Agenda item

Three Proposed Detached Dwellings and Detached Garages.

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

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site.

Mrs Aspinall, an objector to the application addressed the Committee. She stated that a previous planning application for 12 dwellings on the site had been refused by Wear Valley District Council, which had also been refused on appeal. She understood that when the site was sold it had been subject to a covenant restricting the use of the land to a garden/allotment area.

With regard to a previous application to fell 33 trees which had been approved, she understood that this was to accommodate works to the sewer. There were also problems with the pumping station after heavy rain and the addition of three properties would exacerbate this.

The proposal for 3 large, 3 storey 5 bedroom houses was over development and was totally out of keeping with the area which was mainly made up of 2 bedroom terraced houses. As this was a conservation area the application should not be permitted.

With regard to the road, the approach from the town centre was narrow and 2 vehicles could not pass at the same time in some places. There was a very dangerous corner at 1 Wear Chare and the road was very busy in peak periods. The gap created by the proposed development site helped visibility.

To conclude she stated that she understood that if approval was granted the removal of the covenant would need to be considered but she believed that it should be honoured.

J Lavender, the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, stating that Planning Officers had undertaken a detailed examination of the application which had been submitted after extensive discussions and following the withdrawal of an earlier application.

The report demonstrated that consideration had been given to all relevant issues and Planning Officers were satisfied that the proposal would deliver high quality housing, preserve the character of a conservation area and that it represented a sustainable development.

The covenant on the land was not a material planning consideration.

An application had been refused 15 years ago but this was because of the number of units proposed. The design of the houses in the current proposal had been discussed in detail with Officers and their comments taken on board.

With regard to the reference to the sewer and the pumping station, he advised that Northumbrian Water had been consulted on the application and had offered no objections.

With regard to the comments about traffic, he acknowledged that the road was narrow in places but that this encouraged traffic to travel more slowly.

The applicant’s statement referred to the development being 200m from the town centre. Bishop Auckland needed housing in and around the centre to support the sustainability of the town centre.

Therefore he concluded that the proposed development should be welcomed, particularly in view of its proximity to the town centre.

D Stewart, Highways Officer confirmed that the road was narrow but that the increased traffic generated by the development would be minimal. The road was a through road and Highways had no objections to the proposal.

A Member referred to the number of cars per property and asked if Highways views would have been any different if the application had been for a greater number of smaller houses as opposed to 3 large properties with double garages.

D Stewart responded that in terms of traffic generation the size and number of properties would make little difference. There would have been concerns if terraced houses had been proposed with no parking provision.

A Member spoke on behalf of the local Member and stated that the application should be refused because of the possible impact on the badger set and bats. The site had always been a place where people had picnics and walked, it was close to Auckland Park and she felt that it should be maintained as an amenity for recreation, being one of the few recreation areas in Bishop Auckland.

The Chair clarified that the report stated that the houses were situated well away from the badger set to ensure that there was no disturbance caused by the development.

A Member commented that he was concerned that this application was recommended for approval yet was in a conservation area. This was in contradiction to the earlier application considered in respect of Marden House.

A further Member concurred with this but felt that this application should be refused, as open space in a town centre was rare.

Following discussion it was RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.