Agenda item

Erection of Detached 5 Bedroom Dwelling House and 1 no. Garage with Associated External Works, Including Demolition of the Existing Bungalow and 2 no. Garages.

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Durham City) which recommended the application for approval.   The Principal Planning Officer explained the Members had visited the site that day and gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that some of the objections were potentially libellous and would not be made available for public inspection.  He also advised that on Page 46 all references to a listed bridge should be omitted from Condition 9, and the following:

New Condition 15 proposed to require the erection of and retention of the timber screen as per the amended plans in the interests of residential amenity.

Condition 12 amended so that the boundary wall should be retained in perpetuity and implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme in the interests of preserving archaeology and visual amenity.

Condition 8 – remove reference to Brancepeth Manor as this was a clerical error.

Mrs Squires explained that she lived in Blue Coat Court and the development would have a devastating effect on her privacy and amenity.  The development had an outside staircase and would overlook the houses.  The screen that was proposed would not stop the adjacent residents being overlooked.  The amended plans would still have an effect on her amenity, be intrusive and make a difference to the 27 years privacy she had enjoyed. 

Concern was also expressed about the quaker burial site.  The report from the County Archaeologist had not been made available which gave her concerns about the Planning Officers accuracy.  The site was of archaeological significance and she requested that the application be rejected or deferred until such matters were fully investigated.

Mr Golightly explained that he was the director of St Anthony’s priory and if the proposal reflected a building of the current orientation and shape on site he wouldn’t be objecting.  The proposal would be 10ft above the existing hedge and 20ft along the length and would have a huge impact on local amenity.   He suggested that a modest family home would be acceptable but this was not a modest family home and 5 bedrooms would be beyond the dreams of most families.  Barriers would be created, light denied and requested that the application be deferred.

Mr Kendall, Jane Darbyshire and David Kendall Architects explained that he represented the applicants.  He gave a presentation showing how the proposal would look once it was built.  The site had a heavily difference in ground levels.  From the rear it was one and a half storeys in height.   The burial ground and the boundary would remain undisturbed.  The overlooking issues had been addressed in the redesign and modification of the building.  The amount of glazing had been reduced and a fixed lattice screen added.  The real distance was 26m to Blue Coat Court and the Priory was set very high.  The materials to be used were brick, timber and tile.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the burial site would not be disturbed or full excavation carried out.  Various discussions had taken place with the Archaeology Officer and the full report was available on the website.  There would always be an impact of any development because of the difference in levels.  The proposal was 26m away and it was felt that residential amenity impact had been mitigated in the development.

Councillor Freeman suggested that an additional condition be added which removed the permitted development rights from the graveyard area.  He felt that the proposed plan of how the building would look did not show how residents would be affected and felt that the dwelling could not be described as modest.

Councillor Bleasdale commented that it was a large building and would be intrusive to adjacent residents.  She felt that another site visit could be beneficial.

Councillor Charlton commented that Blue Coat Court would have been considered modern at the time it was built and the proposed house would be a tasteful modern construction which would be 26m away and there would also be a tree an a barrier.  Consequently, she did not think that the proposal would have a large impact on residential amenity.

Councillor Moran commented that the graveyard had been there a long time, that the design was very sympathetic and that the Quakers had no objection to the proposals.

Councillor Taylor commented that a desire to talk further was not a good reason for deferment and also pointed out that Members had already had a site visit.

Councillor Williams asked about the Archaeological report and the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it had been circulated to Members and that the County Archaeologist was happy with the proposals.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report, changes proposed by the Principal Planning Officer and the inclusion of a further condition to remove permitted development rights on the Quaker burial site.