Agenda item

Erection of Detached Dwelling House (Retrospective with Proposed Amendments to Main Roof Shape and Fenestration)

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

Councillor Holland, Ward Member explained that he objected to the application.  Members would have seen on site, the deliberate building of the dwelling beyond the footprint that had been previously approved.  There had been a systematic removal of healthy shrubs and trees.  The MP for the area had submitted an objection and he fully endorsed her submission.  He urged Members to take notice of the objection letter from the MP and the details within it.  The objection drew attention to the significant number of conditions that had been deliberately ignored, no approval had been sought for changes to design or additional windows, the dimension of the dwelling had exceeded the approved drawings by between 5 and 25% and the removal of the trees and shrubs had made matters worse.

It was felt that the application should be refused as it breached many conditions of the original planning permission.  If it was truly a new application then it contravened a number of planning policies such as E14, E16, H13, E32, Q5, Q6, Q8 and Q9.  The key principles that had been breached could not be viable or acceptable and he urged the committee to refuse the application.

Mrs O’Boyle, an objector circulated photographs which showed the outlook prior to the development commencing and various stages of it.  She commented that the local plan was in place to ensure that new housing developments did not have an adverse impact on residents and their amenities.  Residents had not objected to the original application as they felt it was suitable and the screening had provided some protection of amenity.  The extensive trees should have been protected with Tree Preservation Orders.

The Planning Officers report referred to the size and scale of the dwelling.  She added that there was a 23% increase in the height and the installation of the hip roof would not mitigate the overbearing impact it would have on residents.  The house was over dominant which was the view of over 40 residents.

There was not enough space to provide sufficient screening.  The Planning Department had shocked many residents by their recommendations who felt it was unsympathetic to their amenity.  The dwelling was obtrusive and visible from the A167.  It was not in the Conservation Area but did not mean that it should be allowed.  The gable and the height was for unapproved extra living space for the applicant.

Discussions had taken place with Northumbrian Water who had advised that they had not received any scheme for surface drainage.  There had been incidences in heavy rainfall where the area had been full of springs and water.  It was felt that the application should be refused and the Committee support residents amenity.

Mr Iley explained that he was the agent for the applicant.  He had been requested to build on the previous design.  Changes to the design had been negotiated with the Planning Officers and the roof pitch was to be replaced to match the adjacent properties and reduce the effect it would have on residents.  One of the windows had been removed but all other aspects were identical to the original application.  He felt that the roof height was insignificant.   The dwelling conformed to policy in terms of scale and size and met the privacy and amenity distances.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that the height was not insignificant in its own right, but Officers had considered this in the context of what had been built.  The roof height was an extra 1.8m which had been considered not materially harmful as there were generous distances to the neighbouring properties and would thus not appear overbearing.  Some more recent housing estate layouts had a closer inter-relationship than existed here.  The hedge removal was regrettable although there was a condition to be attached if approved, regarding boundary treatment and replacement landscaping which would be enforced.

The applicant had built the dwelling without fully discharging the conditions therefore a temporary stop notice had been served.  The Council would be ensuring all relevant conditions were discharged correctly.  With regard to drainage, the applicant would be required to submit a water drainage scheme in liaison with Northumbrian Water.  The scheme had been assessed on its merits and relationship with existing properties.  It was considered that there would not be an impact on residential amenity and felt that the design was a significant improvement.

Members commented that the increase in height was significant, it was unacceptable that developers did not adhere to the planning permission and conditions imposed.  Although the hip roof was an improvement, the impact would have an adverse effect on the amenity of residents.  More checks should also be carried out when planning conditions were being discharged.

Councillor Charlton queried if the height of the roof could be reduced to the original plans.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that the increase in height was to accommodate the extra space required in the roof for living accommodation.

Councillor Taylor commented that planning authorities must be seen to be reasonable and queried if they could be deemed to be unreasonable if the application was refused.  Mr C Simmonds, Solicitor explained that the planning system was not punitive, the development was required to be acceptable in terms of local plan policy.  The original planning permission could be implemented as a fallback if the application was refused.

Councillor Moran commented that the land sloped away and the ridge roof was in line with existing properties.  When the conditions relating to boundary treatment were discharged, the overlooking in the neighbouring gardens would be alleviated.

Councillor Bell commented that it was regrettable that the dwelling had been built, however, the Council needed to assess the application on its merits.  The dwelling was in line with adjacent properties on the site and the only area that was overlooked was residents’ gardens.  The hip of the roof would help alleviate the problems and overbearing impact that residents felt existed.

Councillor Moran queried if there was any evidence of flooding.  The Principal Planning Services Officer advised that there was no evidence of flooding on the site visit.  Local intelligence suggested that there was localised surface water issues which would be addressed in so far as the development by condition.

Members queried the procedure if the application was refused.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that if refused, the applicant could appeal the decision and the Council could not force the developer to revert to the original application pending the outcome.  If the appeal was unsuccessful the Council could then take enforcement action.

Councillor Blakey queried if the stop notice would continue.  The Solicitor advised that a temporary stop notice was issued which ran for a maximum of 28 days.  A full stop notice could only be issued when enforcement action was being pursued.  Once an appeal was lodged, enforcement action could not be taken until the outcome was known.

Councillor Bleasdale recommended that the application be refused on the impact of the size and scale of the development to residents and residential amenity.

RESOLVED that the application be refused due to its size and scale and the impact of the development on residential amenity.