Agenda item

DM/17/02465/FPA - 5 Front Street South, Trimdon Village, Trimdon Station

Detached residential annex in rear garden including new patio area and ramped access.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding a proposal to build a detached residential property in the rear garden of 5 Front Street South, Trimdon. The proposal also comprised a new patio area and ramped access (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer which comprised the application site, aerial location plan, photographs of northerly and southerly views from 5 Front Street and photos looking easterly towards 6 Front Street, taken from the garden of the adjoining property from no. 6. Photographs taken southwards towards the area of the proposed site and a site location plan with revised proposals and a floor plan were also shown. The proposed development was 16m from the existing dwelling and two trees would be felled as part of the proposals.

 

Two letters of objection had been received which were detailed in the report. Amended plans had been received and consulted upon, however, the revisions did not overcome the objections made.

 

The Planning Officer informed the Committee, that since the report had been circulated for consideration, condition number 5, was seen as being duly restrictive and required amendment as follows:

 

the annex hereby approved shall not be used as a separate dwelling and shall only be occupied in association with the main dwelling. It shall not be sold, let or otherwise disposed of separately to the main dwelling’

 

Reason: In accordance with the specified planning application and to prevent the establishment of a separate dwelling house and separate planning unit, contrary to policy D1 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan”

 

The Committee then heard from an objector to the application. The objector expressed disappointment in the manner in which the application had been submitted. He felt that the planned development had been poorly thought out and would destroy the reason why people purchased houses in the area, which was primarily for their large, secluded rear gardens. The objector felt that approval of the application would create a dangerous precedent and create a street of annexed houses. The objector considered that it would be more aesthetically beneficial for the area if the applicant were to build a granny flat on the western side of the property and leave the garden free to enjoy. Whilst the objector appreciated the sentiment of the application and the proposed reasoning for the residential annex he considered that the application had been made with blatant disregard of health and wellbeing of his partner whose health had suffered as a result of the application. The provision of an opening WC/shower room window near to his fence, overlooking his property, together with the ventilation would be difficult to endure. The objector also added that the residential annex would be building 11.8m from his nearest habitable room window.

 

The Committee then heard from the applicant who explained that his in-laws were very elderly and whilst still quite active, were becoming very frail. He explained that his mother-in-law required much help and support for vascular dementia and her condition would deteriorate. The family wished to share care with other family members who lived outside of the County. It was the family’s desire for their relatives to stay independent for as long as possible. The development had been designed in sympathy with their own house and existing properties. The plans had been amended in an attempt to reduce impact and the applicant pointed out that their garden was much larger than others in street as it consisted of a double plot.

 

The development was not of commercial appearance and would be in keeping with other annexes in the street which have previously been approved. A similar annex was under construction at no. 10. The removal of two conifers would increase light to his neighbour’s property. There would unlikely to be any additional noise or disturbance as a result.  It was a modest application which did not infringe on anyone’s human rights. The applicant informed the Committee that he was happy to agree to a condition of working hours and reassured the objector and the Committee that the annex was in keeping with his house and garden and it was simply a house to support and care for his aging parents in the future.

 

Councillor J Clare thanked both speakers for their representations to the Committee in a difficult set of circumstances.  Councillor Clare also informed the objector that some matters he had raised were not planning matters which meant that the Committee would not be able to debate them. The objector acknowledged and understood the situation.

 

In response to the planning issues raised by the objector, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that the property was detached and confirmed that the property did have a larger garden than others in the same street. It was felt that the proposed development was commensurate with the size of the site. In terms of the setting of precedents, the Planning Officer commented that each application was considered on its own merits. The Planning Officer accepted that the development was closer to the objector’s property as had been highlighted (11.8 metres), however, it was considered that the proposals were in an acceptable location. Issues regarding the proposed WC/shower room on the rear elevation was dealt with by way of condition number 4 detailed in the report.  In terms of a condition for working hours, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that this was common practice for major housing schemes, however, in the case of the size and nature of the application under consideration, any condition would be informative in nature and the applicant had made this commitment.

 

Councillor G Richardson was sympathetic to the application and felt that the development did not set a precedent as other developments already existed in the area. Councillor Richardson accepted that the applicant had elderly parents that needed to be cared for and moved the recommendation.

 

Councillor F Tinsley informed the Committee that he had listened intently to both speakers and referred to three specific issues. Firstly, Councillor Tinsley felt that the loss of trees would be beneficial for the garden and property. Secondly, the location of the WC/shower room window was the only issue that could potentially affect privacy but considered that the condition detailed in the recommendation would resolve this. In terms of the potential setting of precedents, each application was judged on its own merits and this type of development was common on the street. Councillor Tinsley also noted the concerns relating to the health of the objectors partner and explained that neighbouring development to properties can sometimes be difficult to accept.

 

Councillor J Atkinson seconded the recommendation.

 

Resolved

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in report, together with the amendment to condition no. 5.

 

Supporting documents: