Agenda item

Erection of Dwelling House (Retrospective with Amendment to Lower Main Roof and Fenestration)

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

Mrs O Boyle, an objector presented photographs which showed the previous and present outlook from objector’s properties.  Residents had assumed that following the Committee’s refusal of the application in July, building work would cease.  The applicant had continued to work on the property and had replaced the much improved roof albeit in the absence of a planning approval. 

The applicant had a total disregard of the approved plans.  Residents had insisted that the house was too high, too long and in the wrong position.   A survey had finally been carried out which had confirmed that the house had been built not in accordance with the approved plans.  The house was situated 1m further into the plot, past the boundary of No 22 Field House Lane which decreased the narrow distances even further.

The dwelling was 1.5m lower at the back than the front and the land sloped from east to west.  Planning Officer’s may consider that it was negligible but whoever purchased the house could have difficulties with access, especially if they were disabled.

There was a difference in height of 1.8m, length of 1.3m and was 2m closer to neighbouring properties.  There was a gradual slope and the land to the south was too low lying.

A high fence and screening was required to deal with the impact of the development.  There had been an application for 14 homes in 2008 when some residents had objected to the detail.  When that application had been approved there was to be a large contribution for loss of play land.  Residents were concerned that the current houses could be split as they were extremely large.  It was felt that residents had suffered enough and the application should be refused.

Councillor Holland explained that he supported residents.  Following the refusal of the application in July, he expected the applicant to revert to the original plans that were approved in 2009.  The applicant had not reverted to the original planning approval and continued working on the property without permission.  Planning Officers had recommended approval in July and were therefore happy with the proposals

Residents’ welfare and privacy needed to be protected.  Prior to the building works commencing, there was a protective screen of trees and shrubs to residents which had been removed by the applicant and the whole site exposed.  A satisfactory screen needed to be reinstated fully on the boundary.  A low screen should not be acceptable and mature trees and shrubs should be an essential condition.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that there had been significant issues with the history of the case and relationships with local residents.  Officers had sought to consult and negotiate as much as possible.  A meeting had been held with residents and the MP to discuss the development.  The main thrust of the meeting was that immediate privacy must be afforded to residents.  Condition 6 was a new condition and sought to address the boundary issue.  The shrubs and trees would be of a size and maturity and would offer immediate effect.  Officers needed to come to an agreement with the applicant on the final boundary treatment required.

One new objection had been received regarding the issue of massing.  The distance to the closest property was a minimum of 28m which he did not think was overbearing or detrimental to residential amenity and in light of the large improvement to the roof, the development was deemed acceptable.

Councillor Charlton commented that the lowering of the roof had improved the outlook for residents immensely and a high standard of screening would protect their privacy.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.