Agenda item

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 38no. dwellings and open space. Discharge of conditions 1, 2, 6, 8, 11 and 14 of outline approval CE/13/01651/OUT.

                The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding a reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 38 no. dwellings and open space and discharge of conditions 1, 2, 6, 8, 11 and 14 of outline approval CE/13/01651/OUT at land to the north of Willowtree Avenue, Gilesgate Moor (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 M Pears, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. He stated that the developers clearly hoped to wear down the resolve of the Committee with the submission of repeated applications, each time making only minor changes to the proposals. Using that approach, Mr Pears stated that once again the applicant had re-submitted another unsympathetic application, creating the illusion that they had reduced the density of the scheme by simply converting what would have been 2 small semi-detached houses and effectively knocking through the partition wall to create one large 5 bedroomed house. Members were advised that the footprint of that unit had barely changed at all and it left the overall layout of the scheme completely unaltered.

                Members were advised that the minor cosmetic changes had taken place in the far north west and north east corners of the field, the very locations which had no impact on the concerns of existing residents. Mr Pears stated that making such minor alterations at those locations did nothing to protect the privacy of local residents and nothing to lessen the severe detrimental impact which the development would have on the area. Furthermore Mr Pears believed that the application remained contrary to saved Local Plan Policies Q8 and H13.

                Mr Pears advised that it was the southern boundary of the site which would directly affect existing residents as the southern block of 10 houses would deprive residents of privacy. Furthermore that block would be intrusive and overbearing.

                Mr Pears concluded by stating that nothing had been done to alter the reasons behind the previous rejection of the scheme, he therefore urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor B Howarth, Belmont Parish Council, addressed the Committee. She advised that the Parish Council was very much aware that numerous residents continued to have grave concerns about the latest application, concerns which covered aspects of layout, design and landscaping. As such the Committee was advised that the Parish Council wished for residents suggested amendments to the layout to be fully considered by all parties, in an effort to resolve the continuing dissatisfaction with the plans.

It was highlighted that there was a stark contrast between the executive properties in the design and the one bedroom apartments, which had clearly been included to satisfy the affordable housing element. The Parish Council believed that there was no dwelling within the scheme which could be considered as a family starter home or accommodation for the disabled or elderly. This was further emphasised in the latest application with the omission of eight 3 bedroomed houses and the inclusion of three 5 bedroomed houses.

Despite those changes, Members were advised that the Parish Council considered the removal of all 2.5 storey houses and 2.5 storey apartments, along with the redesigning of the apartments to form two blocks, to be a welcome improvement.

However the Parish Council remained concerned about the unchanged position of the apartment blocks on the right hand side of the site entrance. Councillor Howarth reiterated that concerns in that regard were as follows:-

·         Road side parking and waiting vehicles related to flat occupancy so near to the estate entrance;

·         The inappropriateness of the apartment bin store near the entrance.

The Parish Council suggested that an alternative position for the apartments would be at the top right hand side of the development, facing on to the cul-de-sac, where properties 28 and 29 were presently sited. Properties 28 and 29 could then be repositioned to face onto the entrance road alongside property 38. The Parish Council was confident that there was sufficient space to accommodate such redesign.

Councillor Howarth also picked up on the landscape advice detailed within the Committee report.  Certain aspects of suggested landscaping were not adequately undertaken on the Revised Landscape Plan.

It was further highlighted that reference was made to a public Right Of Way in the report, part of which was to be absorbed into the building design. The Parish Council wished to make clear that the Right Of Way beyond the houses to the A690 slip road had, up to present time, been a Belmont Parish Path and as such was maintained by the Parish Council. Councillor Howarth advised it would need to be maintained for it to remain passable and open to the public and so that responsibility would need to transfer to some other agency.

Councillor Howarth highlighted that there was a report on behalf of the Noise Action Team which pointed out inadequacies in the acoustic fencing, glazing and ventilation proposals.

As such, the Parish Council concluded that there were problems with the discharge of conditions and responsibility for future open space maintenance. However, Councillor Howarth advised that the main Parish Council objection was on the grounds that the layout and design were contrary to neighbourhood amenity and character and appearance of the area. She therefore requested that the application be refused or referred back for further modification as it remained contrary to policy Q8 if the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 7 of the NPPF.

Mr D Brocklehurst, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He highlighted that for the third time, the application was recommended for approval. Members were reminded that the site did have outline permission for 49 dwellings and Mr Brocklehurst advised that the applicant had not rushed the revision of the application, there had been a public consultation and significant talks throughout the whole process. The latest application reduced all dwellings to two storey and the separation distance was not less than 21m anywhere on the site.

Members were advised that the application now complied with all policies which were cited as reasons for refusal previously and Mr Brocklehurst highlighted that officers representing Landscaping, Urban Design, Affordability and Highways, all supported the application.

The applicant had now demonstrated that all topography concerns would be addressed and it was believed that the proposed dwellings did reflect the character of the surrounding properties.

The alternative scheme which had been suggested by officers was not a financially viable option as it would significantly reduce the number of units.

Mr Brocklehurst concluded that all issues had now been addressed and the current application was compliant with saved Local Plan Policies Q8 and H13 and parts 6 and 7 of the NPPF.

Councillor Conway had hoped that since the application was last before the Committee, there would have been meaningful discussion between all parties. He was unaware of the resident’s proposals and so was not prepared to pass comment on them.

In response to queries from Councillor Conway, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the resident’s proposals were not produced on a plan and were just raised during discussions. As such those alternative proposals could not be considered as part of the current application. The Senior Planning Officer further clarified that saved policy Q8 had now been satisfied as all separation distances had been met or exceeded.

Councillor Kay expressed sympathy for the local resident’s. He too had hoped that discussions between all parties would have occurred since the last application had been presented before the Committee, he was disappointed that did not appear to be the case.

In response to a query from Councillor Kay the Senior Planning Officer clarified that there had been 2 previous applications from the applicant for the scheme, the first one of which was now in the appeal process with the Planning Inspectorate. If the application now before the Committee was approved, then the appeal would be withdrawn.

Councillor Conway acknowledged that policy Q8 had now been satisfied however he queried whether the application could possibly be deferred to allow for further discussions to ensue between the applicant and local residents.

The Solicitor advised that was not an appropriate reason to recommend deferral of the application, a deferral would only be appropriate if the Committee felt it did not have adequate information to make a decision.

Seconded by Councillor Kay, Councillor A Bell moved approval of the application.

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

Councillors A Bell and J Robinson left the meeting.