Agenda item

Extension to the side/rear of dwelling, demolition of existing extension; re-locate garden wall, erection of garage. New dwelling and garage within rear garden.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an

application for an extension to the side/rear of 13 West Terrace, Staindrop, Darlington.  Works to include the demolition of an existing extension, relocation of a garden wall, erection of a garage, and a new dwelling and garage within the rear garden (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

Ms Mashiter, Clerk to Staindrop Parish Council was in attendance and asked the Committee to consider their objections raised as the following which had been submitted in the report;

The Parish Council objected to the application after having considered both the original and amended plans for the site.   The site had poor access from the development on to Moor Road which could cause a major hazard and add to existing congestion close to a key junction road – the road had existing issues with regards to parking.  The proposed dwelling was disproportionately large and out of character with its surroundings.  The site was also it was in a Conservation Area. 

The planting of trees and hedgerow did not diminish the size of the development and he suggested it be moved from a conservation area or improve the access.

The Principal DM Engineer confirmed that the plans submitted included provision for the access to be widened and would result in it becoming safer than the existing access point.  Although he agreed the existing access route was compromised, there had been no accidents recorded whilst it had operated for the existing dwelling.  There should be no increase in parking demand on Moor Road as the development had off street parking and in conclusion the development would not cause any hazardous increase.

Mr Sams spoke in objection to the proposal.  The proposal was outside of the village boundary where there is presumption against new housing unless relating to agricultural use and on agricultural land.  The site was agricultural land not a garden which the plans alluded to.  This application was for a house on agricultural land and would share an access with the current property which already suffered from restricted access – most properties on West Terrace had two cars and sometimes three.  The area was constantly inundated with parked cars.

Mr Sams was astonished that the Principal DM Engineer had confirmed there had been no accidents as NEAS had attended a serious incident recently in which a person had to be cut out of a vehicle and air lifted to hospital.  He also had a letter from the Police which indicated the problems as a result of parking.  The junction was an accident blackspot and the proposal would only be further impacted by the addition of more parked vehicles.

The new property was to the rear of a number of a small Grade II listed buildings with strong character in the village.  Currently they were subject to a backdrop of open countryside to the rear which made them stand out as heritage assets.  The plan submitted showed a lower roof profile claiming the property would not be visible from the road.  Mr Sams believed this was misleading – the site previously included a row of mature hedgerow which the Applicant ripped out and the site was now clearly visible from Moor Terrace which was on a higher level to the site.

The public right of way towards the rear of the plot, had unrestricted views and photographs had been submitted to the Planning Officer to demonstrate the prominence of the proposed development.

Mr Sams stated that the listed buildings in front of the new build were only 4.8m high and the proposed dwelling was 2m higher.  It was clear that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the heritage assets and no exceptional circumstances had been provided.  The proposal was against national and local policy and Mr Sams requested the Committee to support the local community and the Parish Council and reject the application.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed with regards to the settlement boundary as drawn in the Teesdale District Local Plan, the land was technically within open countryside, however settlement boundaries were generally considered out of date and based on time limited information.  An assesement was needed on its current form and due to the mature vegetation to the rear and elsewhere within the site, it was not read as an extension to the open countryside.  There had been no objection from Councils Landscape or Conservation Officers and with regards to the removal of trees, he confirmed that this did not require planning permission - the site was outside a conservation area and the application had to be assessed on the sites current form.

Mr Willis spoke on behalf of the Applicant.  The family had owned the current site for over fifty years and where Mrs Hamilton’s Mother lived until she passed away.  The Hamilton’s lived on a nearby farm with an abattoir and butchers shop and employed 12 people.  The proposal would allow them to retire from the business and they would use the current dwelling as a holiday cottage.  They had consulted with the individual responsible for the Councils’ drive for tourism who had confirmed that this type of accommodation was lacking.

He reiterated the proposal and confirmed that the existing cottage would get much needed refurbishment and the garage and extensions would be removed.  The garden wall rebuilt and a new extension in keeping with the period and design of the existing cottage. 

