Agenda item

Outline 1no.dwelling all matters reserved except access

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of one dwelling on land at Glencrest, Copley Lane, Butterknowle, Bishop Auckland (for copy see file of minutes).

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

The Committee Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of Local Members, Councillors H Smith and A Turner, who were in support of the application.  The statement queried why Copley should be excluded from small developments considering that recent planning consent had been granted in nearby Butterknowle and Woodland and raised the following issues;

·         The statement disputed that the site was isolated development in the Countryside.  Section 4 of the NPPF which was referred to in the report, stated that facilities such as shops and schools should be in walking distance of a property, however, many villages in Teesdale did not meet this requirement and most residents of existing rural properties travelled by car.  It was almost certain that people buying property in the area would have a car.

·         There had been no Highways objections to the application and although Environmental Health had objected on the grounds that noise from the nearby Kennels may cause a nuisance, there had been no assessments done to consider whether an acoustic fence detailed in the plans would alleviate it.

·         The objection from the Parish Council was based on lack of clarity of the application which was a vague umbrella term.

·         No objections had been received by local residents.

John Lavender addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  The report referred to the nearest settlement as Copley, however he disputed that Glencrest was not within Copley.  The old settlement boundaries had been taken from the outdated Teesdale District Local Plan and had excluded Glencrest and 17 other properties opposite.  The report referred to Copley as 240m to the West of Glencrest, however the two areas were only separated by a playing field also judged as being excluded from within the settlement boundary, but very much part of the village.

He referred to Paragraph 55 of the NPPF, referred to in the report which confirmed that planning permission could be granted where villages required mutual support to ensure their sustainability.  There was no doubt that Copley, Butterknowle and Woodland mutually supported one another.

Contrary to the report which stated that there was limited bus links, there was a bus service connected to Cockfield.  In addition, there was also a safe footway adjacent to the carriageway, connecting Copley to both of the neighbouring villages.

Referring to issue of noise, he confirmed that a dog breeder occupied a property opposite Glencrest and could not be ruled out from creating noise.  Only 2 complaints had ever been received by the Council relating to Glencrest Kennels and Cattery, one of which was 15 years ago and the other when the application had first been submitted.

The Senior Planning Officer responded and summarised the two main issues regarding the recommendation for refusal - one being the location of the site and the impact of the noise from the existing kennels and the other being the isolated location of the site.  The site was situated nearest to Copley, classified as a Tier 6 Hamlet offering very few or no facilities and services.  There was not a Primary School within the village and the bus service was limited.  In addition, walking to the nearest village was unlikely, especially during the winter months when it was dark.

In response to a query from Councillor Patterson, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that it was not normal practice for the Council to carry out a noise impact assessment, the onus was on the applicant to submit one if it was felt necessary in order to dispel concerns regarding noise.

In addition, the Solicitor, Planning and Development, confirmed that Environmental Health had significant concerns and had made reference in the report to the applicant not having considered the potential noise in relation to the impact on possible future occupiers and in turn the future viability of the business.  Without mitigation, it was not possible for the Committee to consider the issue any further.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that Copley was only technically on the outskirts of the village, however in reality it was very much a part of the community.  He supported the application adding that to not allow properties to be built in rural areas, would lead to their decline and they would become unsustainable.

Councillor Davidson was not persuaded by the argument that the site was within the village of Copley and reiterated that any occupiers of properties on the site would rely on vehicles.

Councillor Clare confirmed that in the absence of a noise impact assessment the Committee could not impose a condition, nor could they consider approving the application.  Without a sufficient survey of the level of noise from the nearby Kennels and Cattery, he could not use his vote to approve the application.

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

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be refused on the grounds as outlined in the report.