Agenda item

2 storey dwelling

Consideration was given to the report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for a two storey dwelling on land to the south of St John’s Presbytery, Sedgefield (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

Councillor G Wills addressed the Committee on behalf of Sedgefield Town Council. The Councillor advised that this was a very sensitive development and the Town Council’s primary consideration was the need to conserve the historic environment and protect it from inappropriate development. The site was one of the remaining garths in Sedgefield which was still intact. Local Plan Policy E18 which sought to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area had been applied when an application for development on a garth to the south of the site had been dismissed on appeal in 2006. 

With regard to the boundary wall the Inspector at appeal had said that there was a lack of compelling evidence of previous alterations to refuse the application on that basis, nevertheless such alterations would add harm to the Conservation Area. 100m to the north of the development was a site where the applicant had retained the wall and had therefore reduced the impact on the street scene and the Conservation Area. That applicant had ensured that there were no windows overlooking the houses to the east. This development however would overlook properties to the east, would be overbearing and would reduce light. Councillor Wills was concerned that the impact on privacy had been dismissed as the proposals satisfied the minimum distance required between opposing windows (SPG Note 3). However she believed that the distance had been incorrectly measured from the back door of 2 Church View. The report suggested a slight change in ground levels but this would not be the case; the development would tower over the property to the east as it was a 2.5 storey dwelling, and would be overbearing and intrusive. The application was contrary to Local Plan Policies D5 and H17.

Addressing the applicant’s statement which stated that the loss of the elevated historic space had occurred many years ago as there was a structure already on the site, Councillor Wills advised that this was a temporary building which occupied a small part of the area. The building proposed was permanent and more than four times the size of the existing structure, occupying two thirds of the site.

In conclusion Councillor Wills stated that the proposed development was in the historic heart of Sedgefield village and she requested that the Committee consider visiting this site, in particular to look at the impact on 2 Church View. The site was of historic value and should be protected. The proposed development was overbearing, was overdevelopment and constituted an invasion of privacy for the occupiers of 2 Church View. The application was contrary to Planning Policies D1, D5, E18, H17 and SPG Note 3.

Councillor D Brown of Sedgefield Town Council also addressed the Committee against the proposal.  He advised that there was an agricultural field to the west of the site, through which crossed a public right of way. He had farmed the land for many years which had acted as a buffer between East Park and West Park. Hardwick Park was not located to the west of the site as stated in the report.

Turning to the Officer’s presentation he believed that the photographs had been extracted from a recent publication about the Conservation Area. He noted that the Highways Authority had not objected to the proposals but he was aware of a previous application for development further along the lane which had been refused because of the increased volume of traffic the scheme would generate. West Park Lane was used as a mini rat-run to avoid congestion in the local area.

The Councillor was also concerned with the potential for flooding to properties on the lane which would be compounded by the development of an additional dwelling. He also pointed out that the stone wall belonged to the field. The Ecology Section had offered no objections but it was well-known that there was a colony of bats in the location. He had submitted an application for a barn conversion and had been required to submit a detailed bat report, yet here the comments of the Ecology Consultant had been deemed to be sufficient. He urged Members to refuse the application.

Councillor John Robinson, local Member was invited to address the Committee and advised that he had been a Member of the former Sedgefield Borough Council’s Development Control Committee which had refused the application referred to by Councillor Wills. There should be consistency in the application of the policy for long gardens and if this planning application was approved that policy should be reviewed.

With regard to the boundary wall which was neglected, Councillor Robinson questioned the need to grant planning permission for works when the wall should be protected by the Authority by enforcing its repair.   He asked Members to consider the detrimental impact the proposed development would have on the residents of 2 Church View who would have a view of a 2.5 storey property towering above them. The Councillor urged the Committee to consider the planning history for the area and was of the view that had pre-planning consultation been carried out with 2 Church View this may have resulted in a development that was more sympathetic and which was viewed more favourably by residents.

Mr Elliott of 2 Church View addressed the Committee. He was concerned with regard to the impact of the proposed development on existing properties, the Conservation Area and the setting.

There had been a number of refusals for planning permission in recent years, including the application in 2006 which had been dismissed at appeal, as referred to by the Town Councillors. Areas of open space were important to the fabric of the village; the proposed development would result in the further loss of open space, and was contrary to Policy E18.

The report stated that the garth had been divided and this was incorrect, as early maps showed this, and was at odds with the Planning Inspector’s decision. It was also wrong to state that their amenity was already compromised simply because the existing structure on the site was in poor condition.

The Planning Officer had argued that the proposed development would help to promote the openness of the Conservation Area, including Manor House which was also at odds with the decision of the Planning Inspector. Policy E18 was still relevant today. The boundary wall was one of the few parts remaining, and despite other developments being required to retain sections, it was said to be in poor repair. The proposals for the wall were unacceptable in a Conservation Area. The assertion that views would be opened up was contradictory when a single storey structure was to be replaced with an 8m high dwelling.

In terms of separation distances, whilst on paper these were deemed to be acceptable, in reality the shadowing created by the new property would impact on 2 Church View and the openness of the Conservation Area. There were significant policy reasons to refuse the application in accordance with Part 12 of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy, including E18. Approval of the application would result in the direct loss of an important asset.

The applicant was in attendance but indicated that he did not wish to address the Committee.

The Chairman referred to the planning history in the local area which had been raised by objectors and advised that planning policy had changed significantly in recent years which affected how local plan policy could be applied. With regard to the comments made about bats and the views of the Ecology Section as set out in the report, he explained that the Committee had to be guided by the expertise of Officers. Hardwick Park, although not directly adjacent to the site was located to the west, and therefore the references to the Park were relevant.

The Planning Officer responded to the matters raised. He advised that he had visited the site on a number of occasions and that he had taken the photographs which were included in his presentation. As had been stated Hardwick Park was located to the west of the application site. The proposed dwelling was 2 storey with a living area in the roof space and was in line with the presbytery to the north. Loss of a view was not a material planning consideration, and the separation distance was 25m, exceeding the 21m requirement.  As there was a property to the north, the garth had been sub-divided, and as the amenity of 2 Church View was already compromised by a poor quality building on the site, albeit temporary, the application was deemed to be acceptable. 

With regard to the concerns expressed about the boundary wall, the Planning Officer advised that the report explained why it was considered acceptable to rebuild the wall using reclaimed materials and which would comply with highway safety requirements.  Councillor Brown had argued that the lane was used as a rat-run but the proposed development of one house and the expected traffic flow it would generate was considered to be acceptable by the Highways Authority.

Councillor Davidson referred to the comment made by Councillor Wills that the separation distances had been measured from the wrong points and was informed that measurements had been taken from the primary elevations. The rear elevation of the proposed development to the rear elevation of 2 Church View was 25m. Where houses were positioned back to back there was usually an element of overlooking.

Councillor Boyes asked if the existing structure on the site had ever been used as a dwelling and was informed that it was an annex to the presbytery and formed part of the curtilage of the building to the north, which was a residential property. It had never been occupied as a dwelling.

Following a further question from the Member the Committee was informed that the application would be acceptable in planning terms if the structure was not already on the site.  This was not a form of garden-grabbing; there was already a building on the site and the proposed development constituted infill of a vacant plot.

Councillor Richardson stated that having heard the representations made he had sympathy with the objectors, particularly with the residents of 2 Church View. However he would listen to the views of other Members of the Committee before he reached a decision on the application.

Having listened to the detailed representations made Councillor Davidson did not feel that sufficient planning reasons had been furnished to justify refusal of the application, and that the Committee had to be guided by the NPPF. He appreciated that the residents of 2 Church View may lose some views but he was satisfied that the proposed dwelling met the required separation distances.

Councillor Nicholson considered that the objections raised had been fully addressed in the report and whilst he sympathised with the residents he was in support of the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Clare advised that he had listened to the comments made that this was the only intact garth remaining and he appreciated why earlier planning permission had been refused to the south; as a medieval burgage used for allotments/workshop/pens for animals he could appreciate the reasons for preserving that site. However this garth had clearly been split and when this had occurred was irrelevant. The site had also been built upon. Whilst the loss of an ancient wall was regrettable the Planning Inspector had said that the loss of the wall would not be enough in itself to refuse an application. To state that the wall was being demolished simply because it was in poor repair was incorrect as visibility splays were required.  The Committee had been told that the field to the west was not Hardwick Park, and he was of the view that as an agricultural field this gave greater weight to supporting the application, not less. Planning permission had been refused at another site because of the volume of traffic that would be generated but the Highways Authority had offered no objections following their examination of this application.   Councillor Brown had raised concern that the existence of bats had not been taken into account, yet on examination it had been found that there were none.

Objectors had referred to the proposed development being overbearing but Councillor Clare was convinced by Planning Officers that minimum separation distances had been met. With regard to the comment that the scheme would constitute overdevelopment of the site he was concerned that the development would cover a large part of the plot but understood that the original scheme had been larger. Officers had worked with the applicant to produce a more suitable scheme and the proposed garden space would not be unacceptable.

Councillor Boyes asked if the applicant intended to use the property as a family home and if this could be secured by condition as he was concerned that the site would be developed and then sold on the open market. The Solicitor – Planning and Development advised that conditions had to meet certain tests, one of which was that they must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It would therefore be difficult to sustain a condition restricting the use of the house as a family home. 

The applicant confirmed that the property would be their family home.

Councillor Kay was of the view that the objectors’ arguments were based on an outdated Local Plan but asked why it had been felt that a site visit was not necessary.

Members considered that the photographs and images presented by the Officer in his presentation, which included the proposed design and layout, clearly showed the proposals and that there was sufficient information for the Committee to make a decision on the application without visiting the site.

Councillor Clare moved and Councillor Davidson seconded that the application be approved.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

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