Agenda item

DM/17/03144/FPA - Former Site of Lumley Boys School, Land North of Fenton Well Lane, Great Lumley

Erection of a dwelling.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the proposed erection of a dwelling (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and plans of the proposed layout. Members had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the layout and surroundings.

 

Councillor Willis, local Member was in attendance to speak in support of the application. She advised that in 2003 this area of land had been wrongly parcelled into the green belt, however in 2015 the draft County Plan recognised that it did not meet greenbelt criteria and officers supported its removal. A decision which was supported by the Inspector prior to the plans withdrawal.

 

The site itself was derelict and in an abandoned state and with such attracted anti-social behaviour including alcohol and drug use. The police were aware of problems in the area and were of the opinion that development of the site would be positive for the area.

 

She went on to acknowledge that since the last refusal a lot had changed in planning law including the introduction of the NPPF and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

In conclusion she reminded members that the site had been previously developed and the dwelling would be built upon existing foundations of the former school. In addition there was broad support from residents of the area.

 

The Planning Officer, in response to issues raised, acknowledged that the plot of land had been earmarked for deallocation in the County Plan however as the plan had not been adopted, no weight could be given to this. He further referred to paragraph 74 of the report and previous appeal decisions taken by the Planning Inspectorate relating to green belt development.

 

The Senior Policy Officer advised that the only way forward for the site to be developed would be to have the greenbelt re-rated through the local plan process. As members were aware the revised plan had only recently been embarked upon and with such no weight could be given to the draft plan at this time.

 

Mr J Taylor, applicants Agent, was in attendance to speak in support of the application. He advised that the site had a considerable planning history and previous support from officers. The site was brownfield and formed the physical edge of the established settlement. He further made reference to the previously discussed issue of deallocation of the greenbelt and noted that the emerging County Plan would likely support modifications to the greenbelt allocation.

 

Moving on to discuss the principles of the NPPF he advised that the proposed dwelling would not be visually intrusive nor impact upon the openness. With such it could be reasonably concluded that the development would not have an adverse impact on the green belt.

 

In addition the dwelling had been sensitively designed and long distance views would remain unaffected due to position of site and rising context of the topography to the village.

 

The Planning Officer, in referring to comments made relating to allocation of land noted the frustrations of the applicant however reiterated that at this present time the land was allocated within the greenbelt.

 

Councillor Shuttleworth commented that the park and ride and fire station at Sniperley had both been built on greenbelt land. He added that the application site was clearly brown field and was in an untidy state, with such he was of the opinion that the dwelling would benefit the area and therefore MOVED that the application be APPROVED.

 

Councillor Bainbridge commented that there appeared to be only two words from preventing the development going ahead ‘green belt’. He went on to ask whether officers would have deemed the proposals to be acceptable had the site not fell within the green belt. The Planning Officer advised that this would have been the case as the application complied with all other policy. Councillor Bainbridge further SECONDED the proposal.

 

Councillor Shield noted the planning history on site and asked whether the proposed dwelling would sit upon the existing foundations of the old school. In referring to paragraph 70 of the report suggested that the application met the exception as detailed in bullet 2.

 

The Solicitor advised that, with a number of limited exceptions, all new buildings in the Green Belt should be considered inappropriate development. The Solicitor advised Members she did not think Members could realistically conclude that the proposed development in this instance met any of the exceptions. In particular, determining whether a development has an impact on the openness of the Green Belt does not entail a consideration of whether the development would be visible. ‘Openness’ refers to lack of development.

 

The Planning Officer in referencing the 2003 refusal noted that the application at that time was submitted in outline only.

 

Councillor McKeon added that although she empathised with the applicant, the words green belt were incredibly important and offered protection for those areas. She concluded that she was very worried that by approving the application a precedent would be set.

 

Councillor Tinsley in noting that the site had been previously developed and only foundations remained, commented that in its current state the site did not impact on openness, however a new dwelling would. He did take on board the concerns raised however concluded due to the critical impact on openness, members should support the recommendation of refusal. He further referred to paragraph 89 of the NPPF and noted that the application did not meet the criteria for development exceptions in the green belt. On that basis he MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds as listed in the report.

 

Councillor Hopgood commented that she disagreed with the comments of the officer regarding openness, highlighting that due to the topography of the site, the dwelling would only be visible from the nearest house. She acknowledged that the site in its current state was an eyesore and that development would only be a positive move for the village.

 

In response the Planning Officer agreed that the site could not be viewed from the village but referred to the open aspect of the landscape. He further commented that he did suspect that the land would be re-examined in the emerging County Durham plan and may be de-registered as green belt.

 

The Solicitor referred to the impact on openness and having provided a legal view strongly advised members that in order to approve the application they would have to conclude that there were very special circumstances which justified permitting the development, The Solicitor advised her view was that concluding the proposed development fell within one of the exceptions to ‘inappropriate development’ could be legally unsound.

 

Councillor Shuttleworth added that his reasons for approval were as follows:-

i)             the area of land had something on it in the past;

ii)            and although in the designated green belt, it was a designated brownfield site which would see benefits from re-development in terms of cleanliness of the site and preventing further ASB nuisance.

 

The Solicitor asked whether he was satisfied that tidying up the site constituted very special circumstances  to justify the inappropriate development. Councillor Shuttleworth confirmed that this was the case.

 

Following a vote being taken the MOTION was LOST.

 

Councillor Tinsley subsequently MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds as listed in the report.

 

Councillor McKeon SECONDED the proposal.

 

Following a vote being taken it was

Resolved: that the application be refused on the grounds as listed in the report.

 

Supporting documents: