Agenda item

5 no. dwellings all matters reserved except access

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for 5 no. dwellings all matters reserved except access at Land to the rear of West Terrace, Billy Row (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, site layout and photographs of the site.

In response to a question from the Chairman regarding an objection relating to the collection of refuse and recycling, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there would be no need for bins to be placed at the bottom of the access lane.  The refuse and recycling team had agreed to provide one large industrial size bin, which would service all five properties.  The Council would collect the bin from the top of the lane it would be loaded onto the wagon, emptied and returned.

Local Member, Councillor Manchester confirmed that there were a number of concerns regarding the access route.  The agreed waste collection identified that it was not possible for a refuse vehicle to collect waste and therefore it would not be possible for emergency services access.

The lane was unable to meet adoptable standards and the report referred to access for five properties, not including the property on West Terrace.  Councillor Manchester asked the Committee to reject the application.

Local resident, Mr Sewell confirmed that he did not object to the application in principal as the applicant was attempting to maximise the value of his land, but he did object to the proposed access route.  The main access to the North of the field had been blocked due to the erection of another property and the lane was not wide enough for a vehicle and a wheelchair user or pedestrian to pass.

The length of the lane was not insignificant at 37m from the gate to the road and should the houses each have four bedrooms, there could be 15 cars plus delivery or service vehicles, and cars driving in opposite directions would create queueing.  Mr Sewell suggested that legally there should be 3.7m between kerbs as a minimum for a fire appliance.  Walls had already been damaged by vehicles and he considered that because of the width of the lane and the inability for it to meet adoptable standards, the application should be refused.

Mr Dolphin, local resident and owner of the abutting property, The Old Chapel, confirmed that the applicant had previously approached him to knock down the wall and bathroom of his property.  This was for an application for 28 houses and he questioned whether there would be a further application for more houses, should this application be approved.  He had lived in his property for 30 years and planted flowers in the lane which would all be destroyed should the lane be tarmacked from wall to wall.  Mr Dolphin questioned why the lane was the preferred access route and suggested that an alternative route to the South West of the land be considered.

The Agent, Dr Lang, spoke on behalf of the applicant and confirmed that the access would not be the narrowest in the County.  There were lanes as narrow as 2.85m and considered that a lane of 3.7m at its narrowest was sufficient for emergency vehicular access.  He referred to the width of a standard garage door at 2.2m, in order to put the width of the road into context.  This road at its narrowest had an additional 1.5m which was ample for pedestrians and wheelchair users to pass alongside vehicles, and with regards to visibility he confirmed that applied caution at the junction was likely to make it safer.  When considering the transport infrastructure, the NPPF was clear that a reason for refusal needed to be associated with severe cumulative impact, which could not be identified in this case.

Dr Lang referred to a dispute over the ownership of the lane and although he acknowledged that it was a civil matter, he had a copy of the title deeds as confirmation that the lane was owned by the applicant.  He referred to the alleged damage to walls and confirmed that this was a civil matter and not something that could be considered by the Committee.

Dr Lang confirmed that the proposed development would meet the demand for bungalows and eliminate the continued anti-social behaviour.  He asked the Committee to approve the application as per the recommendation in the report.

In responding to the issues raised regarding the width of the lane, the Planning and Development Solicitor confirmed that building regulations were not considered as part of the planning process and Highways were satisfied that the access was safe.   With regards to the constraint of five dwellings, this was primarily related to access and therefore should the applicant manage to attain a wider access route through the purchase of land, there could be future applications.  However this was not something that could be considered as part of this decision, neither was the dispute of ownership or the issues regarding the flowerbeds.

The Chairman asked for more information relating to bin collection and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that refuse services had confirmed that waste collections could take place without the need for bins to be left on the road or village green.  Two commercial waste bins would be provided and stored on the site.   A refuse strategy and bin storage area was conditioned.

Councillor Thompson had concerns related to drainage should the lane be tarmacked and he also considered the waste strategy problematic and could set a precedent.  He queried the position of the Council with regards to the five year housing land supply.

The Planning Development Solicitor confirmed that there was no certainty around the five year housing supply as in the absence of a County Durham Plan, there was no methodology in place to demonstrate one.  He also confirmed that it was not advisable for the Committee to suggest alternative waste collection strategies as the refuse and recycling team had devised it and were best placed to do so.

Councilllor Brown confirmed that reference had been made to the width of the lane as 3.7m however the report referred to it being 3.5m at its narrowest.  She also referred to Dr Langs statement that the properties built would be bungalows, as the plans showed family homes and she had concerns with regards to safety should the lane be used by children to walk to school.

Councillor Tinsley considered the principal of development did exist and observed that the access was wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles.  He did have concerns regarding delivery trucks as the road may not be wide enough to accommodate a vehicle turning.  Overall he considered the access to be inadequate, but not enough to warrant refusal.

Councillor Clare referred to drainage constraints and noted that there should be no more surface water runoff on brownfield land.  When considering the lane was approximately 4m x 37m long and on an inclinem he queried the potential impact on the village green should it be tarmacked. 

The Planning Development Solicitor confirmed that those issues were veering into reserved matters and confirmed that Northumbrian Water would approve an appropriate drainage scheme as conditioned in the report.

Councillor Richardson did not approve of the access and did not consider drainage would be sufficient in a torrential downpour.  He also queried the access arrangements with regard to the small paddock at the north west of the field.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that he was unaware of the exact access arrangements, however access to the remaining paddock would likely be from a field gate in the corner of the development site.  He confirmed that the site was on a hillside and runoff could be expected, however any techniques to alleviate the impact would be dealt with through a planning condition requiring drainage details which was included.

Councillor Richardson requested that Dr Lang be more considerate when advising of legislative process and reminded him that the decision rested with the Committee.

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that although the access was inadequate, there were no grounds to refuse the application and moved the recommendation to approve.

Councillor Clare noted that a detailed drainage plan would be agreed at reserved matters and seconded the recommendation to approve.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.