Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved for a proposed single storey dwelling and demolish existing structures with associated access works.

The Planning Officer, Susan Hyde 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, SH advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was an outline application with all matters reserved for a proposed single storey dwelling and demolition of existing structures with associated works and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer, SH explained there was an update to the report as circulated, noting that following assessments Environmental Health would not require a condition in terms of contaminated land should the application be approved.

The Planning Officer, SH explained referred Members to plans, aerial photographs and a proposed indicative site layout. 

She noted the existing stables on site and referred to the small scale of the village of High Hesleden.  Members were asked to note that there was the issue of sustainability, with the village only having a single public house and infrequent public transport.

It was explained that the Highways Section had no objections to the application, subject to a condition to upgrade the access and road along The Elms to an adoptable standard.  It was reiterated there had been no objections from Environmental Health and noted there were no objections from Ecology, subject to a s106 legal agreement to secure contributions toward the Heritage Coast.  The Planning Officer, SH noted 25 letters of support had been received and one letter had noted the unfinished state of the road along The Elms and suggested that the road be brought up to adoptable standard.  It was reiterated that this was included within the application.

The Planning Officer, SH noted the main issue in planning terms was that of being a sustainable location.  She reiterated the small nature of the village and lack of facilities and cited as recent appeal decision for a site within the village where the Planning Inspectorate had rejected an appeal against as refusal by the Council for three houses elsewhere within the village.  She explained that the Officers’ view was consistent with that of the Inspector.  It was explained that the Landscape Officer had noted no objections, if the property was a bungalow it was felt it would fit in well and not be a detriment in terms of views.

The Planning Officer, SH reiterated that the recommendation was for refusal as the application was not considered to be sustainable development and therefore was contrary to saved Policies 1 and 35 of the District of Easington Local Plan and Part 2 of the NPPF.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, SH and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out a statement on behalf of Local Member, Councillor R Crute, in support of the application, noting his fellow divisional Member, Councillor L Pounder supported the statement.

“Writing in support of this planning application we consider that it turns on a number of key points, namely the principle of development, impact on the character amenity and appearance of the surrounding area, its ecological impact and finally highway access and safety. We note that these points are broadly similar to those set out by the planning case officer in the planning report and we propose to take each one in turn:

In terms of the principle of development we acknowledge that whilst High Hesleden does have limited services there is a regular bus service linking the village to facilities in Hesleden, Blackhall Colliery and Peterlee with its frequent public transport links to all of the main conurbations in the North-East region. An application for a housing development of a significantly larger size may pose difficulties in terms of sustainability but we feel that an application to erect a single property of this size would have a negligible impact.

In noting the design proposals, we consider that the development would complement the current character and appearance of the village, it being sympathetic to the existing development. In also noting that the proposal is to build on previously used land we agree with the planning case officer’s assessment that the impact of this development is “not considered significant.”

We note that statutory consultee comments in terms of the ecological impact of the development raise no objection.

In addition, we note that there are no objections from a highway safety perspective, and further we agree with the recommended condition that the highway be brought to an adoptable standard which we feel would adequately address any outstanding concerns from a highways perspective.

We note that there are no objections in relation to land contamination issues.

Finally, we would draw the attention of planning committee members to the significant local support for this development. 25 individual letters of support from village residents and businesses were submitted alongside a petition of 48 residents supporting the application and offering no objections. In our experience we find such local endorsement for a development proposal in a village the size of High Hesleden to be extraordinary. Although this alone would not constitute a material planning consideration we feel that this level of support from residents should be acknowledged in determining this planning application.

In conclusion, for the reasons set out in our comments above, we would strongly urge members of the planning committee to approve this planning application which we feel would be an asset to the village”.

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked the Planning Officer, SH to comment on the issues raised.  The Planning Officer, SH reiterated that the main issue was sustainability as set out within the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, SH and asked Mr Arron Atmore, Agent for the application to speak in support of the application.

Mr A Atmore noted the apologies of the applicant, Mr R Catleugh, as he had been unable to attend the Committee meeting.  He explained that Mr and Mrs Catleugh lived in High Hesleden and that due to factors including old age it was not possible for them to continue living in their existing property on The Elms.  He added that they had hoped to build a bungalow at The Elms, so they could remain in the village and at The Elms.

Mr A Atmore noted the application was strongly supported by the Local Members, a 48-signature petition, 25 letters of support, and the one letter suggesting the improvement of the road to an adoptable standard.  He explained that when looking at options in terms of access, other points onto Micklehill Road would not be suitable due to traffic calming infrastructure and junction.  He added the proposal for access that would include the road at The Elms being made up to an adoptable standard would benefit a number of other residents.

In reference to sustainability, Mr A Atmore noted the site had previously been developed, there was the public house as mentioned by the Planning Officer and there was a bus route linked the village to the other settlements nearby.  He noted that he felt the sustainability argument in fact had the potential to stagnate small villages and reiterated that the proposed development was for one bungalow, not a large number of properties.  Mr A Atmore noted he hoped that the Committee would be supportive of the application and grant approval.

The Chair thanked Mr A Atmore and asked the Planning Officer, SH if she wished to comment on the points raised.  The Planning Officer, SH noted the summary of the issues by Mr A Atmore was a fair one, in terms of only the one public house and an infrequent bus service.

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

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he was sick and tired of sustainability being used as a reason to refuse applications for previously developed sites.  He noted previous decisions in similar cases where applications had been recommended for approval and noted he felt some consistency was needed.  He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor M Davinson agreed with the comments made by Councillor J Shuttleworth and those of the Agent.  He noted the application would allow for an improved quality of life for the applicant and allow another person or family to move into their existing property.  He added that the benefits would include the completion of the road at The Elms to an adoptable standard, increasing residential amenity. 

Councillor M Davinson noted the site was a brownfield site and added he felt the proposed development was a good thing and would second that the application be approved.

Councillor D Brown reminded Members that a development at the west side of the village had been approved approximately two years ago and he agreed with previous comments as regards consistency of decisions.      

The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked if those Members proposing approval could elaborate on their reasoning, referring them to the NPPF paragraph 11 test as set out at paragraph 55 of the report.  Councillor M Davinson noted that he felt that the development was sustainable and that the benefits included the improvements to the road, increased housing choice locally.

The Planning Officer noted that within 400 metres of the property the only facility was the public house and public transport was infrequent, however, she noted Members felt on balance the improvements to the road and additional housing provision were such that the adverse impacts of granting permission did not outweigh the benefits.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that if Members were minded to approve the application it would need the usual suite of conditions and a s106 agreement as mentioned within the report.  He asked if those proposing and seconding the application would wish for those to be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Committee.  Councillors J Shuttleworth and M Davinson agreed.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to a s106 Planning Obligation to secure a payment of £756.61 for coastal mitigation and a suite of conditions to be delegated to the Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.