Agenda item

Erection of Detached Dwelling House.

The Planning Officer, Paul Hopper, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of a detached dwelling house and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Officer referred Members to elevations, photographs, plans and aerial photographs and explained that an access used by Northern Power Grid (NPG) would be sterilised by the application and NPG had been approached for their comments on three separate occasions, however they had failed to respond.  It was noted that a replacement access to the remaining agricultural land had planning permission granted under delegated powers, with Highways considering that access to be safe and acceptable.  The Committee noted that approximately 1 metre of hedgerow either side of the proposed access to the proposed property would need to be removed to allow for adequate sight visibility splays to be achieved.

 

Members noted representations from Shadforth Parish Council in terms of sterilisation of the existing field access and a possible precedent being set, Shadforth Parish Council recalling a recent refusal of an application for 10 dwellings to the south of Rectory View.  It was added that there had been no objections from the other statutory or internal consultees.  The Planning Officer explained there had been 23 letters of objection to the application, with reasons given including: development in the countryside; development within a Conservation Area (CA), highways safety concerns; loss of view; and issues of land ownership.  It was added that concerns had been noted by the Local Members as regards the application.

 

The Planning Officer noted that in principle the proposed development was in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), being considered to be sustainable and would not result in harm to the character of the area, the CA or the nearby Grade 2 listed building.  Accordingly, the recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and noted there were several registered speakers and asked Councillor D Hall, a Local Member, to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor D Hall thanked the Chairman and noted he had asked for the application to be called in for consideration by the Committee rather than be decided under delegated authority to ensure full scrutiny and challenge of the application. 

 

Councillor D Hall noted that the application was within the context of a turbulent history of planning within the village, though accepting that each application was considered on its own merits.  Councillor D Hall added that residents were very passionate in terms of protecting the character of the village and challenged applications to ensure the best and most appropriate development for their village.  Councillor D Hall understood the frustrations of the applicant, and noted that they would have similar reasons in terms of protecting the application for where they wished to live.  Councillor D Hall added that he felt the report was fair and gave the concerns as regards policy versus sustainable development and added that he felt the impacts were worth considering, set against the need for housing in the village.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor D Hall and asked Mr C Turner to speak on behalf of the Shadforth Residents’ Association in relation to the Application.

 

Mr C Turner thanked the Committee for considering the application rather than it be determined under delegated authority, as this had been a concern of the Residents’ Association.  Mr C Turner confirmed that the Residents’ Association was passionate as regards the CA and the village and added that it was felt there was a conflict in terms of the need for building housing and development on greenfield sites. 

 

Mr C Turner noted Policy E14 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan, the protection of hedgerows and suggested that the removal of hedgerow to enable sight lines was in contravention of this policy.

 

Mr C Turner added that the application was outside of the settlement boundary and was within the CA and it was important to protect the green boundary to the village and the proposed development was therefore in contravention of saved Policies E7 and H5 in terms of development in the open countryside, not being linked to persons linked to agriculture.

 

Mr C Turner noted concern as regards the applicant’s statement, adding there was no acrimony, however, there had not been sufficient dialogue between parties and would happily meet with the applicant to help all understand each other’s needs. 

 

Mr C Turner noted it was not believed that the proposal was sustainable in terms of the NPPF nor in relation to any social, environmental or economic benefits.  Mr C Turner added that there were 4, 4 bedroom properties which had been for sale for 3 to 4 years and explained that this would place pressure on existing housing.

 

Mr C Turner asked for the Committee to consider the points raised by those in objection to the application and to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr C Turner and asked Councillor B Kellett, the other Local Member for the area to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor B Kellett noted he had made the point at the site visit earlier in the day that NPG had not responded in terms of the application and therefore it was not possible to say whether they were in favour or not in respect of the application. 

He added that whether correspondence had been lost in the post was for Members to make their own mind upon.

 

The Chairman noted that attempts had been made to speak to NPG as regards the application via telephone in addition.

 

Councillor B Kellett noted that there was a substantial underground structure, made of concrete, and as he understood, it was filled with oil.  Councillor B Kellett added that on the corner there was disc shape, full of water after recent rain, and if access was required NPG would need to go via the end of the houses and to the rear of the properties and may require heavy plant to gain access in this fashion, which could prove difficult.

 

Councillor B Kellett added that further housing would put additional pressure on existing housing and added that development would be a visual intrusion to the landscape.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor B Kellett and asked Mr J Elves, the applicant, to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Mr J Elves thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to speak to Committee and the Planning Officer for their report.  Mr J Elves added that the development was not within what was referred to in statute as “greenbelt”, and was only partially within the CA.  He added that those Members of the Committee who attended the site would be aware the site was not used for agricultural use, and was in fact a rather small site.  It was explained that the proposed development would not affect any heritage assets; would not affect amenity; and that there was a nexus relationship between the proposed development and what was already built with the new access  tothe agricultural land having already been approved.

