Agenda item

Demolition of existing farm buildings and erection of 3no. dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of existing farm buildings and the erection of 3no. dwellings (for copy see file of Minutes).

T Burnham, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor H Smith, local Member addressed the Committee. She stated that she and Councillor Turner had asked for this to be brought to Committee after being contacted by residents who would be directly affected by the proposals. There would be no issues if the scheme had been for two houses on the site vacated by the demolition of the existing farm buildings but Plot 1 would be on agricultural land and outside the settlement boundary. Despite separation distances being in excess of 21m the local Members agreed with local residents that the impact on the privacy of neighbouring residents would be significant.  The proposals constituted an extension into the open countryside and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

The concerns of residents had been outlined in the report which included traffic and road safety, drainage and sewerage, and the frequent power cuts.

Part 6 of the NPPF sought to significantly boost the supply of housing which delivered sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, and Part 4 required developments to be located where the need for travel would be minimised. Low Etherley had lost shops and its pub, the bus service was infrequent and residents were obliged to rely on travel by car. The Member also questioned the need for more housing in the village when one website had advertised 30 properties for sale in Etherley and Toft Hill. Planning permission had also been granted for a further 13 properties close to this site.

In view of these factors and the loss of privacy for neighbouring residents the local Members were unable to support the application.

Mrs S Bowen of Treetops addressed the Committee on behalf of her family and the residents of 4, 6, 8 and 8a Low Etherley. The proposed development of three very large houses on such a small site would be overbearing and would have a detrimental impact on their privacy and residential amenity. The farm buildings were only one storey high and would be replaced by three storey properties.

Low Etherley was a linear development and Plot 1 would be outside the settlement boundary on a greenfield site that was viable farm land. Plots 1 and 2 directly overlooked properties and Plot 1 included an external staircase which faced neighbours. Each dwelling would have parking for three vehicles, one of which was directly adjacent to her own barbecue area. Her youngest daughter was asthmatic and would be unable to enjoy clean fresh air in their garden.

The proposals would impact upon residents’ enjoyment of their properties, their health and quality of life. She reiterated the comments of Councillor Smith that there were 30 properties for sale in the village excluding the 13 properties that had been granted planning permission across the road from the site. She did not therefore believe that there was a need for this development.

The development was not sustainable. In the last two years the village had lost amenities, including a shop, Post Office and a pub. Public transport was very poor resulting in increased use of private cars and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The village infrastructure was already struggling to cope; the sewerage system was inadequate and there were frequent power cuts. There were also issues with surface water drainage and the proposed retaining walls would impact upon this further.

Each of the properties could accommodate three vehicles which would exit onto an already busy road where there had been a number of accidents, some involving neighbours leaving their own dwellings.

Having examined the NPPF, a core principle was about empowering local people to shape their surroundings. All the neighbours had objected to the scheme on the grounds of loss of privacy, impact on amenities, health and quality of life, and she asked the Committee to seriously consider their concerns in determining the application.

Mr M Lee, the applicant’s agent advised that the farm had been in the family for generations prior to the cessation of the dairy farm operations. The land associated with the farm was now rented out for grazing.

The proposed development comprised a small scale housing development utilising the redundant farm buildings and a small parcel of grazing land. The land adjoined the defined settlement limits and was contained within the physical structure of the village.  Landscape, Aboriculture and Ecology consultees had raised no objections to the loss of grazing land. Incorporating it into the overall redevelopment of the farm complex would not result in an encroachment into the open countryside or on the grazing, and would not undermine policies previously contained in the Local Plan which had now been overtaken by the NPPF.

Low Etherley was a medium sized village and part of the grouped settlement of Etherley and Toft Hill which included facilities such as a primary school, nursery, cricket club, pub, doctors surgery, village hall and a church. Access to facilities and services in Bishop Auckland was 1.8km away and the site was within walking distance of public transport. Therefore the development was sustainable.

Any concerns that had arisen with regard to highway safety had been considered by the Highways Authority and no objections had been raised, proving that a safe access could be maintained from the long established access into the farm.

Low Etherley was mainly linear in form but an occasional development existed behind the roadside. There was a range of properties and no consistent architectural vernacular within the village. From the application it could be seen that a high quality of design had been submitted using natural materials which would provide an attractive grouping of houses which would not cause harm to the character of the area. The dwellings were sized appropriately to the site and the proposals corresponded with Local Plan policies GD1 and H12, and Parts 7 and 11 of the NPPF.

Protecting their own residential amenity and privacy and that of their neighbours had been a major consideration. Separation distances were well in excess of 21m, the ridge heights would not exceed those of the existing dwellings and with the development being on a lower level, this would minimise overshadowing and overbearing. Loss of view should not be a reason to refuse the application, given the separation distances.

In conclusion the applicant was a semi-retired dairy farmer looking to make use of redundant land and an opportunity was presented to provide three high quality homes with no adverse impacts which was supported by planning policy.  

D Stewart, Highways Officer responded to the highway concerns. He advised that the proposals were deemed to be acceptable. Site visibility at the access point was satisfactory with proposals for improvements to the existing access. There were no highway grounds to justify refusal of the application on the basis of the subjective concerns raised.  

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the submissions made by the local Members and Mrs Bowen. In relation to the representation that Plot 1 was outside settlement limits, he referred Members to recent appeal decisions which concluded that settlement limits were now less relevant because housing policies in the Teesdale Local Plan were out of date when applied against the NPPF.

Councillor Dixon highlighted the point made in the report that where there were no up to date housing policies the NPPF advised that developments should be approved unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF policies as a whole.

Following a comment from Councillor Kay about settlement boundaries, the Solicitor – Planning and Development clarified that recent legal advice stated that policies in Local Plans based on settlement boundaries were out of date where they related to housing supply.

The Senior Planning Officer continued that he could understand the concerns of residents who would have a loss of view, but the design, layout, separation distances and difference in land levels would ensure there was no significant harm to neighbouring properties in terms of amenity and privacy.

He had spoken to the Drainage Section who had confirmed that there had been works carried out to the south of the site to help previous problems with surface water drainage. A condition requiring a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water would be attached to the planning permission if members were minded to approve the application. 

Members discussed access to the grazing land by agricultural vehicles and the potential impact of this. The agent advised that the grazing land was rented to an adjacent farm and was accessed from that farm.

The Highways Officer did not consider this to be a reason for refusal of the application on highway grounds. The access was already in use and the principle of use by agricultural vehicles would be able to continue in the future without any severe impact.

In response to a question from Councillor Davidson with regard to density of the site, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Member that the amenity space for each dwelling was deemed to be appropriate for the size of the site.

Councillor Clare accepted that access to the grazing land at the moment was gained by an adjacent farm and whilst this may make the land difficult to rent in future, it was not a material planning consideration. He was not convinced by the argument that the development was unsustainable in view of the proximity of the site to Bishop Auckland, and the loss of amenities had been experienced by the entire community. The residents of the new dwellings would be car owners. Whilst he also understood the arguments of the neighbouring residents about the impact on their quality of life, he could not accept that their quality of life would be affected. The quality of life of people living in towns was not affected by living in proximity to other buildings. 

He referred Members to the similarities with the previous application in respect of proposals for housing at High Grange where one of the reasons for refusal was that the development would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. This was also a traditional community and three huge dwellings were to be placed in the adjoining field. He was not convinced by the agent that a ‘rural palette’ of materials would be used as these were clearly modern executive homes next to a traditional village. He therefore had a lot of sympathy with the residents’ view that these dwellings would be overbearing by their size and would be incongruent in the village.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that High Grange was a large greenfield site with no properties surrounding it. By comparison, this site was a run-down farm complex set behind existing properties which were located on the main road. Unlike the application at High Grange these proposals would not impact on the character and appearance of the area.

With regard to the points made about the properties being overbearing the Chairman advised that on the site visit the difference in land levels could be observed.

Councillor Nicholson appreciated the views of both those who had objected to the application and those who wanted to improve the area. He was mindful of the advice about settlement boundaries and recent appeal decisions in that regard, and also noted that there had been no objections from consultees. He therefore considered that there were no grounds to refuse the application which accorded with the NPPF, and moved approval of the application. 

Councillor Davidson was mindful of recent legal advice which reiterated that loss of view was not a material planning consideration. He did not consider that privacy would be compromised given the 30m separation distances, and seconded approval of the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.