Agenda item

Proposed residential development of 6 No. linked dwelling houses.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the proposed residential development of 6 No. linked dwelling houses at 67 Front Street, Pity Me, Durham, DH1 5DE(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.

Councillor M Wilkes, local Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that only one resident of Front Street had objected , as most others felt that approval of the application was a foregone conclusion and as such there was little point in objecting.

Members were advised however that Councillor Wilkes and the one objecting resident both had various concerns which needed to be raised.

Concerns were raised regarding potential damage to a TPO tree and associated risks to the end proposed dwelling. Councillor Wilkes felt the tree was at risk and that changes to the layout and the means of construction as now put forward by the applicant, would not alleviate those problems. As such, he believed that saved Local Plan Policies Q1 and Q2 were relevant, as well as NPPF part 7. Councillor Wilkes believed the layout and design proposals were very poor and it was nonsense to erect a property so close to a large tree. He believed that the owner of plot 6 would end up being in constant dispute with the Council on issues such as overhanging and blocked light. Furthermore Councillor Wilkes believed the property owner would struggle to get insurance because of the very close proximity of the tree.

It was noted that there was no rear access to proposed properties 2, 3, 4 and 5, so all garden waste would have to be carried through houses.

Councillor Wilkes highlighted that the Landscape Officer had described the site as a critical gateway site, as such it was felt it should be ruined with development.

In relation to traffic and parking issues, Councillor Wilkes advised that there would be adverse effects for existing residents which would contravene saved Local Plan Policies H13 and Q8 and NPPF Part 8. While he was aware that Members had seen the site on a visit earlier that day, Councillor Wilkes highlighted that they had not seen the parking situation on an evening. While there might be sufficient parking to be provided for the new properties, when the parking spaces currently used by residents were removed, the parking situation would only worsen. Councillor Wilkes advised that saved Local Plan Policy T2 paragraph 5 was particularly relevant as it related to minimum impact for vehicles. It was highlighted too that the entrance road to Front Street was inadequate and was often blocked by parked vehicles. There was no room for cars to pass and as such Policies T1 and T2 were relevant in relation to poor design and road safety risk.

Councillor Wilkes therefore advised that the application contravened saved Local Plan Policies E14, E16, Q8, T1, T2, H13, Q8, Q1 AND Q2 and Parts 7 and 8 of the NPPF.

Should the Committee be minded to approve the application, Councillor Wilkes suggested that additional conditions be imposed as follows:-

·         In relation to the entrance road, ask for this to be widened as currently it was not possible for 2 vehicles to pass;

·         Additional parking be provided nearby for displaced vehicles;

·         Construction not to take place on a Saturday and for weekdays construction not to take place before 8am and after 5:30pm;

·         Councillor Wilkes wished to see the access road developed first and the current turning circle to be left in situ throughout construction;

·         Visitor spaces should be clearly identified with road markings;

·         That the use of the properties should be limited and not permitted to be HMO’s as this could exacerbate parking issues even further.

The Landscape Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

·         Members were advised that it was the Officer’s original concern that the tree would be at risk, this was no longer the case now that amendments had been made to the application and changes had been made to the system of retaining structure between levels. Members were advised that as well as looking at a tree being at risk, an assessment was also undertaken to look at people being at risk, and the Officer provided an explanation as to the assessment procedure.

·         The reduction of land take was now considered acceptable as was the root protection area.

·         In relation to overhang, Members were advised that there was no evidence of risk that a bow might fail.

The Highways Officer responded to points raised as follows:-

·         Parking – the application proposals did meet the minimum parking standards, though it was acknowledged that there were existing demands currently at the site area;

·         Access/egress – The application would not have a significant impact on the current situation, furthermore there was no suggestion of accidents in that area;

·         Highways Officers were satisfied that the public highway was to be extended and the extension of the carriageway would meet current adoption standards.

In response to a query from Councillor Dearden, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the previous planning approval of July 2013, still stood and so development in accordance with that permission could go ahead.

In response to a query from Councillor Freeman, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the proposed development did encroach slightly more into the root protection area than the previous application.

In response to a query from Councillor Conway, the Landscape Officer confirmed that he was now content that the tree would survive the construction experience. Furthermore he was confident that the occupier of the end property would not suffer any loss of sunlight penetration because the tree was situated to the north side of the property.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the issue of amenity was acceptable as there would be no direct overshadowing. Furthermore the area of land directly to the north was the area which would not be included as garden area.

Councillor Conway noted that in the previous application there was access to the rear of the properties, however that had now been removed. He found this to be a retrograde step, furthermore he felt that too many properties were now being proposed.

Councillor Lethbridge agreed that the development of just 5 properties was more preferable as it would have alleviated many of the concerns which had been raised.

In response to a query from Councillor A Bell, the Area Team Leader clarified that maintenance of the land between the end of the development and the tree would be the responsibility of the developer.

The Landscape Officer advised the Committee that the overhanging bow was not leaning in a direction which would pose a risk to the properties should it be subject to strong gales.

Councillor J Clark queried whether the developer would allow the unallocated land to be a means of access to the rear of the middle properties. The Senior Planning Officer advised there would be difficulties as the rear gardens would be on split levels, but that bin storage would be situated at the front of the properties to alleviate access issues.

Councillor Davinson felt that each application which came forward encroached more onto the root protection area. He also expressed concerns regarding traffic issues.

Councillor D Freeman moved refusal of the application on the grounds that it contravened saved Local Plan Policy Q8 in relation to layout and design and saved Local Plan Policies E14 and E16 because of issues with the tree and the detrimental impact of development on the conservation of the trees.

The Area Team Leader highlighted that the current proposals were an improvement on the already approved application, as the existing permission placed no restriction on the land at the north of the site.

Councillor Conway seconded the motion to refuse the application for the reasons stated by Councillor Freeman. In referring to paragraph 38 of the report, he further highlighted that he would have liked to have seen the applicant statement.

Upon a vote being taken it was,

Resolved: “That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The proximity of the development would have a detrimental impact on the protected tree that is a critical part of the existing mature landscaping at the prominent gateway location. The development would therefore be contrary to saved Policies E14 and E16 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.

2. The layout and design of the proposed development failed to provide for residents to adequately access to rear gardens and would also result in an unsatisfactory relationship to the projected tree thereby having an adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers contrary to Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004”.