Agenda item
DM/17/03499/FPA - 5 Doulton Court, Coxhoe
- Meeting of Area Planning Committee (Central and East), Tuesday 13 February 2018 1.00 pm (Item 5c)
- View the declarations of interest for item 5c
Change of use from agricultural land to domestic residential curtilage and diversion of public footpath.
Minutes:
The Team Leader - Central and East, Alan Dobie gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes). Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site. The Team Leader - Central and East advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting. The application was for change of use from agricultural land to domestic residential curtilage and diversion of public footpath and was recommended for refusal.
The Team Leader - Central and East noted the application was partially retrospective as works had been carried out on site, and was at the southern end of Coxhoe. He added that the land had been sold to the applicants and represented a greenfield site, outside of the settlement boundary and constituted a change of use from agricultural land to domestic residential curtilage. It was explained that a public right of way had not been closed, and that should the application be successful, then a separate stopping up process via the Public Rights of Way Team would apply.
The Committee were referred to photographs showing works that had taken place at the site and the site levels and the route of the “new footpath”. Members noted a section of ancient hedgerow had been removed, and the proposed new fence would be 1.8m high in solid timber. The Team Leader - Central and East noted that the proposal was for the land to be used as a small orchard and with an extension to the bin store.
The Team Leader - Central and East noted no objections from the Highways Section. He added the Police Liaison Officer had raised objections in terms of the adverse impact on the residential amenity of residents along Station Road, it being likely to create a fear of crime, obstruct views which should remain clear to provide a level of surveillance. It was noted that Ecology Section had no objections, though noted the loss of biodiversity in terms of the removal of the ancient hedge and therefore noted a new native hedgerow was required to compensate for the loss. The Team Leader - Central and East explained the Landscape Section objected in terms of erosion of the countryside and urbanisation of the site.
The Committee were informed that the Public Rights of Way Team had noted that a separate application in terms of diversion of the public right of way had been submitted and would be dealt with by a separate process and would be subject to public consultation.
The Team Leader - Central and East noted 15 letters of objections from the public, noting concerns in relation to: the public right of way; loss of privacy; setting a precedent; being retrospective; and removal of the hedgerow. It was noted there were objections from the Parish Council and the Ramblers’ Association in addition.
The Team Leader - Central and East noted that the encroachment into the countryside was not felt to be justified in this case, with the impact on the character of the area.
It was added that public right of way would require a diversion, as previously mentioned, and that residential amenity would be impacted, in terms of residents’ rear gardens and the loss of privacy from the alternative route of the public right of way.
The Team Leader - Central and East concluded noting that as the application was contrary to Policy E7 of the saved City of Durham Local Plan and there would be loss of privacy, therefore the application was recommended for refusal.
The Chairman thanked the Team Leader - Central and East, noted there were several registered speakers and asked Local Member, Councillor S Dunn to speak in relation to the application.
Councillor S Dunn noted that the sentiments within the report and objectors comments were echoed by Coxhoe Parish Council. He noted that it was felt that the property abutted the public right of way and ancient hedgerow and the development, without any consultation, was a dangerous precedent and likely to lead to further encroachment into farmland and the countryside. Councillor S Dunn noted that the diversion of the public right of way was not acceptable, with the fenestration in the nearby properties having been appropriate for where the right of way had been, not where it had been redirected. Accordingly, Councillor S Dunn called for Members to refuse the application and have the right of way and hedgerow reinstated.
The Chairman thanked Councillor S Dunn and noted Mr J Jackson, Mr J Turton and Mr J Hepplewhite, local residents, were in attendance to speak in objection to the application.
Mr J Jackson noted he was a resident of Station Road East and he objected to the invasion of his privacy. He noted the public right of way issue and that this was subject to a separate process as already mentioned. He noted that the current route was not clear and recently a man with a firearm had been witnessed. He added the proposed orchard and high fence would act as a screen for potential burglars and anti-social behaviour. He concluded by noting that the new garden created was outside of the village boundary, was an encroachment into the countryside and would change the visual amenity.
Mr J Turton noted he was the Chairman of the local History Group, with County Durham priding itself on its history. He added that the public right of way had existed since at least the 19th Century, perhaps earlier, and been a route used by quarry workers, miners and farm labourers to get to work.
He noted the stiles along the route had been installed by volunteers and there was the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Raisby Hill. Mr J Turton noted the encroachment into the countryside was not acceptable and may be seen as a green light by others to do so. He concluded that the public right of way was not necessarily a pretty walk, however it was rich in history.
Mr J Hepplewhite noted he had lived in Station Road for 46 years and added he was delighted that all of the residents’ objections had been backed by the Officers report and the comments from Durham Constabulary.
He noted he had returned from holiday to be told a JCB had been at work at the site, with the hedge cleared and a geometric meander had been created. Mr J Hepplewhite asked had permission been sought, it was not clear so it had been brought to the attention of Planning Officers. He added that walkers were now confused and there had been an increase in trespass. He noted that the works had benefited one household, however, had affected many residents. Mr J Hepplewhite concluded by noting that due to the change in level, a lady resident had seen the reflection of a person in her mirror and asked that the application be refused and the site returned to its natural state.
The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked the Team Leader - Central and East to respond to the comments made.
The Team Leader - Central and East noted that if the application was refused, there would not necessarily be an instant response in terms of reinstatement as the applicant would have a right of appeal.
The Chairman asked the Committee for their comments and questions.
Councillor M McKeon asked for the application to come to Committee so all opinions could be aired. She referred to the Officer’s report and noted that upon reading this and hearing comments from speakers that the application was not for the benefit of the village or residents and there was a clear impact. Accordingly, she moved the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.
Councillor I Jewel noted that it was a disturbing trend in terms of works being carried out then a retrospective application being submitted. He added he felt if it was allowed it would set a precedent and seconded the recommendation for refusal.
RESOLVED
That the application be REFUSED for the reasons as set out within the report.
Supporting documents: