Agenda item

Demolition of garage building and erection of dwelling with car port and garage (amended plans received 22/02/16)

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of a garage building and erection of dwelling with car port and garage at Nursery Garage, Stangarth Lane, Staindrop (for copy see file of Minutes).

The 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.

T Bolton addressed the Committee on behalf of Staindrop Parish Council. He explained that the Parish Council had always aimed to be constructive and supportive of applications in the village however the two proposed schemes on the Agenda were of concern.  Over a long period the Parish Council had sought to protect the land to the south of the village. The integrity of the linear form of the village should be maintained and this was recognised in Staindrop Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

When planning permission had been granted for the bungalow adjacent to the garage its occupation had been linked to the garage and the Parish Council felt that this had offered protection. A previous application successfully sought to have this link removed. The Parish Council considered this to be an area of open countryside and of high landscape value, and of great concern was that it would create a spur southwards and open up the floodgates for further development, of which the following application on the Agenda was one.

The Parish Council also had misgivings in relation to the application of planning policy. The report referred to the land as being a brownfield site and the comments that it was already occupied by a very large and unattractive building were overstated. The garage was a low lying white coloured single storey building which sat comfortably in its surroundings and could be mistaken for an agricultural building. The adjacent dwelling was also single storey. The proposed building would be a 2 storey dwelling at 8.5m high which would not look like a barn conversion, nor could be adequately screened.

There had been an apparent lack of appreciation and weight given to conservation issues. The site was identified as one of the key sight lines from the village. He asked why designate as Conservation Area, identify key sight lines, classify as an Area of High Landscape Value and then minimise these classifications by allowing a development of that which was proposed. He strongly urged Members to refuse the application; insufficient weight had been given to development in the open countryside and the impact on the Conservation Area, or to what was in essence cumulative impact along the lane. However if the Committee was minded to approve the application he asked for the size of the building and eaves height to be reduced.

Mr Mills, the applicant stated that he only wished to develop the land by demolishing an eyesore and replacing it with a stone-built dwelling, and bed and breakfast business combined. With the exception of the Parish Council there had been little public objection to the proposals. It was not uncommon in the village for a typical design to be 7-8m to ridge and there was a proliferation of in excess of 20 dwellings around the village that were 3 storeys high and 9m to ridge. As there were 2 other well-established garages in Staindrop, and 4 located within 1-4 miles, there would be no impact on the local economy.

The garage business generated approximately 20 cars per day along the length of the lane. The proposals would result in a 75% reduction in traffic flow, with a commensurate effect on pedestrian risk.

The Parish Council had argued that the lane was in poor condition and he accepted that it could benefit from resurfacing but he made the point that there was no clear responsibility for its upkeep, and there were other properties which also had frontages onto the lane, including that of the Chairman of the Parish Council.

In conclusion he asked the Committee to support the development of a brownfield site which constituted sustainable development and which did not conflict with the policies in the Local Plan or the NPPF.

The Chairman advised that a key policy of DCC was to develop and promote tourism in County Durham and this application presented an opportunity for this in a Conservation Area and in an area of high landscape value.

In response to the comments made the Senior Planning Officer referred to the views expressed that the proposed building would be worse than the existing structure, but this was subjective. The impact on the Conservation Area had been assessed and was not considered to be negative as the site was located further to the north. He acknowledged that the building would be slightly more prominent from the footpath to the south but the impact was not deemed to be significant or excessively negative.

Councillor Davidson was of the view that the argument that there should be no housing development on the site had been weakened when planning permission was granted for the garage and the bungalow. He understood the reservations about opening up a southern spur but Highways Officers were of the view that the lane could not serve any development which would lead to an increase in vehicular movements. On the site visit he had observed 13 cars, a horse box and 2 MOT bays and therefore the garage had the ability to generate a lot more traffic than the proposed scheme. Members had to consider the application before them; it would not be possible to ask the applicant to reduce the height of the building as this would require the submission of a revised application.   The Member added that he would not take into account the comment made by Mr Mills with regard to the Chairman of the Parish Council.

The Chairman referred to the comments made by the Parish Council about opening up a southern spur and emphasised that this application had to be considered on its own merits; the impact this scheme might have on future developments could not be taken into account.

In agreeing with Councillor Davidson, Councillor Nicholson was of the view that this proposal would bring more people into the village and would benefit the local economy.

Councillor Richardson advised that this development was within his electoral division. He attended meetings of the Parish Council who cared greatly about the village. He shared some of their concerns, particularly in relation to the access. He could have supported the views of Councillors Davidson and Nicholson had he not known that those who had objected had genuine concern for the village. He was unable to support the application.

In concurring with the views of Councillor Davidson, Councillor Clare commended the comments of the Parish Council which he considered to be pertinent but were not sufficient to justify refusal of the application. The Committee could not take into account what might occur in the future as a result of this application, and although this was a bigger building, it had been reduced in size. The land was already built upon and if it had been a greenfield site he would have agreed with the views of the Parish Council. The linear integrity of the village had already been breached at this location and whilst he agreed with the Parish Council that this was the identified sight line for the Conservation Area it was not a sufficient reason in itself to warrant refusal of the application.

Councillor Davidson moved and Councillor Nicholson 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.