Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 2 no. dwellings and the creation of a dog walker amenity area.

Demolition of Existing Buildings and Erection of 2 no. Dwellings and the Creation of a Dog Walker Amenity Area

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area) which recommended approval of the application.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report, which included photographs of the site. 

He advised that since the report had been circulated the Parish Council had submitted a letter and a copy of a conveyance to prove access rights over the land which was sent to DCC’s Rights of Way Section. Their Solicitor had advised that the Parish Council had a prescriptive right for both vehicles and pedestrians through the route, it having been used for over 20 years.

They claimed to have used it for over 90 years, and to have maintained the road to some extent.

The Principal Planning Officer had sought legal advice from the Council’s Legal Officer and the conveyance did not provide for any rights of way to be granted for the benefit of the land being transferred. Therefore there was nothing in the conveyance to support their view that the Parish Council had a right of way over the land subject of the planning application.  

Also the letter from the Parish Council appeared to be contradictory in claiming both a documentary right of way through the conveyance, and also a prescriptive right of way through usage. If there was a documentary right of way in the conveyance, there would be no need to rely on any prescriptive rights.

The report noted that no response had been received from the Asset Management Team which was responsible for Council-owned land. The Parish Council had provided a copy of a file note from a valuer at the former  District of Easington which indicated that the land was sold to the owner by the Council and was subject to restrictive covenants. These were to use the buildings for storage only, and not to construct any new building without the separate consent of the Council as landowner. On this basis, no works could be carried out on the land without the Council’s consent as landowner and an agreement to alter the covenant. This was a separate legal issue that did not have a direct bearing on the consideration of the planning application. It was however a further aspect of Council control over future development.

In planning terms, the Council’s position remained the same in that officers recommended approval. However, having considered the latest information and taking account of the concerns of the Parish Council and Councillor Napier it was suggested that if Members were minded to support the recommendation, an additional planning condition not identified in the report be imposed. This would relate to the highway works, and would require details of the road construction to be agreed in advance of the commencement of the works, and the new road to be completed and available for use before first occupation of either of the two houses. To clarify, this would not establish rights of way on the road but at least would ensure its development within a reasonable period of time as part of the development taking place.

County Councillor Napier addressed the Committee, stating that he had served as a local Member for over 20 years and was accompanied by County Councillor Naylor and Parish Councillor Pinkney.

He did not object to the application in principle but had concerns about access and egress to the Welfare Ground which, along with residents of Murton  had used all his life for recreational activities. This road had been used by local people for at least 90 years. He had been contacted by a number of residents about this and unless an assurance was given that the access and egress to the Welfare Ground was maintained in perpetuity he was unable to support the application.

If Members were minded to approve the application on this basis, he advised that Murton Parish Council were prepared to draw up the necessary documentation with the applicant.

Councillor Pinkney concurred with the comments made by Councillor Napier and stated that Murton Parish Council had grave concerns about the access road.

At present vehicles used this road to maintain the grassed areas, some of which were DCC owned vehicles. In addition parents dropping children off by car at St Joseph’s school used the road as a turning point and large vehicles used the access for the annual carnival. This event would not go ahead in future if the road was closed.

Mr Campbell, the applicant addressed the Committee stating that he had no intention of closing the access road. His current home backed onto the road and he often had problems with youths, but still did not have any proposals to close it. Notwithstanding this, he pointed out that there were 3 alternative entrances to the Welfare Ground which could be used by vehicles.

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that he sympathised with the position of the Parish Council but the road was not a designated right of way, and in planning terms access was a private legal issue.

N Carter, Legal Officer reiterated this stating that the issue over right of access was separate to the planning process and not a consideration for Members. The additional condition proposed by the Planning Officer would ensure development of the road but would not secure any rights of way over it.

In response to a question concerning the access road, A Glenwright explained that whilst Mr Campbell had offered to bring the road up to an adoptable standard it did not meet the criteria for adoption as despite its other uses, essentially it was to serve 2 dwellings. However he considered that the applicant had shown a commitment to constructing the road to a high standard.

Members discussed the application and it was suggested that a visit be made to the site to view the access road prior to making a decision.

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred for a site visit.