Agenda item

Proposed dwelling and office/store (resubmission of refusal DM/14/02570/FPA)

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for a proposed dwelling and office/store (resubmission of refusal DM/14/02570/FPA) (for copy see file of Minutes).

T Burnham, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

Councillor O Gunn, local Member addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. She had referred the application to Committee on the grounds of business need. The applicant Mr Luke would address the Committee in this regard and she would therefore focus on the reasons for refusal.

The local Member strongly believed that paragraph 55 of the NPPF should not have been applied. This was not an isolated rural location. She acknowledged that it was rural but it was not isolated. This site was clearly within the development envelope of Oakenshaw village with a new development 50m to the west, allotment gardens adjacent to the site, a barn conversion 30m to the south, and several other properties to the north and south of the site. The site was also very close to New Row. There were over 200 properties in Oakenshaw. The location was sustainable with an extensive road network next to the property and a bus turning circle 30m from the site. Paragraph 42 of the report stated that the site was not visually isolated but that it was isolated in respect of the need to access local services and facilities by car. However there was a local bus service, although she acknowledged that it was infrequent.

She also strongly believed that paragraph 55 of the NPPF was introduced to prevent houses being built along country lanes in the middle of nowhere which was not the case here.

The same argument applied to ENV 1 of the Local Plan. Oakenshaw village was in the countryside so there were 2 policies on which the recommendation was based which were totally flawed. The report stated that the site was outside the settlement boundary, but there was no reference to settlement boundary in the NPPF. There were several instances where this had not applied, for example the recent application for houses opposite 1-14 West Road, Willington. If Members were minded to approve the application she suggested that matters relating to the Coal Authority site investigation, visibility splays and additional hedge planting could be included as conditions.

Mr Brian Iley, the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the application. He advised that in March 2012 the Government had consolidated all planning policy statements, circulars and guidance into a single policy statement, the NPPF. The overriding message from the NPPF was that planning authorities should plan positively for new development and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. The role of planning in achieving sustainable development was defined under three headings; economical, social and environmental.   There was a presumption in favour of sustainable development that required local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively. This statement was used in a planning consent for a domestic extension for recreation purposes with a footprint of almost twice that of the current application, which was to be attached to the adjacent barn conversion.

There was no sign of such a statement in the report for this application and he made the point that every report should provide a balanced argument.

The NPPF allowed planning authorities to set aside redundant or outdated policies, however they were being used to drive this report. The report also suggested that the proposals were the same as previously submitted, with the exclusion of the garage, but the design had been reduced by 20%. As an architect he aimed to enhance not harm and his greater concern was that it was going to be largely hidden by the adjacent development.

He therefore urged the Committee to approve the application to support and promote an existing long-established and valued business that provided an exemplary service that was in danger of being lost.

Mr Luke the applicant was invited to address the Committee. He sought permission to build a house for his son and daughter-in-law to expand and improve the 20 year business. He wanted to retire with his wife who suffered ill health. He did not want to move and assured Members that this was not a profit-making application. His son would take over the family business with the aim of expanding and employing more staff, bringing employment to the area. If the application was granted he expected a threefold increase in the business which had grown by 56% in the last 5 years with the help of his son.

Mr Luke continued that he had a good working relationship with local vets. If his son was a farmer he believed that this application would be allowed but unfortunately the policy did not apply to a cattery, even though a 24 hour presence was required. He was unable to retire because he needed to be on the premises at all times. He wanted to maintain the family business and not sell, move away or close down as had been suggested. He wanted the family business to stay and continue to provide a first class service to the community.    

Councillor Dixon asked the Senior Planning Officer to explain the relevance of paragraph 55 of the NPPF in view of the comments made by the local Member.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that there was no clear guidance with regard to the meaning of ‘isolation’ and therefore opinions would differ in terms of its meaning. In response to other comments made he advised that the site was outside the settlement boundary, and applications for development that were outside a settlement boundary would normally only be acceptable where it had been demonstrated that the location was sustainable.  This location was not sustainable as people would need to travel by car to access services.

The Officer continued that the size of the house had not been reduced and he was unaware of the comments made suggesting that the applicant should sell, move away or close down the business.  He asked if Mr Luke intended to employ a Manager or if this role would be fulfilled by his son.

Mr Luke advised that his son would employ staff to run the business. Mr Luke would continue to be there initially and would phase out his involvement over time.

Councillor Davidson stated that paragraph 55 of the NPPF related to development spilling into the open countryside. If the application was approved the fields to the west would be ripe for development, although he appreciated that this was not a consideration for the Committee.

Councillor Clare accepted that Officers could not have recommended approval of the application because planning policy was clear, however the cattery required a 24 hour presence. Paragraphs 43-50 in the report were key considerations. The report advised that the application was based on a premise of what might happen in the future but acknowledged in paragraph 49 that the situation could change when the current owner/manager retired.

Currently the present owner lived in the house and was not allowed to build a second house on the site, but in accordance with paragraph 49 the owner was going to retire. If the cattery was sold the person who bought it would have the right to build a dwelling as the cattery had to be managed 24 hours a day. If the owner retired the dwelling would be needed for the continuation of the business which he considered would be a planning gain that would outweigh the building of a second dwelling on this site.

In agreeing with Councillor Clare, Councillor Patterson advised that the site was sustainable in that it was located next to a bus turning circle with bus services to Durham and Willington. With regard to the reference to settlement boundary, the site was not in the open countryside being located adjacent to a row of terraced houses. If the application was approved the Member asked if it would be possible to impose a restriction that the dwelling could only be occupied in connection with the business.

C Cuskin, Solicitor - Planning and Development confirmed that a condition could be included on the grounds of the need for the dwelling for the operation of the business. However Members had to be satisfied that there was a need. Following a question from Councillor Armstrong she advised that the condition would be imposed in perpetuity unless an application to vary was submitted. 

Councillor Patterson stated that this was the only cattery in the area and was a viable business. The Member moved approval of the application subject to a condition restricting occupancy.

Councillor J Clare seconded this motion.

Councillor Kay moved refusal of the application. He considered that there was no demonstrable need for the house at present and whilst the applicant’s future intentions appeared to be genuine he could not agree to the application in planning terms at this point in time, and moved refusal.    

This was seconded by Councillor Davidson.

Following the discussion the Chairman requested a vote on Councillor Patterson’s motion to approve the application as seconded by Councillor Clare, on the grounds that the dwelling was necessary for the continuation of the business.

Upon a vote being taken the motion was carried.

Resolved:

That

(i)            the application be approved subject to the inclusion of a condition limiting occupancy of the dwelling to a person solely or mainly employed in connection with the business;

(ii)          delegated authority be granted to Planning Officers to formulate detailed conditions.