Agenda item

Bungalow (Resubmission)

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area Office) which recommended refusal.  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.

Mr B Scorer, agent for the applicant referred to the Planning Officer’s concern that the new dwelling would look onto a rear lane and residential standards of amenity would be unsatisfactory.  All existing rear elevations of the properties on Grange Terrace faced onto the rear lane and the objection on those grounds had little substance.  The proposed development was also set back from the rear lane and would be separated by a garden and parking area.

Residential Amenity Saved Policy 35 (iv) required new development to have no serious adverse affect on the amenity of people living and working in the vicinity of the development site and the existing use of adjacent land or buildings in terms of privacy, visual intrusion, noise, other pollutants and traffic generation. The report did not specifically identify any of those material considerations as significant factors to support the recommendation of refusal.

With regard to a precedent being set, planning applications were considered on their individual merits and the applicant was requesting Members to consider his personal disability needs as providing the special circumstance for granting the proposed development as an exception.

In response to the Officers comments regarding the needs of the applicant, it was pointed out that the development sites at Fleming Fields and Windsor Place were not for single development plots and the applicant had been unable to find a suitable available bungalow in Shotton where he wished to remain.

The report omitted to mention that within the Design and Access Statement the applicant had stated that if permission was granted he was willing to improve the surfacing of the full rear lane which would have an amenity benefit for all the residents in Grange Terrace.

In conclusion, the goal was to ensure that everyone had the opportunity to live in a decent home, which they could afford in a community where they wanted to live and to meet that aspiration he requested that the application be approved.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that it would be difficult to refuse subsequent applications as a precedent would be set and he accepted that planning applications were considered on their own merits.

The Chair queried if the applicants disability was taken into consideration.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that he didn’t feel the disability was sufficient to outweigh the concerns.

Councillor Blakey raised concerns regarding the adjacent building.  It looked to be a high garage built on a Greenfield site.

Councillor Charlton commented that she was concerned about the Greenfield status.  If it was 2 years ago then it would have been classed as a brownfield site.

The Chair commented that the Government had changed policies to stop building in back gardens.

Councillor Iveson explained that she was concerned about the contaminated land study.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that it was a standard requirement for a contaminated land assessment to be carried out this did not imply that the site was unsuitable for development.

Councillor Bleasdale commented that the adjacent building looked like a small bungalow with garage doors.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the garage was a large building with two garage doors, there was room in the roof space but as far as he was aware the garage was used as storage and did not have any domestic doors.

Members considered that the standards of residential amenity would be satisfactory and the development would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the area.  

RESOLVED that the application be conditionally approved and Officers be granted delegated authority to attach suitable conditions.