Agenda item

2 no. dwellings (including demolition of garages).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of two dwellings, including the demolition of garages, at Armstrong Close, Newton Aycliffe (for copy see file of Minutes).

M O’Sullivan, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, photographs of the site, a proposed site plan and proposed elevations.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that a previous application for the site, which was for 5 dwellings, had been refused by Committee in February 2017 and a subsequent appeal had been dismissed on the grounds of the loss of open space.  This was a smaller application which would not result in the loss of open space.

Councillor R Fleming of Great Aycliffe Town Council addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Councillor Fleming informed the Committee that he had represented the area of the application for 31 years as a County Councillor, District Councillor and Town Councillor and had represented local people earlier in the year when the application for 5 dwellings had been unanimously refused by Committee and by the Planning Inspector on appeal.

Although the application was now only for two dwellings, other reasons for refusal of the application remained, including the unreasonable impact on amenity caused by an increase in on-street parking.  Refusal of the previous application had also been reused on the grounds that the economic and social benefits of the development were outweighed by its adverse impacts, and this was still valid for this application.  The current application would lead to increasingly difficult traffic conditions in the area and exacerbate the problem of parking on footpaths, which currently existed.

Ms C Walton of Great Aycliffe Town Council addressed the Committee.  The Great Aycliffe Town Council had considered the application and objected to it.    The previous application had been refused on the grounds of the loss of open space and the negative impact on the character and heritage of Newton Aycliffe.  Although this application now fitted better, with only two dwellings proposed, the benefits of it still did not outweigh the detrimental impacts of it.  The development would lead to the exacerbation of on-street parking problems and create very narrow streets for emergency vehicle access.  Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the Planning Inspector’s report on the previous application were still valid.  There was concern that the selling off of small parcels of land such as the application site was the thin end of the wedge and set a precedent which would lead to further applications.  Ms Walton asked that the application be refused.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the application would provide four off-street parking places and that the Planning Inspector had dismissed the highways argument for the previous application.  The Highways Authority had raised no objections to the application.

Mr A Glenwright, Principal DM Engineer informed the Committee that the Planning Inspector, at paragraphs 19 to 28 of his decision, considered that the previous development of five dwellings would not be sufficiently detrimental to refuse on highways grounds.  This application was now for only two dwellings and proposed parking provision which was in excess of the Council’s parking standards.  There would be no grounds to defend a planning appeal if the application was dismissed on highways grounds.

Mr A Lang, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  The Planning Officer’s report considered that the amenity, access, car parking, scale and design of the proposed development was acceptable.  The Planning Inspector in his appeal decision on the previous application, as well as highways officers, concluded that both this and the previous application were acceptable on highways grounds.

The application was not the thin end of the wedge and each application would be considered on its own merits.  Approval of the application would therefore not set a precedent.  The revised application addressed the issues raised in the Planning Inspector’s decision letter by reducing the number of proposed dwellings to two and not resulting in the loss of any green space.  There had been four local objections to the proposed development and this was fewer than the number of objections to the previous application.  Mr Lang asked the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Martin informed the Committee that he was not comfortable with the application.  Although he was grateful that the application would now lead to no loss of green space, it would lead to the loss of 14 garages which, in his view, were more of a community asset than the proposed two dwellings.  Seven of the garages were still in use.  Highways arguments were not an issue, and it was pleasing that the application would provide four parking spaces.  Councillor Martin informed the Committee he would like to reject the application.

Councillor Patterson informed the Committee that she had been a member of the Committee which had rejected the former application for five dwellings.  This application now proposed onsite parking and retained open space and parking opposite the garages.  If the Committee was to refuse the application and an appeal followed which then overturned the decision of the Committee, the County Council would be liable for costs.  There was very little available to reject the application.  Councillor Patterson asked the current occupancy rate of the 14 garages.

Mr Lang confirmed that 7 of the 14 garages were currently occupied, the same as at the time of the previous application.

Councillor Shuttleworth informed the Committee that many people wanted a garage with their house and he did not consider it right that this be taken away.

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that is was a new application which he could find no legitimate reason to refuse, and he was therefore leaning towards approval.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that the application demonstrated the effectiveness of the Great Aycliffe Neighbourhood Plan (GANP).  The previous application, which was dismissed by the Committee, was contrary to the GANP and this had been vindicated at appeal.  This amended application for two bungalows would not lead to the loss of open space and provided four off-street parking places, which was in line with the GANP.  A precedent had been set that the GANP must be adhered to if planning applications were to be approved.

Although the removal of garages would have a cumulative effect of increasing pressure to on street parking, this argument would not be considered at any planning appeal.  Councillor Clare did not consider that the benefits of the application were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the losses.

Councillor Nicholson reminded the Committee that, while the garages may be considered by some Members to be a community resource, they belonged to a private enterprise which could serve notice to terminate tenancies at any time.

Councillor Martin replied that garages could be used for storage purposes as well as for parking and were therefore a significant resource.  Being privately owned did not mean they were not a community resource.

Moved by Councillor Richardson, Seconded by Councillor Patterson and

Resolved:

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

Councillor J Atkinson re-joined the meeting