Agenda item

4no. dwellings including demolition of existing garages.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for 4 dwellings, including the demolition of existing garages at Villa Street, Spennymoor (for copy see file of Minutes).

M O’Sullivan, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, photographs of the site from various locations, site layout plan and elevations.

Councillor L Maddison, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The application would result in the demolition of 20 garages to provide 4 dwellings, with 2 garage spaces and 2 additional parking places.  This would inevitably lead to the dispersal of those vehicles which currently use the garages into surrounding streets, which would increase congestion in those streets.

The garages which were proposed for demolition were approximately 30 to 35 years old and in a relatively good condition, safe and secure.  Some who currently rented the garages were elderly and their proposed demolition had caused distress and anxiety.

The frontage of Villa Street had no parking provision, with the rear being shared with Craddock Street.  Although some garage tenants did not live within the immediate area of the garages, most did.  Villa Street also had 3 dropped kerbs which further restricted parking.

Councillor Maddison expressed concern at the possibility of soil contamination on the development site and also that the development of the site could lead to obstructive parking at a nearby children’s play area.

There were further concerns, which were not planning issues, regarding the number of vacant houses in the Spennymoor area, the overdevelopment of the garage site, and the impact on residential safety, which were real issues for local residents.

The 20 garages proposed to be demolished had been occupied since they were built some 30 years ago and this was an effective use of the development site.  However, applications to rent vacant garages had been refused in recent months.

The financial benefits of this development did not outweigh the negative social impact of it.  The applicant was prepared to go to a costly appeal if the application was refused and had stated that garage rentals could be terminated with one week’s notice.

Councillor K Thompson, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the proposal.  The garages should not be demolished as this would lead to extra vehicles needing to park on already congested nearby roads.

The area was a myriad of back streets and Councillor Thompson asked whether any visibility splays had been done for this application.  Twelve months ago the Committee had refused an application for one house at Byers Green because of visibility splays.

The development would do little to add to housing availability on the Spennymoor area, which already had plans passed for 2,000 new houses which equated to a 16 year housing supply.

Councillor Thompson informed the Committee that this development was an inefficient use of the development land and should be refused on the grounds of highway safety in the surrounding streets.  The building of four houses did not outweigh the demolition of 20 garages and local knowledge of the surrounding streets and junctions, which were very difficult to negotiate, should be taken into consideration.  It was wrong to not overturn an officer’s recommendation on the basis that the applicant might appeal the decision to the Planning Inspectorate and Councillor Thompson asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr M O’Hare. Local resident addressed the Committee to object to the application.  He informed the Committee that he had rented a garage for over 30 years.  Villa Street had 13 houses and three dropped kerbs which restricted parking, but residents has 15 cars and 2 vans.  In an adjacent street 4 residents rented garages and this application would result in an extra 7 cars in one street.  People may park their cars up on kerbs which would create a danger for pedestrians, particularly children, the elderly, pushchairs and wheelchairs.

Two cars had been parked opposite each other in the street which would have resulted in service vehicles, such as a bin wagon, being unable to access the street.  Ambulances may not be able to access the street which contained elderly people who regularly had hospital appointments.

Mr A Lang, agent for the applicant addressed the Committee.  The officer report was detailed and had provided analysis of the impact of the development.

The applicant was prepared to have a dialogue with local residents regarding parking, but this could not be part of this application.  Each local resident would be considered on a case by case basis and consideration may be given to dropped kerbs or in curtilage parking.  The Highway Authority had considered the application and on balance had concluded that it was acceptable.

The contaminated land issue raised by the objectors would be dealt with by standard planning condition.  The proposed houses would have in curtilage parking provision and therefore no extra spaces were needed.

To refuse the application under the NPPF the development would need to have a severe and cumulative impact and the impact of this development was nowhere near this level.

Although there was permission already granted for 2,000 houses in the Spennymoor area, there was a need to provide a range and variety of houses.  There was a demand for all types of houses in the area.

Planning officers were recommending approval of the application after applying a fair and reasonable balance to it.  This was a brownfield site within the settlement of Spennymoor and was a more efficient and effective use of the site.

Mr Lang asked the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Nicholson sought the comments of the Highway Development Manager on the issues raised.

J McGargill, Highways Development Manager informed the Committee that for a free flowing road the recommended visibility distance at a junction was 60 metres for a 30 m.p.h. road.  However, at low speeds this distance reduced considerably.  Visibility splays had not been measured for this application and indeed visibility spays could not be achieved at the junction.  Visibility at the junction was restricted which kept traffic speeds low and therefore the accident consequence and incidence was also low.  The visibility at the junctions would be the same as already existed.

While it was regretful losing off street parking, objections to the application on highways grounds could not be made.  Statistics showed a 73% level of car ownership in the area and this was used when considering parking demand.  Residents of Villa Street rented 3 garages, Craddock Street 8 garages and Clyde Terrace 4 garages and using the 73% car ownership figure would suggest that spaces would be available in Craddock Street.  Although the space was available, it was important to remember that people could not always park outside of their front doors.

Service vehicle access was considered but this application did not create any more of a problem than that which currently existed.

Councillor Tinsley informed the Committee that the applicant was within their rights to seek planning permission and refusal would need solid planning reasons.  The issues raised by the objectors were not sustainable in planning terms.  While it had been argued that the development would result in increased traffic movement, there was a need to keep this in perspective as only 4 houses were being proposed and there would already be traffic movement from the 20 garages on the site.  Councillor Tinsley could identify no specific planning policy to refuse the application and moved approval of the application.

Councillor Clare expressed sympathy with the objectors regarding parking issues raised and was disappointed there was no representative from Spennymoor Town Council which had requested the application be brought to Committee for consideration.  There was no Neighbourhood Plan in place in the area.

As had previously been said, the applicant could at any time with one week’s notice serve tenants with notice to quit and could demolish the garages.  The applicant was a registered social housing provider and this application was part of their social provision.  Councillor Clare informed the Committee he would struggle to find valid planning reasons to refuse the application and seconded approval of the application.

In response to the comment made by Councillor Clare, Councillor Thompson informed the Committee that both he and Councillor Maddison were Members of Spennymoor Town Council.  While acknowledging this, Councillor Nicholson replied that they had both registered to speak at the meeting as local County Councillors.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.