that it was wrong to assume that there would be no significant impact on nearby residents, as she personally would feel the full impact of the development from its commencement and subsequently beyond its completion. She advised that the development would be less than 10metres from her living area and she feared for how her quality of life would be affected should the application be approved.

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

• The application was originally going to be for 9 dwellings, however further to negotiations to reduce the impact on the environment, the number of dwellings had been reduced. Mitigation was proposed and there would be Woodland Management Plan, as such the habitat would be improved;
• Residential Amenity – The minimum separation distance was 21metres and the proposals were well in excess of that;
• Highways Issues – The Highways Officer advised that the development would generate 48 additional traffic movements per day, which equated to 3 per hour, as such while there would be additional movements, there would not be a severe impact. Furthermore, it was reported that, having checked road traffic data, there were no recorded accidents in that area within the last 5 years.

Further to concerns raised by the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the boundary separation distances were 50 metres apart and the separation distance between elevations of nearby properties and the new development would be 63 metres.

Councillor Clark raised concerns regarding the proposals. She highlighted that the development site was not on the outskirts of the village, it was on the outskirts of an industrial estate, the road to which had previously been blocked off to stop traffic. However now the proposal was to open that area back up again. The loss of trees was also a concern and Councillor Clark argued that the area was not a sustainable location.

In citing the reasons set out in paragraph 51 of the officer’s report, Councillor Clark moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Moir moved that the application be deferred to allow the Committee the opportunity to visit the development site and assess the impact it would have on nearby properties. Furthermore, visiting the site would allow Members to see first hand the access issues, the narrowness of the lane, layout of the site, assess the tree issue and traffic issues. This motion was seconded by Councillor Kay and as such, Councillor Clark withdrew her original motion to refuse the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was RESOLVED:-

“That the application be deferred to allow Members the opportunity to visit the application site”.