Agenda item

Erection of 9 No. detached dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application erection of 9 no. four bedroom detached dwellings on Land to the West of The Paddock, Sunniside, Bishop Auckland (for copy see file of minutes).

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

The Committee Services Officer read a statement on behalf of Councillor Hart, local Member.  He welcomed the application acknowledging that the sustainability of small villages depended on new development, however he was disappointed that no substantive changes had been made with regards to the concerns raised by local residents.

The residents of nos. 2 and 3 The Paddock were both primarily concerned by the separation distance of the proposed new developments and concerns had been raised due to the lack of parking provision.  It was likely that cars would overflow onto Front Street, causing a reduction in visibility for motorists and pedestrians entering and exiting the development.  No attempts had been made by the applicant to address these concerns however the applicant had amended the plans in order to retain and protect the original hedgerow, a change which was welcomed by Councillor Hart.  In order for him to withdraw his concerns, he required further amendments to the proposal and this had led him to request the application be considered by the Committee.

The Applicants agent addressed the Committee, confirming that the site was between The Paddock and a row of cottages to the West, and included within the settlement of Sunniside.  The logical next step in concluding the village was to develop the piece of land in between.  He confirmed that the proposed dwellings were similar to those at The Paddock, although they were smaller in size.

Permission granted in 2012 had recently expired and there had been no substantial changes to the proposal.  He confirmed that no objections had been made, other than from residents of The Paddock.  In response to the submissions put forward, he confirmed that the windows in question were on the gable end of the properties and were situated within non-habitable rooms.  In addition there was a large 1.8m boundary fence which ensured that there would be no impact on privacy.  One of the properties had a large extension which had further decreased the distance between the plots to 14m, however this was still within an acceptable range considering the windows in question were secondary.  He confirmed that each property would have a garage and a driveway and denied the likelihood of cars spilling out onto the highway.  On summing up, he reminded Members of the Senior Planning Officers recommendation to approve the application and described the proposals as an asset to the housing stock of the village.

The Chairman invited the Senior Planning Officer to comment on the objections from nos. 2 and 3 The Paddock with regards to separation distances.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that he had been inside of no. 2 The Paddock to consider the impact that the proposed dwellings would have.  He confirmed that the windows were on the ground floor, side elevation of the property.  As they did not relate to the north and south facing principal windows, they were classed as secondary windows and the addition of the fence further protected the privacy of the property.  It was considered that the property would not suffer a detrimental impact in terms of loss of privacy or outlook and the 21m guideline was relaxed where the amenities of an area were not considered to be compromised.

Councillor Patterson was disappointed that a site visit had not been arranged for this application.  Since the original application had been granted there had been a reduction in public transport, which isolated the village.  In addition she was concerned that cars may spill onto the road at Gladstone Terrace as it was an unclassified single dirt track road and not suitable for cars.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed properties would benefit from a garage and a driveway for two parked cars and therefore it was not envisaged that vehicles would spill onto the highway.  Furthermore, there would be no access from Gladstone Terrace as it was surrounded by the protected hedgerow.

Councillor Boyes referred to the need for regeneration in small villages to ensure their sustainability and complimented the design of the proposal, suggesting that the development would complete the settlement boundary.

In response to a query from Councillor Clare, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the separation distances were not such that a request to reposition or recommend refusal could be sought.  He reiterated that the windows were secondary and referred Members to the design of new housing estates where it was not uncommon for houses to be spaced at a similar range to the plans submitted.

Councillor B Armstrong had concerns regarding the self-build nature of the plots as when work had commenced on the first property, there was no timescale on which the development should be finished.  The owners of this property could potentially be living on a building site for a significant period of time.  The agent confirmed that the applicant was able to control schedules for completion of work and he would usually recommend that work should be complete in no more that 12-18 months.

In response to a query from Councillor Wilson, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that should any deviations from the plans submitted be required, a new application would need to be put forward for consideration. 

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

Councillor Patterson referred again to separation distances from nos. 2 and 3 The Paddock and highlighted that should a 3x3m conservatory be erected under permitted development rights, the distance would reduce significantly.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that condition no. 14 had removed some permitted development rights relating to extensions and hardsurfacing from plots 2-6 in order to protect the hedge and a further condition was requested by Councillor Patterson which removed permitted development rights for extensions from plots 7-9 due to concerns over privacy.

The Solicitor commented that should the application be approved, there could be no deviation from the layout submitted without submission of a further application.  With regards to self-build plots, the Local Planning Authority had no control over the time it would take to develop the whole site, however the landowner could impose a condition of sale which required the property to be completed within a certain period of time.

Upon a vote being taken, it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and with the addition of the following condition:

·         Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Class A (enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse) of Schedule 2, Part 1 shall be carried out within the curtilage of the Plots 7-9 without the prior written permission of the Local planning authority on an application submitted to it.