Agenda item

Erection of detached dwelling.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the erection of a detached dwelling at land to the rear of 53 Whinney Hill, Durham City, DH1 3BD (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.

Mrs J Gill, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application on behalf of Mr A Hayton, Chairman of Whinney Hill Community Group.

Mrs Gill highlighted that the report acknowledged there had been 11 objections to the application, however she advised that as 5 of the nearby 8 properties were HMO’s, including 53 Whinney Hill, then those objections represented a substantial local response and attention was drawn to paragraph 38 of the report in that regard.

Local residents objected to the application on many grounds. It was felt that the proposed in-filling on garden land at 53 Whinney Hill, an area within the Durham City Conservation Area, seemed obtrusive and out of character with the 2 areas of buildings it would confront, which were originally council housing.

Members were advised that the row of 4 terrace houses had been built in the 1930’s in a distinctive coherent style throughout the estate, all with front and rear gardens. Subsequently the 1960’s uniform development of terrace housing and maisonette blocks of The Hallgarth had been built on the ancient Priory farmyard in a landscaped setting with gardens.

Mrs Gill suggested that the proposed building seemed to ignore the scale, style, design and materials of the surrounding buildings, which had been recommended in the Durham County design advice leaflet No.2, and in no way contributed to the character of the area.

Members were advised that proposed isolated, detached dwelling would be built to let to students and would dominate the remaining area of the garden at 53 Whinney Hill and also affect the outlook of the resident family at 52 Whinney Hill. Furthermore Mrs Gill felt that the dwelling would stick out in the party of The Hallagrth which it would face. It was felt the proposal signified overdevelopment of the backland garden area of a mid-terrace house, which was in contravention of saved Local Plan Policy H10.

Mrs Gill advised that the application showed no commitment to reasonable garden space for its residents, despite the assertion that it would be a family home. Furthermore it denigrated the existence of garden use , which was at odds with the character of the area and as such contrary to saved Local Plan Policy H13.

As in recent years, both The Hallgarth and Whinney Hill had been overwhelmed by buy to let student properties and so it was feared that the proposed development would be an addition to such student accommodation bu the landlord of 53 Whinney Hill. It would therefore further erode the possibility of a balanced community in an already critical area of student overcrowding in the Durham Conservation Area, contravening saved Local Plan Policy H9.

Mrs Gill stated that the dwelling would not contribute any Council Tax to the County finances and advised that there were also several unresolved issues such as the position of Northumbrian Water’s sewer in relation to the site.

The question of access to the building from The Hallgarth which required taking a strip of Council land, seemed dubious to local residents. It also seemed to contravene the traffic and parking recommendations of Policies T1 and T10 in seeking to provide 2 car parking spaces and to conflict with the Planning Officers observation at paragraph 44 of the report.

Mrs Gill advised that there was also cause for concern that the separation distances between the proposed building and both the nearest terraced properties, fell below requirements under Policy Q8 of the saved Local Plan.

Members were advised that objectors were shocked at the dismissive approach of the planning department as expressed in the conclusion of the report. Mrs Gill stated that to grant permission could create a dangerous precedent for further buildings on  garden land behind Whinney Hill properties backing on to The Hallgarth and the Council track. Finally, Mrs Gill stated that the large number of conditions attached to the recommendation indicated the undesirability of the development.

Councillor D Freeman concurred with the views expressed by Mrs Gill and felt the proposal was poor development.

He stated that the application was contrary to saved Local Plan Policy H2 as the application site was greenfield land. Furthermore he felt that the application would have an inappropriate impact on the surrounding character of the area and thus was contrary to saved Local Plan Policy H10. Councillor Freeman also stated that the proposals would add nothing of benefit to the city conservation area.

In response to a query from Councillor Freeman, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that part of the area to be used for parking was Council owned and that there was an agreement between to the applicant and the Asset Management Team with regards the sale of that land.

Councillor Moir advised that having grown up in the area of the application site, he had been unaware the area was within the conservation area. In his opinion the area was completely overshadowed, not least by the adjacent prison and he highlighted that development had been ongoing in that area for many years. Councillor Moir could see no environmental reasons to refuse the application, pointing out that the area was predominantly former social housing and the proposal was development within a back garden.

In response to a query from Councillor J Clark, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that there had formerly been a garage building on the application site which had been demolished approximately 1 year earlier. Members were further advised that the NPPF did not preclude greenfield development especially within the curtilage of an existing property.

Seconded by Councillor A Laing, Councillor G Bleasdale moved approval of the application and upon a vote being taken it was,

Resolved: “That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report”.