Agenda item

Outline application all matters reserved except access for 13no. dwellings including demolition of existing buildings

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for 13no. dwellings including the demolition of existing buildings at the Glencrest Kennels and Cattery site, Copley Lane, Butterknowle, Bishop Auckland (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Office provided the Committee with a detailed presentation showing a location plan of the area, aerial photographs, photographs of the development site and the indicative site layout.

The Committee listened to representations made by the agent for the applicant. The agent explained to the Committee that information provided by way of the pre-application advice to the culmination of the report before the Committee lacked fairness and consistency.

Pre-application advice had stated that the development would be acceptable in landscape terms and would likely to lead to a local visual improvement, however, the report to the Committee stated that the development would have a materially harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area and the surrounding landscape.

Pre-application advice had also stated that the principles of modest, residential development was accepted, yet the report before the Committee was recommending rejection of the application due to the modest number of dwelling arising from the proposal.

The agent explained that the applicant had gone to great expense in preparing and submitting the application, yet could not understand why the proposal had gone from no negative landscape impact, or even a local visual improvement, to justifying a refusal on landscape grounds.  The agent also felt that there was no justification for the second reason for refusal.

In summing up, the agent felt that the development could be supported under paragraphs 55 of NPPF, the many facilities and services available in the cluster of villages comprising Copley, Woodland, Butterknowle and Cockfield, the support from the local Councillors and the benefits it would bring to the area which included affordable housing, in an area where it was needed for local people.  The development would also make good use of previously developed brownfield land.

Councillor J Clare informed the Committee that comments were often made regarding pre-application advice but reminded the Committee that planning applications before a Committee were not decided as a result of discussions between the applicant and Council officers and it was a decision for the Committee to make.

Councillor G Richardson felt that the application presented a balancing act, to either let the village grow, or to spoil it. Coptleigh was a very linear village, where many houses were set-back off the road.  Councillor Richardson felt a degree of sympathy with the applicant and gave credence to the local County Councillors who had expressed their support for the application. Councillor Richardson explained that he was inclined to support the application.

Councillor J Atkinson referred to the fairness and consistency issues raised by the agent and felt that there were issues to be resolved. He questioned whether the Committee should be considering the report given the issues that had been raised.

Councillor J Clare informed Councillor Atkinson that if the Committee were of the view expressed, then an appropriate resolution would need to be put forward to defer the application and allow time for the issues highlighted to be resolved.

Councillor E Huntington expressed her disappointment that conflicting information had been supplied to the applicant and appreciated the concerns that the agent had raised.

The Solicitor informed the Committee that pre-application advice was not an issue the Committee could take into consideration and that expressing disappointment was not a reason for refusal to overturn the officer recommendation.

Councillor C Martin commented that he was disappointed by some of the phrases used by agent during his representations regarding the pre-application advice. Ultimately, the site was brownfield, no longer in use and a proposal to build houses, in what was a rural area would indeed enhance the area.

Councillor Martin hoped that the applicant would come back with a future proposal that the Committee could agree to, however, on the basis of the application, the number of houses being proposed, together with the layout meant that he had no alternative but to move rejection the application.

Councillor E Huntington seconded the recommendation;

Upon a vote being taken it was:

Resolved

That the application be refused.