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. Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting. He advised of an additional letter of objection which had been received which raised particular concerns regarding a septic tank at the site and the boundary wall. The Committee were advised that both matters were civil issues.

Councillor E Huntington, local Member, addressed the Committee. She advised that Councillor R Todd, also local Member for the application area, was fully supportive of the objections she was to make in respect of the application.

Councillor Huntington advised that predominantly, the trees on the site were all in remarkable condition and there was a wealth of wildlife in the area which would undoubtedly be affected should the application be approved. She highlighted that the trees were protected by a Tree Preservation Order and furthermore she was aware of a covenant which stipulated that the land should not be sectioned off.

Both the trees and the biodiversity in the area were at risk from the proposed development and the Senior Ecologist had indicated that because of potential issues of shadowing, it may be the case that further trees would need to be removed than the 19 referred to in the application. Shade would make the properties unliveable and poor television reception may be experienced, so again it may be that further trees would be removed in the future.

The loss of ground fauna was a particular concern and Councillor Huntington advised that several officers of the Council were not satisfied with the proposals. Members were advised that the adjacent nature reserve formed part of the woodland corridor which was a valuable heritage.

Councillor Huntington acknowledged that issues relating to the on site septic tank were indeed civil matters, however she highlighted that the outlet pipe ran through the soil for waste to decompose naturally and should the development be approved, the system would be dysfunctional and a health hazard.

In relation to the adjacent highway, Councillor Huntington advised that it was a busy road, used regularly and so she was concerned about the impact additional traffic would have.

The Committee was advised that there had been a lot of new development in Shotton and the area had reached saturation point. She also strongly objected to the destruction of the nature reserve.

Mrs S Tullin, local resident, addressed the Committee. She strongly objected to the application as the proposals would have a significant impact on the surrounding area and in particular, on her property. She would suffer adverse impact from noise, disturbance, loss of trees and loss of privacy. She stated that should the application be approved, a clause should be imposed to ensure that no more than the 6 proposed properties be built at the site for 20 years.

Mrs Hoban, local resident, addressed the Committee to read out a statement from Mr Hall, local resident. Mr Hall’s main objections to the application related to the 130 metre boundary he shared with the application site and the brick wall which was the applicants responsibility. The Committee was advised that the wall was in a dangerous state of neglect and urgently needed repair. As the applicant now intended to divide the current boundary up with 4 new owners, Mr Hall feared that the issue with the wall would not be resolved.

Mr Hall also raised concerns regarding his septic tank water overflow discharge, which had been in place for over 90 years. The Committee was advised that the proposed development would impede the soak away from Mr Hall’s septic tanks irrigation trench, which would subsequently cause ground water flooding with a serious health hazard occurring both for himself and all of his neighbours.

Members were advised that Mr Hall had discussed the matter with the applicant in September 2013, as such Mr Hall was confident that the applicant was fully aware of the problems the application would cause. Mr Hall advised that he had taken legal advice as he feared that potentially he and his family could become homeless should the application be approved. Mr Hall highlighted that the applicant had been refused planning permission in 2003 to build only 2 houses in the same location where he now wished to develop 3. Furthermore, Members were advised that the applicant had applied a total of 5 times over the years for various housing planning permission on the site and each time he had been refused. Mr Hall found the application to be vexatious, with a lack of empathy for the countryside, wildlife, other people and neighbouring properties.

Mr Hoban, local resident, addressed the Committee. He advised that he and other residents had been astounded at the last meeting, he felt that vital issues which had been raised within the letters of objection were not mentioned during the meeting.

Mr Hoban stated that issues regarding the lane had not been mentioned, nor had issues raised relating to health and safety concerns regarding the septic tank. He highlighted that various Council officers – the Senior Ecologist, Senior Tree Officer and Senior Landscape Advisor – had all raised objections and concerns to the proposals. Those officers had raised issues regarding the extent of shade to the proposed dwellings which would make them practically unliveable, suggesting that extensive shade may lead to further tree felling requests. Those officers had stated that there were other similar examples around the county where trees with surrounding land had been decimated despite planning conditions which were supposed to protect the trees.

