Agenda item

Outline 4 no. dwellings with access considered (all other matters reserved)

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of four dwellings 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 both in support of the application.  The statement reiterated that Copley should not be excluded from small developments since recent planning consent had been granted in nearby Butterknowle and Woodland.  The plans would create additional housing in the village and provide economic benefits to local construction firms.  It also raised the following issues;

·         The report stated that the removal of the car park for customers of the Kennels and Cattery would increase parking on the B6282, however it was unlikely that more than one customer would arrive at the business at one time and therefore would be more likely to use the driveway at Glencrest bungalow.

·         The statement disputed that the site was isolated development in the Countryside and reiterated that most people living in rural areas or buying property there would already have a vehicle in order to travel.  There were also houses to the left, right and opposite the site and were very much part of the community and included within the village of Copley.

·         Copley had mixed housing comprising of farm houses, terraced properties, bungalows, 2 storey housing with a modern design and former social housing.  However the report stated that the dwellings would not integrate well with the existing surroundings which they considered to be a matter of opinion.

·         Environmental Health had objected on the grounds that noise from the nearby Kennels may be a nuisance, however 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 expressed his disappointment on comments made with regards to noise.  He was unaware of the issue regarding noise until he received the report and confirmed that had the Authority divulged the information sooner, the applicant would have ensured that a noise impact assessment had been carried out and included with the application.

With regards to the structure of the proposed dwellings, he disagreed that they were not in keeping with the existing surroundings and confirmed that there was a property opposite the site which was almost identical to the plans submitted.  With regards to the removal of hedgerows he confirmed that should they be removed, they could agree to replant hedgerows elsewhere on the site.

In response to the concerns regarding the loss of the car park, he confirmed that since it was erected in 1983, it had rarely been used by customers and confirmed that the driveway at Glencrest bungalow was used instead.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that two late representations had been received since the report had been published which raised issues regarding noise and loss of curtilage.

Councillor Richardson referred to the lack of new housing in rural areas and suggested that since few applications were submitted, the demand for new housing could never be met.  On considering the argument put forward regarding a negative impact, it had been confirmed that hedgerows could be replanted and schools were accessible in both neighbouring Butterknowle and Woodland, which were no great distance to travel.  Although technically the site was not within the village, it was part of the community and Copley needed expansion in order for it to be sustainable in the long term.   Finally, considering the application also had the support of both local members, he would not vote to refuse it.

Councillor Patterson confirmed that she had regularly used the B6282 and was aware that some vehicles travelled at high speed past the site.  She had concerns that the removal of the car park would lead to more vehicles being parked on the road and a reduction in visibility. 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that although the speed limit was 40mph, vehicles did travel at higher speeds along that section as advised by the Highways Authority.  He added that the car park was built in the early 1980’s at a time when the kennels was expanding and its removal could also potentially impact the business should it plan to expand in the future. It was also clarified that the agent could have ascertained the need for a noise assessment with Officers prior to submitting these planning applications but he did not enter into any dialogue prior to the submission of the applications.

In addition to the safety issues, Councillor Patterson confirmed that in absence of a noise impact assessment, she could not support the application

Councillor Patterson 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.

At the close of business Members requested that Jill Errington, Senior Committee Services Officer, be thanked for her support to the Committee for the past five years.

</LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLE_OLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

1.FIELD_TITLE

</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE

</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE