Agenda item

New dwelling

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

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

Councillor Stelling, local Member addressed the committee in support of the application. He advised that he lived approximately 1 mile away and knew the area extremely well. There were many dwellings some new along this stretch of road some in very close proximity to this dwelling and it with such would not be in isolation. In addition the site was close to the neighbouring villages of Medomsley, Ebchester and Shotley Bridge.

Officers had made reference to the fact that the site was unsustainable due to the distance to the nearest bus stop, however he noted that as the applicant was unable to travel by any other means that car due to their disability this factor was irrelevant.

He further made reference to the site of the old Raven hotel and noted that this currently had permission for 7-9 dwellings. The site was 300 yards from the application site.

In addition he added that the site was in a state of untidiness and further development would improve the area.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the comments made regarding isolation and noted that officers did not consider the site to be isolated but was unsustainable due to its location and proximity to neighbouring villages. She further commented that she understood that this resident would not use the bus service but future residents may wish to do so and this had to be considered.

She went on to provide clarification regarding sustainability and exceptions for conversions of existing buildings. With regard to the Raven hotel site, she noted a long planning history on the site although noted that although development had been granted in the countryside the site was considered brownfield.

Mr G McGill, applicants Architect addressed the committee to speak in support of the application. He advised that the applicant currently resided in a property close to the application site at the crossroads which was no longer suitable for her needs due to her severe disabilities. The applicant had expressed a desire to remain close to her family and the network and community she knew well. Unfortunately there were no suitable dwellings in the vicinity suitable for her needs. The proposed dwelling would be specially adopted to meet her requirements and would provide first floor accommodation for guests. She would rely solely on her car to travel.

He further made reference to the dwellings on site which were currently being converted noting that these had now been sold.

In referring to paragraph 159 of the NPPF he noted that it stated that local planning authorities should address the need for all types of housing, including different groups and those with disabilities.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to comments made regarding the design of the building and noted that as the development was considered unacceptable in principle it was not considered appropriate to ask the applicant to go the expense of providing amended plans.

Councillor Shield noted that he knew the area very well and considered this plot of land to be blight on the landscape, a view shared by residents of the area. With regard to comments made regarding the lack of a nearby bus stop, he noted that GO NorthEast had indicated that should there be a need or demand for a bus service in the area, then they would review it at that time.

He went on to further refer to paragraph 14 of the NPPF and noted that the site did not encroach into the countryside and the site would benefit from continued development. He therefore supported the application irrespective of who would be living there.

Further discussion ensued regarding conversions and it was reported that the existing metal shed was not considered worthy of retention, however had it been on stone construction, conversion may have been deemed acceptable.

Councillor Tinsley asked whether there was a usable footpath on the main road. In response the Principal Planning Officer advised that there was however it was fairly narrow in width, although was adequately lit.

Councillor Tinsley added that he did sympathise with the applicant, however noted that there was no evidence to suggest that a bus route would be provided in the future. He also noted that he concurred that the design was of more urban character and would have an adverse visual impact on the agricultural nature of its surroundings.

Councillor Wilson asked what the distance was to the nearest school. Members were advised that a primary school at Medomsley was 1.5km from the site, which fell within walking to school guidelines.

Councillor McKeon asked whether it would not be possible for the applicant to convert one of the other bungalows on the site. It was noted that the adjacent bungalow appeared to be occupied. Councillor Shield noted that the bungalow on the site was not within the applicant’s domain for development and was separate to the ongoing conversion of existing buildings.

Councillor Shield MOVED that the application be APPROVED on the grounds that the dwelling was of good design and would promote healthy communities. IT was further improve the visual amenity of the area, was sustainable in its location and proximity to facilities and suggested on that basis, the benefits of the scheme outweighed the adverse impacts in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF. He further agreed that the conditions of development should be delegated to the Chairman and Officers.

Councillor Shuttleworth SECONDED the proposal.

Following a vote being taken the MOTION was LOST.

Councillor Tinsley MOVED that the application be REFUSED on the grounds as listed within the report.

Councillor Boyd SECONDED the proposal.

Following a vote being taken it was

Resolved: That the application be refused on the grounds as listed within the report.