Members were advised that despite those original concerns from officers, there was no evidence of any mitigations or amendments to the proposals which would have reasonably changed their opinions.

Mr Hoban advised that the sale of Brackenhill House as it currently stood, would bring a substantial profit and he felt that the only reason for the application was to maximise the value of the land. Mr Hoban believed this would be at the expense of the environment, health and safety and also against the concerns of neighbours and Council officers.

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

• Members were reminded that issues regarding the septic tank and the boundary wall, were civil issues;
• Members were advised that in relation to concerns regarding drainage, Northumbrian Water had not raised any concerns;
• From a highways perspective, the 6 dwellings would only generate 1 additional vehicle movement every 10 minutes, based on a national system of traffic generation analysis.
• The road width along Shotton Lane varied, being 8.5 metres wide at the widest point and 4.5 metres wide at the narrowest point. While it was acknowledged that the footway was lost in narrow parts, there was no conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and the Committee were advised that 2 vehicles could safely pass on a road width of 4.1 metres;
• In referring to section 32 of the NPPF, the Committee was reminded that highways grounds could only be raised as reasons for refusal of an application if the cumulative impact was considered to be severe. Members were advised that during the past 5 years there had only been 5 slight accidents in the vicinity of Shotton Lane, only 1 of which had actually been on Shotton Lane itself.

Mr J Wyatt, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He referred to comments he made to the Committee at the meeting held 9 December 2014 and the subsequent decision by Members to defer consideration of the application to allow for a site visits. Mr Wyatt hoped that Members had found the site visit useful, in particular that Members had seen that the access road was suitable for the proposals and that the layout was very much landscape led. Mr Wyatt highlighted that the application, if approved, would contribute to meeting the need for executive housing in the County.

Mr Lancastle Smith, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that there was no reference to a drainage easement or a covenant on the deeds of Brackenhill House. He further advised that the overflow did not comply with environmental standards.

Councillor Moir was mindful of both the ecological and biodiversity concerns which had been raised by Councillor E Huntington. He concurred that it would be impossible to avoid the disturbance of flora and fauna should the application be approved and he was unconvinced that the woodland could be adequately managed.

In response to queries from Councillor Kay, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the application site was not part of a nature reserve, though there was a nature reserve adjacent to the site. He further clarified that in relation to concerns raised regarding trees, should the application be approved there would need to be a condition attached to ensure that bat boxes be placed on site.

Councillor Lethbridge expressed concerns based on the comprehensive argument put forward by Councillor Huntington and he stated that the area of Shotton was a sensitive and important area of the county.

In response to queries from Councillor Conway, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that a condition would be imposed to require details of a Woodland Management Plan. The Plan would need to be approved by the Planning Authority and would need to include details of who would be responsible for the management of the woodland.

In relation to the grading of the trees on the site, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that trees were categorised by 3 grades – A, B and C – with A being the highest grade. Members were advised that none of the trees which were to be removed were grade A, 15 were grade C and 4 were grade B.

The Solicitor clarified that the Tree Preservation Order which was in place at the site was actually a Woodland Order, so all trees were protected.

Councillor Moir moved refusal of the application for the following reasons:-

• That the application was contrary to District of Easington Local Plan Saved Policies 1, 3, 18 and 35;
• That the application was contrary to Part 11 of the NPPF.

A further reason for refusal was included further to suggestion by Councillor Lumsdon:-

• That the application was contrary to Part 6 of the NPPF regarding the affected area of the woodland.

Councillor Lethbridge seconded the motion for refusal and upon a vote being taken it was;

RESOLVED:- “That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

• That the application was contrary to District of Easington Local Plan Saved Policies 1, 3, 18 and 35 as it would have a detrimental affect on biodiversity and bats;
• That the application was contrary to Part 11 of the NPPF;
• That the application was contrary to Part 6 of the NPPF regarding the disaffected area of the woodland”.