 

Mr J Elves noted that planning law set out that each application should be looked at on its own merits and added that the proposed development for a single dwelling only was very different from that for 10 houses previously refused elsewhere in the village.  It was added that the site was adjacent to a significant hedge, separating the site from the agricultural land and added that the comments from the relevant statutory and internal consultees had answered all of the objectors’ comments.

 

Mr J Elves concluded by noting that the benefits of the proposed development had been demonstrated as outweighing any harm caused by development, he had faith in the probity and integrity of the Members of the Planning Committee, and that he would ask the Committee to grant the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr J Elves and asked the Planning Officer to comment on the issues raised by the speakers.

 

The Planning Officer explained that Officers were content that the application was in accord with the NPPF and added that in terms of saved Policy E14, the proposed small scale removal of 2 sections of hedge were not to the large hedgerow of importance that was located along the northern boundary of the site, rather to other hedgerows.

It was added that the issue was dealt with within a condition to protect that particular hedgerow.  It was noted that the new field access had been properly considered under delegated powers, in line with the Officer Scheme of Delegation. 

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

 

Councillor P Conway asked for clarification as regards the reference in paragraph 70 of the report in terms of site ownership, and wondered whether it was a case of a “sprat to catch a mackerel” in terms of a future application.

 

The Chairman noted each individual application must be considered on its own merits.

 

Councillor P Conway added that at paragraph 68, it had been raised several times, and again at the meeting by Councillor B Kellett, that NPG had not commented on the application and asked whether if Members were minded to approve the application, would it be possible to included such a condition to say that the applicant must accommodate NPG as regards any works or maintenance that may be required to their equipment.  Councillor P Conway added that while he understood the application was within the CA and near to the Grade 2 listed building he could not see any harm being caused to the heritage asset from a single property.  Councillor P Conway noted that paragraph 31 set out that the advantages of development were greater than the disadvantages and while there was some element in terms of harm in relation to Policies E7 and H5, he had to agree with the recommendation of the Officers.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted that within the conditions, No.9, page 50 of the agenda pack set out: “No construction/demolition activities, including the use of plat, equipment and deliveries, which are likely to give rise to disturbance to local residents should…”  Councillor M Davinson noted that he felt this was awful phrasing and that the likely element should be removed and added that he felt time of 8am Monday to Friday would be reasonable enough.  Councillor M Davinson added that when on the site visit earlier in the day it was notable how narrow the road was and asked whether any plant, vehicles or building materials would be parked or stored along the highway, or could they all be accommodated within the application site.

 

The Chairman understood Councillor M Davinson’s comment as regards the use of the word likely, and noted this could possibly be changed and asked for any clarity as regards materials at the site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie noted that if Members wished for the phrase to be amended to remove likely then this could be done.  It was added that for this scale of development it was not usual to set controls in terms of site traffic, however again this was something that could be conditioned if Members felt it to be appropriate.

 

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter explained that as regards Councillor P Conway’s suggestion in terms of an additional condition to allow for NPG to gain access, this was a private law matter for the landowner and NPG to negotiate and arrange outside of the planning process.  Such a condition would not therefore pass the necessity test for imposition.

 

Councillor B Moir noted the Legal Officer’s view and added that he had concerns as regards additional traffic behind existing buildings, however, he did agree with Officers in terms of the hedgerows and Policy E14.  Councillor B Moir noted from a personal point of view the application did not excite him architecturally, however, he proposed that the application be approved in line with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor P Conway noted that he felt NPG had a responsibility in the public’s interest to be able to access their equipment and therefore he felt his suggested condition was reasonable.

 

Councillor J Lethbridge noted he had listened intently to the objections raised and was reminded of the impermeable nature of clay and the issues of potential flooding.  He added that he did not think the issues raised in terms of the hedgerows were significant and that in terms of the NPG sub-station he would have felt the frequency of visits to the equipment would be low and was puzzled as regards the equipment being “a container for oil”.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted he did have some sympathy with the comments made by objectors in so far as their desire to maintain their village, however he did not feel there was sufficient reasons to say no.

 

Councillor C Kay noted that the sub-station was likely to be for High Voltage 11KV switchgear and that as the equipment was underground it was therefore likely to be oil cooled, however he felt this was not a material planning consideration.

 

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor A Bell.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, but with the amendment as regards the wording to condition 9 and the additional condition to control site traffic etc as discussed.