Agenda item

Proposed erection of two storey garden workshop/storage building with tarmac driveway, 1.8m rear garden wall and double gates.

Proposed erection of two storey garden workshop/storage building with tarmac driveway, 1.8m rear garden wall and double gates.

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Control Manager (Durham City Area Office) which recommended the application for refusal. The Development Control Manager explained that members had visited the site that day, and gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report.

Councillor Holland the Local Ward Member spoke in support of the Officer’s recommendation of refusal. He was concerned that the application was retrospective which began without planning permission which was unacceptable and even more so in a Conservation Area. He also indicated that the report of the conservation officer was damning and remedial work should be required.

Mr Cornwall an objector on behalf of residents supported the Officer’s recommendation of refusal. He referred to the design objection which was shown as a bullet point on the presentation but was a three page document. He also referred to the building work that had taken place without planning approval which resulted in the loss of a tree and significantly compromised the area. He noted that the proposal was to build a garage and workshop which formed part of the rear garden which would be visible and overbearing for the street scene which would fail to preserve or enhance the area. He also indicated that the proposal was not acceptable and would have a detrimental impact on the area and the Conservation team had indicated that it would be possible to have an outbuilding but should be sensitive to the area. He referred to the proposals being contrary to policies and asked that the application be refused and that Mr Carter be asked to talk to the residents.

Mr Carter the applicant gave a power point presentation to members which showed pictures of the condition of the building and wall when he moved into the property. He indicated that the building and wall had to be removed for Health and Safety reasons and approval was obtained for this. He also indicated that he had an assessment completed on the silver birch tree and was advised that it had to be removed. He also showed pictures of properties either side which showed a two storey garage to the left and pictures of other buildings in the vicinity to demonstrate the typical character of surrounding buildings.

The Development Control Manager indicated that planning had a role to bring a fair and balanced judgement and Conservation were not always right and that the report was to give a balanced view.

Councillor Brown asked if the applicant submitted quality detailed drawings would the application be acceptable.

The Development Control Manager indicated that the plans should show quality of design, he believed in principle that something could be achieved.

Councillor Bailey indicated that he agreed with Councillor Brown and asked if the applicant could come back with further plans.

The Development Control Manager indicated that they could work with the applicant and he could re-submit an application within 12 months without incurring a planning fee.

Councillor Belasdale indicated that there was a double garage and studio on the other side so why was this application recommend for refusal.

The Development Control Manager indicated that the council had a statutory requirement to preserve or enhance a conservation area. The submitted plans did not show that quality would be achieved and that standards had to be maintained and improved and that an application of a lesser standard could not be accepted.

Councillor Bell indicated that after seeing the pictures on the power point presentation of the site before the demolition he was of the opinion that it was improved and suggested that the application be deferred so that the plans could be improved.

Councillor Freeman indicated that the precedent in surrounding properties was not good and that any development must be of a higher quality than those currently in the area.

Resolved: That the application be REFUSED for the reasons contained in the report.