Agenda item

Outline Permission for Erection of Detached Dwellinghouse.

Consideration was given to the report submitted in relation to the above application, a copy of which had been circulated.

A Inch, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. It was noted that a site visit had taken place that day.

M Peat, the applicant, stated that he was born in Barnard Castle and had lived on Darlington Road for the majority of his life, returning to the area after university to work as a vet in Teesdale. He wanted to continue living in Barnard Castle and proposed to build a house on this site that would respect the architecture and rural character of the area. He wanted to live on this site in particular, as in the coming years he would take a greater role in the running of Marden Farm. He replied to some of the points raised in the Planning Officer’s report, as follows:-

The proposal would not fit in with the rural surrounding

The site was between two existing dwellings, with a road to the north, and a further dwelling and farm buildings to the south.

The scale of the building would overshadow the adjacent bungalow

The report stated that there was enough scope within the size and proportions of the site to arrive at a design that would not compromise the amenity or privacy of the occupiers of Roseberry.

He respected any comments made by the occupiers of Roseberry and if permission was granted would consult with them further.

Good quality agricultural land would be lost

The area was mainly used as a holding area after sheep had been through the pens at the farm buildings. The remainder of the field would still fulfil this purpose.

The proposal was outside the development limits of Barnard Castle

If a fence had been erected in line with the proposed development, in all probability the site would have been included as it adjoined 3 existing properties to the east.

There were many houses for sale in the town

He considered that there was a lack of this type of development in Barnard Castle.

Loss of privacy and amenity to the adjoining property

The comments stated in relation to Roseberry were even more true for the other adjoining property.

Increase in traffic

He already passed the site in order to travel to work on a daily basis so there would be no increase in traffic.

Low mains water pressure

Darlington Road had good water pressure. A Northumbrian Water officer had informed him that there was a 4 inch plastic main supply from the Stainton Booster Station that went along Darlington Road terminating at the footpath entrance to Churchill Road. If any house had low pressure it could only be that there was a problem between the mains and the house.

The letters of support were from relatives of the applicants

Letters asking for a response were sent to these people by Planning Officers as they owned land or property adjacent to the site.

Eight residents of Darlington Road who lived very close to the site had signed a form stating that they had no objection to a dwelling being built to the west of Marden house.

Historical records suggested that Marden was the original farm house

Marden was not built as a farm house and had not been owned by a farmer for 24 years.

Marden House terminated the built environment of Barnard Castle

This was incorrect as there were a further 2 houses, a caravan site and a stone built farm building to the east of Marden along Darlington Road. One of these houses was the most recent to be built on Darlington Road.

He added that it should be noted that a gap of over 10 metres would still remain allowing views of the countryside beyond.

To conclude M Peat stated that he believed that a sensitively positioned, well built house in this residential area would add to the unique character of Darlington Road.

A Inch responded that the site was located outside the settlement limits of Barnard Castle, and so its development would not be in accordance with the adopted Teesdale District Local Plan. There was clearly a gap between the site and the more densely developed parts of Barnard Castle. It terminated the built environment and was the start of the countryside, despite there being a few buildings beyond the site.

In response to questions A Inch advised that policies in relation to new housing in Barnard Castle only favoured those sites that had previously been developed. This was an outline application and if approved details of access, layout etc would form part of reserved matters. He confirmed that the Highways Section would be consulted as part of this.

A Member commented that because of the other properties and caravan site in the location, he considered that as long as the development did not affect the amenity value of Roseberry, the application should be approved. A further Member considered that in his opinion, as there were properties either side of the proposed dwelling, it did not constitute development in the open countryside.

The local Member stated that whilst it was a greenfield site he considered that it represented infill development and the application should be approved, subject to the development being carried out sensitively. 

RESOLVED that

(i)                 the application for outline planning permission be approved on the grounds that, although recognised as a Greenfield site outside of the development limits of Barnard Castle, the proposed development, while departing from Policy H6 of the Teesdale District Local Plan, would infill a gap between Roseberry and Marden House and would not therefore encroach harmfully into the open countryside. The scheme was considered acceptable in terms of highway safety, landscape impact and residential amenity.