Agenda item

Erection of 1 no. detached bungalow.

The Planning Officer, SH 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 for the erection of 1 no. detached bungalow and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer, SH explained there was an update in respect of paragraph 45 of the report, with the Archaeology Section noting that the was the potential for finds and the if the application were granted then a watching brief on archaeological remains should be put in place.

The Planning Officer, SH referred to plans and aerial photographs, noting the site was on the edge of Flass Vale, a local nature reserve, a heavily wooded area.  She added that the site was within the green belt, the Conservation area, an area of high landscape value (AHLV) and nature reserve.  She noted the green belt was set out within the saved City of Durham Local Plan and the boundary ran part-way through the applicant’s existing bungalow.

Members were asked to note the narrow access to the site, leading to the existing bungalow and then on to a public footpath leading into Flass Vale.

The Planning Officer, SH noted there were several TPOs in the area, and there was the additional protection afforded by the Conservation Area.

The Committee noted no objections from the Highways Section, subject to conditions relating to parking and bin storage to be located no further than 25 metres from the public highway for collection.  The Planning Officer, SH noted no objections from Environmental Health/Contaminated Land, and that the Landscape and Tree Officers had noted the issues as mentioned in relation to the Conservation Area, AHLV and TPOs and noted a number of surveys that would need to be provided in order to assess the proposal.

The Planning Officer, SH explained that the Ecology Section had noted there was a need for an assessment in terms of Priority Species, namely bats, badgers and Great Crested Newts.

Councillor D Freeman left the meeting at 4.05pm

It was noted the City of Durham Parish Council had objected to the application as it represented development within the green belt.  The Planning Officer, SH added that the City of Durham Trust had objected, noting the AHLV and the archaeological importance of the adjacent Maiden’s Bower Burial Mound.

The Planning Officer, SH noted that the application was for a development within the green belt, and was by definition inappropriate development, contrary to saved Local Plan Policy E1 and Part 13 of the NPPF. 

She added that there been no special circumstances cited in support of the development within the green belt and any development would affect the openness of the green belt.  Accordingly, the Planning Officer, SH noted the recommendation was for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, SH and asked Local County Councillor, and Parish Councillor, Councillor L Brown to speak in objection to the application.

Councillor L Brown thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and congratulated Officers in coming to what she felt was the right decision in recommending refusal of the application.  She explained she was 14 years old when the first bulldozers went into Flass Vale in 1973 which were stopped at the very last minute.  She added it took years for the ecological balance to recover and she had been thrilled when the area became a Local Nature Reserve in 1982.  Councillor L Brown noted that apart from that, the application site was within the green belt, the Durham City Conservation Area, was alongside Maiden’s Bower, a Bronze Age Burial Mound which also may have been part of the site of the Battle of Neville’s Cross.

She added there were therefore a whole raft of local saved policies and national planning policies that the application would be breaching and there was also a lack of an up-to-date arboricultural survey and no sign of any ecological survey.

Councillor L Brown noted she wished to bring a matter to the Committee’s attention.  She noted the Heritage Report referred to the site as a “brownfield site” due to the previous existence of Flass Quarry.  She added that two decisions which had subsequently been considered at appeal were relevant to this application.  Councillor L Brown noted the first was from January 2011, application reference 4/10/00476 and that within the decision of the Inspector it had been noted that a brownfield site could revert to a greenfield site because of “years of disuse leading to revegetation and no visible remaining structures”. 

Councillor L Brown noted the second was perhaps more pertinent, given that the application site was apparently “returned to grass by the present owners”.  She noted an appeal from October 2015, 14/02141/OUT in which paragraph 7 of the report reads: “Whilst the definition of previously developed land does not include land that is or was developed with permanent structures it excludes from the definition land where the remains of the structures have blended into the landscape” and also “established garden land is excluded from the definition of previously developed land”.

Councillor L Brown concluded by noting she felt that both of the appeal outcomes set a precedent which supported the Officer’s recommendation and she hoped that the Committee would vote with the recommendation.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Brown and asked Mr K Ryder, Architect for the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

Mr K Ryder noted he spoke on behalf of the applicant and that the proposal was for a single bungalow within the curtilage of the existing Flass Bungalow.  He noted the applicant had lived on the land since the 1960s and before that the land was used by civil engineers in the city.  He added that the City Engineer had commented that the development of the area was confirm on the town map, classified as “reserve open space”, but amended to be the operational yard and bus depot, both now developed.

Mr K Ryder noted that while the area was wooded, there was an awful lot of decay and dying trees as well as ivy and sand soil conditions.  He added that the applicant was a regular volunteer with the Friends of Flass Vale.  He added the proposal was for a modest two-bed bungalow, with vehicular access being taken via the existing access.

Mr K Ryder noted that some time had been taken in preparation of the application, with pre-planning talks as regards what could be acceptable, noting many comments that had been favourable.  He added he scheme was well designed, and well concealed, only being visible in the immediate area with a minimal impact on the Conservation Area.  He noted that the Landscape Officer had stated that there would be not be a significant reduction in visual amenity from the proposals.

Mr K Ryder noted the Parish Council had referred to potential damage to Flass Vale and Maiden’s Bower, he added this was an English Heritage site and that only the top represented a burial cist, the majority not being man made.  Mr K Ryder concluded by noting that the proposals represented a caretaker development alongside existing development and asked the Committee to approve the application.

The Chair asked the Planning Officer, SH to comment on the points raised. 

The Planning Officer, SH noted that while the land had previously been developed, in had significantly changes since the 1960s, now being a green site with mature trees.  She added that any promises in the 1960s did not inform the City of Durham Local Plan in terms of the now existing green belt, AHLV and Conservation Area.  It was reiterated that the main issue was that by definition any development within the green belt was harmful and in the absence of any special circumstances, the recommendation from Officer’s was for refusal.

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

Councillor M Davinson noted the history of the site with interest, however, he felt that it was clearly development within the green belt and therefore he proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer’s report.  Councillor R Manchester seconded the proposal for refusal.

RESOLVED

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

Councillor S Iveson left the meeting at 4.20pm