The Applicants had consulted with the Councils internal Officers and their Architect had taken all comments on board and refined the design in accordance with their advice.  The new home had been designed with natural materials and the alterations to the existing property were in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. 

The new dwelling, whilst a little bigger than the existing cottages, it was in keeping with the character of the village and it was lower in height than both Orchard House and 8 West Terrace, and the footprint smaller.  With regards to the privacy distances they far exceeded the required amount.  The site was endorsed by mature trees and the boundaries would be planted up even further.

Mr Willis confirmed that the Council had asked to pursue key viewpoints from specific places in front of the existing cottages.  The drawings had been produced by professional topographic surveys, accurate within mm and they showed the cottage would not be seen from the key viewpoints and that the proposal would not be a detriment to the Conservation Area. 

With regards to the existing vehicle access, he confirmed that there had never been any accidents at the current access and the Highways Authority had offered no objection and therefore deemed to be safe.  Finally, Mr Willis added that this was a highly sustainable location with a wide range of services, and it was not car reliant.  Throughout the process a wide range of consultees had been consulted and there had been no objection offered.  There were no policy, design or technical reasons to refuse the application and therefore asked for it to be approved.

Councillor Richardson asked for an explanation on why the incident which involved NEAS attendance had not been reported.  He advised  that he was supporting the views of local people.  The application did not meet the criteria of the Parish Plan.  The application had first been submitted with unsuitable access and withdrawn.  The new application included a widened access, however the plans did not show that this was on a junction.  Moor Road joined the main road to Barnard Castle which is why vehicles travelled so fast. 

No consideration was given to the impact on the junction to the A688 and the vehicles parked outside of each house on the road towards the junction.  The size of the dwelling had been slightly reduced but it still impacted on the Conservation Area – it was outside of the settlement boundary, it was not in the SHLLA and on agricultural land.  It had insufficient highway safety and it impacted on visual amenity and he moved refusal of the application.

The Principal DM Engineer confirmed that his assessment was of the access point and the B6279 Moor View.  There had been reference to two no. accidents on the junction to the A688 in the past five years.  All accidents resulting in injury had to be reported to police recorded on the Police National Computer and he confirmed that one was a rear shunt and the other was a vehicle pulling out onto the road resulting in slight injury.  He was unable to explain why the incident involving the NEAS had not been recorded on the PCN.  Furthermore, on assessing the increase in traffic from the proposed development, this was calculated at 8-10 trips per day which was not a materially significant number of trips on a junction which had over 500 vehicles passing through per day.

Councillor Tinsley referred to the issues around access, the size of the development, the historical status of a conservation area, however this was backland development which were prone to generate these types of issues.  He noted that the site was outside of the settlement boundary, however he felt that the site was a normal extension of the settlement boundary.  Staindrop was a sustainable village and the new dwelling was within the curtilage of the existing Grade II listed building, therefore the impact was minimised.  With regards to the width of the access, Councillor Tinsley noted there was significant areas within the site boundary for parking and therefore the additional dwelling was not going to generate any additional on-street parking.

Councillor Tinsley concluded that on balance, there were no significant and demonstrable reasons why the Committee should refuse the application and he therefore moved the recommendation for approval, which was seconded by Councillor Atkinson, however he asked that the Senior Planning Officer to respond to Mr Sams who had made reference to it being against national and local policies.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was some conflict in that it was outside of the settlement limits and contrary to the Local Plan Policies however the NPPF recognised that settlement limits were out of date in this instance.  In conclusion, the development was acceptable and in accordance with the NPPF and in general Local Plan Policies.  Although being outside of the settlement boundary, the benefits were found to outweigh any conflict and there had been no objection raised by Design and Conservation or Landscape Officers who had concluded that the development was acceptable in terms of the impact on heritage assets.  There were no grounds to sustain a refusal.

Councillor L Brown confirmed that she agreed with Councillor Richardson’s concerns about Highway Safety as she was familiar with the junction and of how busy it is, and therefore seconded his proposed recommendation to refuse.

Resolved:

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