Agenda item

Erection of two dwellings and detached garage.

The Planning Officer, Nick Graham 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 Planning Officer, NG noted a slight change, with the application now being for the erection of two dwellings and with 3 attached garages, previously to be detached, and added the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out within the report.

The Planning Officer, NG noted that as a consequence of the change in terms of the garages, amended plans had been submitted and conditions 2 and 6 would be updated with the amended plan numbers accordingly, along with an additional condition requiring the materials used to match those on the host dwelling.

Members noted the location and surrounding properties including the Blue Bell Public House and South Causey Inn, with Stanley town centre approximately ¾ mile to the south-west.

The Planning Officer, NG noted no objections from statutory or internal consultees subject to conditions, though the Landscape Officer had noted the site’s proximity to an AHLV; prominence following felling of non-protected trees to the northern boundary; the size and location of the structure to be of an unfamiliar domestic scale in the settlement edge location; and that the proposal would reduce the visual amenity value and rural character of the AHLV in the prominent gateway location.

In relation to representations on the application, the Planning Officer, NG noted 2 letters of objection, with issues including: services, no public footpath, street lighting, sewerage connection and highway impact in terms of increased traffic.  It was added objections were also made in terms of the proposed development having impact in terms of the character of the area and that policy was in place that looked to protect such character, and that other sites within the area should be prioritised for housing.

The Planning Officer, NG noted that Officers felt the application constituted sustainable development, albeit with little weight in terms of a boost to housing numbers.  He added the impact in terms of the public houses and road were noted, however, it was felt this was sufficiently mitigated via condition.  It was explained that amenity impact was also felt to be mitigated via condition and as it was felt the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, in terms of Paragraph 11 of the NPPF the recommendation was for approval.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer, NG and noted one speaker in objection to the application and asked Mr J Donnelly to address the Committee.

Mr J Donnelly noted he was speaking on behalf of the Residents of Beamishburn Road in objection to the application.  He explained he had read the Officer’s report and noted the NPPF presumption in favour of new development.  He added he felt this was arbitrary and not fair and did not take into account the welfare and quality of existence of existing residents. 

Mr J Donnelly noted that it had been set out that the Authority could demonstrate its housing supply and the statement at paragraph 73 of the report in terms of “…benefits of adding to the County housing supply…” was therefore not relevant to the application and in any event the addition of two properties in relation to 1,368 properties per annum OAN figure was insignificant.  He added it was felt the application was “garden grabbing” and would be of detriment to the area.

Mr J Donnelly noted the comments from the Highways Officer and that no objections had been raised.  He explained that the proposed access was below a crested hill and that visibility 6 months of the year was compromised.  He added that he spoke on behalf of the long-term Residents and from the heart, not being a case of “nimbyism” rather the 4 existing properties and pub represented an isolated settlement of a certain character and that the proposals would impact upon this and also be an encroachment into the countryside.

The Chairman thanked Mr J Donnelly and noted the Committee would need to make a decision based upon planning legislation.  He asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor O Milburn noted she was a Local Member for the Tanfield Division and she disagreed with the Officer’s report.  She noted that the character of the area and the “new road”, circa 1932, together with the 4 properties, also being the route to access and approach to Beamish Hall, the Aston Martin Workshop and a Vintage Car Showroom.  She asked if a traffic survey had been undertaken.  The Principal Highway DM Engineer noted that there was an average speed of 28.3mph and (AADT) annual average daily traffic flows of 695 vehicles, representing low speeds and a low volume of traffic.

Councillor O Milburn noted the nearby equestrian centre, with riders coming out on to the road and the additional traffic at times, for example the nearby Inn being used as a wedding venue.  She added that in addition to concerns in relation to traffic, the drawings associated with the application looked to out of keeping with the look and feel of the existing properties, being huge compared to the current buildings.

Councillor A Hopgood noted when looking at maps and images of the site, what was proposed did not seem to bear any resemblance to what was currently there, and would not blend in at all.  She added that 4 bedroom properties would likely have a minimum of 2 cars, and with a shared drive and garages unlikely to house vehicles.  She queried where parking would take place as there was no highway that could be utilised.  The Principal Highway DM Engineer noted a blue line on the plans as displayed on the projector screen.  He explained this represented the length of the driveway and turning head, and that the dimensions were such to be able to accommodate the required parking within the curtilage.

Councillor A Hopgood asked if there was any negotiation in terms of the design.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the application as submitted was that to be determined.  The Planning Officer, NG explained there had been extensive discussions, including pre-application, and it was felt by Planners that the design had reached a point where it was considered acceptable.

Councillor L Boyd noted she agreed with Councillors O Milburn and A Hopgood that the application was out of keeping with the area and felt there were issues in the area with traffic on the small country roads.

Councillor J Robinson noted that he felt the application was contrary to Saved Local Plan Policy GDP1, in that the design was not of a high standard and therefore did not protect the heritage or protect or respect local amenity.  He added he felt that the proposals would dominate the area and did not represent in-fill.  He added he had not noted any reference to demolition of the existing garage.

Councillor M Davinson noted the design was differed to that of existing properties and added he felt the design as shown on the elevation drawings looked more akin to a public building, such as a court, rather than a residential property.  Councillor M Davinson noted he had ran past the application site a few days earlier and had noted at that time there were issues with vehicles not being able to get through.  The Principal Highway DM Engineer noted the nature of the road, on the periphery of residential development, with 50 metres between dwellings. 

He added that the area was more rural, however, there were low speeds, good visibility, good edge marking and “slow” markings on the road.

The Planning Officer, NG added that, in response to Councillor J Robinson, Paragraph 2 referred to the demolition of the existing garage and that permission was not needed for this and therefore did not form part of the application.  He reiterated that there had been a change to the proposal, with the original detached garage to the front of the dwellings removed with attached garages now being proposed.

Councillor A Hopgood asked as regards the 28mph average speeds as stated.  The Principal Highway DM Engineer noted this represented the 85^th percentile average speed and explained this equated to a requirement of approximately 43 metres in terms of visibility.  He added that there was around 100 metres, and while there was a crest in the road, there was a long visibility distance and in terms of weather conditions, road users would drive to the conditions at the time.  He concluded by noting that Highways had no issues relating to visibility.

Councillor O Milburn moved that the application be refused, as she felt it was contrary to Saved Local Plan Policy GDP1 as the design was not of a high quality in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and did not protect existing landscape features.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the policy had a wide scope and asked if the Member could drill down in terms of which specific aspects she felt the application was contrary to.  Councillor O Milburn noted it was the design and in terms of landscape, how the building would sit in the landscape, it would be visible for miles.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development reminded Members that if agreeing to the motion put forward then they would be saying that adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the development.  Councillor J Robinson seconded the motion for refusal.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused as the proposal was considered to be contrary to Part (a) of Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan and Part 12 of the NPPF as the development is not considered to be of a high standard of design and not in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. In addition, the proposal was contrary to Part (c) of Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan and Part 15 of the NPPF as the development would not protect existing landscape features. In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, the adverse impacts of the development outlined above were considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.

Councillor D Boyes left the meeting at 3.40pm