Agenda item

Domestic Garage.

The Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Planning Officer, JJ advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of a domestic garage and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that the application site was side garden within the curtilage of the applicant’s property, with the property being the last within a group of properties.  She referred Members to plans and noted that the Green Belt covered all the areas, up to the neighbouring Tyne and Wear Green belt, excluding the industrial estate on the opposite side of the B1285.  Members were referred to the site visit and photographs as regards the openness of the site and location within the green belt.  Councillors were referred to proposed elevations.

The Planning Officer, JJ explained that Highways had offered no objections, and noted that should the application be granted then a condition such to prevent unauthorised use as a business should be included.  She added the Landscape Officer had commented noting there would be some adverse landscape and visual effects.  Councillors noted no objections from Environmental Health and that no objections had been received from neighbouring properties.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that in terms of the principle of development, NPPF paragraphs 144-146 set out issues relating to development in the green belt.  She added that the proposed triple garage was felt to be disproportionate and erode the openness of the green belt. 

It was noted the garden was enclosed in 2007, previously open grassland, and that permission granted at that time for construction of a property had removed permitted development rights in order to seek control of incursion of development beyond the approved built area.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that the test set out in paragraph 144 of the NPPF noted that any development within the green belt by definition was harmful and impacted upon the openness of the green belt.  She added that Officers did not feel that there was a clear justification for the garage and that there was no special circumstance that outweighed the harm that would be caused by the development.  Accordingly, the Planning Officer, JJ noted that the recommendation was for refusal as application was contrary to Policy 4 of the saved District of Easington Local Plan and Part 13 of the NPPF.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked Local Member, Councillor S Morrison to speak in support of the application.

Councillor S Morrison thanked the Chair and noted apologies from the applicant and her fellow Divisional Councillor and Committee Member, G Bleasdale who was unable to attend the meeting today.

Councillor S Morrison noted she spoke on behalf of herself and Councillor G Bleasdale and they had two issues with concerns raised within the report, namely in connection with size and the position of the application site within the green belt.

In terms of the size of the proposed garage, Councillor S Morrison noted that Members had seen during their site visit that the existing single car garage on the opposite side of the property was not sufficient for such a large property and the number of vehicles parked on the drive was a testament to that fact.  She added that there was equipment, such as ride-on lawnmowers, that were also stored within the existing garage, necessary for maintaining the large lawn areas around the property.  Councillor S Morrison noted the end of terrace location meant such equipment could be at greater risk of theft and therefore had to be secured properly.

Councillor S Morrison noted the Officer’s report set out that the proposals represented a 32 percent increase in the developed area of the site, however, also noted that this may not necessarily be considered excessive.  She added that she felt the design was good, and that other suggestions, such as rotating the garage through 90 degrees would be a poorer design.

In terms of the green belt, Councillor S Morrison noted that the Easington Green Belt did not in fact merge with that at Ryhope, with the industrial estate opposite and surrounding farmland. 

She noted the site had been a bus depot at one point and other properties along this part of the “high road” had high fencing and hedges and therefore unless you were travelling on a double decker bus you would not be able to see the green space beyond.  She added the views of such were better obtained from the other route along the coast road.

Councillor S Morrison highlighted that there were no objections from neighbours, no objections from the public and therefore she asked the Committee to approve the application as she felt it was not disproportionately large and would not impact upon green belt.

The Chair thanked Councillor S Morrison and asked the Planning Officer, JJ to respond to the points raised.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted that while the footprint may not be considered excessively large, the frontage was large and represented a greater impact on the openness.  She reiterated that in the past the edge of the site had not been enclosed as it is now and therefore the appearance has always been as greenfield.  She reiterated that these were the reasons for the proposed development being recommended for refusal. Historical maps do not show the site as having been a bus depot in the past.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Shuttleworth reiterated that he felt the views of Local Members should be given weight and he therefore proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor M Davinson noted the application site had been in the green belt for a number of years and asked what was different in this case, in comparison to approvals granted in the past, for example for the current property.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted that green belt was adopted as part of the 2001 Easington Local Plan and that the upcoming County Durham Plan would seek to retain this green belt.  She explained that an initial application in 2003 had subsequently been withdrawn, and the application in 2004 had a significantly smaller foot print and had been approved.  It was noted that the application in 2007 for a house and garage was granted, and the application had also sought change of use for the land to the south of the site for domestic use, this being the area where permitted development rights had been removed.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted a 2012 application for a front porch had been granted, this not having an impact upon the green belt.

The Chair asked if there was a seconder to the proposal by Councillor J Shuttleworth for approval of the application.  As there was no seconder, the Chair asked if any Members had any other proposals.

Councillor M Davinson noted he would proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer’s report as it was not possible to discount that the application was within the green belt.  He was seconded by Councillor D Brown.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.