Agenda item

2 no. detached dwellings.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for two detached dwellings on Plots 2 and 3 Dean Lane, Spennymoor (for copy see file of Minutes).

M O’Sullivan, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site photographs, proposed site plan, plans and elevations.  Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The Planning Officer informed the Committee that it was proposed, should the application be approved, to add a Condition to secure yellow line markings prior to the occupation of the two dwellings.

Councillor A Gardner, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Councillor Gardner informed the Committee that he was a long-standing resident of Green Lane.  Initially it was thought that one house with large gardens was to be built on the development site in line with other properties on Green Lane.  In 2014 planning permission was granted for the development of two properties on the site.  The developer was now seeking to develop three properties on the site and this was an example of maximising profit with no social responsibility.

As a result of the proposed development, the residents of numbers 1, 2 and 3 Watson Park would face onto a 1.8 metre high fence, which was higher than the front windows of these properties and would be less than 6 metres away from them.  Paragraphs 29 and 37 of the report refer to the proposed two dwellings being a continuation of Green Lane, yet they were to the rear of a property which faced onto Green Lane.  Councillor Gardner also failed to see how the proposed two properties would be an effective intermediate between larger development to the south and smaller plots to the north, as referred to at paragraph 38 of the report.

Paragraph 35 of the report referred to the development site having good links to local amenities, however it was served by only one bus service which operated half-hourly between 8.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m.  This bus service took such a circuitous route to Spennymoor that it was often faster to walk.  Councillor Gardner suggested that the site did not have good links to local amenities unless a car was used.

All Members of the Spennymoor Town Council objected to the proposed development as did all Ward Councillors, and the former portfolio holder for economic regeneration on the County Council also objected.  Councillor Gardner asked that the application be refused.

The Planning Officer replied that the previous planning application had been for two dwellings on the whole site, which was followed by an application to build the house which was currently under construction and another two.  The principle for residential development had been established and was considered acceptable.  The 1.8 metre fence lowered for visibility splays and to the front of the properties would be 0.9 metres high, as detailed at paragraph 47 of the report.

At the request of Councillor Richardson, the Planning Officer illustrated the vehicular access to the property currently under construction at the front of the site and confirmed that if this permission was approved the developer would be unable to build a second property.

Councillor Shuttleworth informed the Committee that it should take consideration of the representations of local Member and Town Council.

Councillor Patterson sought clarity from the highways officer on the visibility splays.  A Glenwright, Principal DM Engineer replied that visibility splays would be 2.4 x 45 metres and as such visibility would not be an issue.

Councillor Patterson asked whether any commercial traffic used the road.  The Principal DM Engineer replied that all industrial traffic was routed via York Hill Road to the north.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that it was difficult to approve an application when local Members were unanimously opposed to it.  However, if the Committee was minded to refuse permission, it would need to find valid planning grounds on which to do so.  The presentation made by Councillor Gardner was opinion, and more than this was needed to refuse an application.  Referring to Councillor Gardner’s presentation about links to local services, Councillor Clare informed the Committee that permission for all the houses currently in the street should have been refused were this the case.  Councillor Clare did not consider that the proposed properties would be overbearing as they would be offset and side on to other properties, which themselves were large town houses.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he could find no grounds ot refuse the application and moved approval.  Seconded by Councillor Atkinson and

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the Conditions contained in the report, with an additional Condition that to secure yellow line markings prior to the occupation of the two dwellings.