Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 2no. detached dwellings with garages

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 2no. detached dwellings with garages (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 and explained that although a separate application, the proposals raised similar concerns to the previous application as the Parish Council sought to protect the village from development southwards.

This application was for 2 large detached 4 bed houses with separate garages and although the earlier application had been approved, Officers and Members had stated that each application was considered on its own merits. This application reinforced the argument that the approval of one development may encourage additional schemes in the area.

The Parish Council endorsed the comments of Design and Conservation who opposed the principle of developing the site on the grounds that it would erode the definite east-west layout of the village. In relation to the existing buildings the Parish Council considered these to be single storey structures and how the site could be considered brownfield was beyond their comprehension.  The development was referred to as Gorst Hall Gardens which the residents of Gorst Hall were unhappy about. During consideration of the previous application Members had been informed of the limited existing highway arrangements. In summary the objections of the Parish Council were similar to those in respect of the earlier application and related to scale and massing, and development to the south of the village.

Mr Thompson the applicant advised that he had undergone a formal process with Planning Officers to reach an acceptable scheme. It was coincidence that both applications had been submitted to Committee at the same time.

The site was located to the south of the Conservation Area and outside the previous Local Plan settlement limits. It could be accessed via Stangarth Lane which had served the builders yard in the past. There had been no objections from the Highways Authority to the existing number of units served by the lane. The former workshop at 4.5 to 4.8m was in excess of single storey and there was a store and garage to the west. The proposed design was low-key, with well-proportioned apertures and low pitched roofs to minimise the impact of the buildings. The adjacent plots to the north were 2 storey. Natural materials would be used, red pantiles and locally sourced stone, which would be sympathetic to the character of the village.

There were 3 storey properties on the Front Street in the village and building heights reduced proceeding along the lane. Amenity value of the site was low at present and the proposed development would be enhanced visually and ecologically through natural planting. With regard to the argument about sight lines the walled gardens of the Raby Estate offices could be seen when looking towards the development.

The Chairman stated that the Highways Authority would have offered objections to the application if either proposal would cause additional traffic so the issue was not whether the lane was up to capacity. Had Highways Officers been concerned about the lane and traffic generated he would have taken a different view on the application.

Councillor Boyes made the point that although the site was outside the Conservation Area the impact of the proposals on the setting should be considered, and noted the objections in principle from Design and Conservation.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that because the dwellings were sympathetically designed this should not compromise the setting of the Conservation Area. The east-west layout was a key aspect of the village and if there had not already been development on the site a different view may have been formed. On balance it was not considered that the scheme would cause harm to the setting of the Conservation Area.   

Councillor Nicholson stated that this site was classed as brownfield land and noted that these were two different applications that happened to be submitted to the same meeting. He considered that on balance the proposals would enhance the village and he welcomed the development of a brownfield site.

Following a question from Councillor Clare, the Member was informed of the proposed on-site parking provision. The Member noted that there was no on-street parking but was satisfied that adequate parking would be provided within the development for families and visitors, and was in support of the proposals. The argument surrounding sight lines was not a sufficient reason to reject the application.

Councillor Richardson supported the Parish Council’s comments about the naming of the site, and asked if it could be re-named.

Although the name of the development was not a material planning consideration the applicant, at the request of the Chairman, explained that the title of Gorst Hall Gardens had been inherited through title deeds but he was seeking to re-name the development.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

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