Agenda item

Resubmission of DM/19/01057/FPA for new pitched roof to existing property, two storey side extension and change of use of adjacent land from open space to private garden.

The Planning Officer, George Spurgeon, 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, GS advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting. 

 

The application was a resubmission of DM/19/01057/FPA for new pitched roof to existing property, two storey extension and change of use of adjacent land from open space to private garden and was recommended for refusal.

 

 

 

The Planning Officer, GS referred to photographs showing three trees on the parcel of open space, two of which were within the application site.  It was explained that the open space was part of a wider network of amenity open space, typical of the area.

 

He added that the applicant had offered to replace those two trees that would be removed as a consequence of construction works.  Referring to elevations, the Planning Officer, GS noted red brick was proposed for the extension, with red concrete tiles to replace the existing shallow sloped roof, similar to a number of other roofs in the area.

 

The Planning Officer, GS noted that there had been no objections from the Highways Section, however, the Landscape and Tree Officers had both objected to the application, in terms of loss of open space and the loss of the trees.  He added that as a consequence of the application an Emergency Tree Preservation Order (TPO) had been put in place to protect the three trees from the threat posed by the application.  It was explained that the Tree Officer had noted the loss of the trees would impact upon the character of the area and amenity value.  It was explained that the Ecology Section had raised objections, due to the loss of mature trees which would result in a net loss of biodiversity.

 

The Planning Officer, GS noted there had been no public responses in relation to the application.

 

The Committee were asked to note that Peterlee was a “New Town” and as such the various estates had been developed with large areas of open space, including areas with trees, as part of the overall design and character of the area.  The Planning Officer, GS noted that the loss of open space was not considered sufficient to warrant refusal on that reason and noted the two-storey extension and roof were considered appropriate in terms of scale and design.  He noted the concerns raised by Officers in terms of the loss of two trees in good condition and of high amenity value, covered by a TPO.  He added that there had been insufficient justification in terms of the removal of the trees, with no aboricultural report having been submitted with the application.  The Planning Officer, GS explained that it was therefore felt that the application was contrary to saved Policy 35 of the District of Easington Local Plan and was recommended to Committee for refusal.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, GS and asked Councillor A Laing to speak as Local Member.

 

 

 

 

Councillor A Laing thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that there had been no letters of objections from local residents.  She added that the exact species of the trees was not known, the trees having been planted by either the former Easington District Council or Development Corporation for Peterlee New Town.

 

She noted that originally it had been acceptable to Planners for two trees to be removed and the third tree to be retained, then all three were placed under a TPO, seemingly to justify a refusal recommendation. 

 

Councillor A Laing noted there were many packets of green spaces within the area around Hatfield Place and that the proposals by the applicant in terms of three trees running parallel to the footpath seemed to be more preferable than the existing layout.  She added that the Council or Believe Housing appeared to have cut down ten or eleven trees in the area and noted that, if trees were too close to structures, they could undermine buildings.  She explained that the National House Building Council guidance noted that with climate change these issues would become more prevalent.  Councillor A Laing concluded by noting she would urge the Committee to approve the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor A Laing and asked the Principal Planning Officer, A Dobie to respond to the points raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that following the initial application being received the Tree Officer investigated further and determined that the trees were of sufficient quality to warrant a TPO, with a formal scoring process having been followed looking at tree condition, life expectancy and amenity value.  He reiterated that the report set out that there was support in terms of the roof, extension and garden use, however, there was a recommendation for refusal based upon the loss of trees which were under a TPO.  In relation to trees undermining buildings, he noted that while this may be possible, there had been no evidence from the applicant in this matter.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the offer from the applicant in terms of replacement tree planting, however, added that the area on which the applicant wishes to plant trees was not owned by the applicant and also did not form part of the application site being considered.  He noted that this would be a matter for the applicant and Believe Housing.

 

Councillor A Laing left the meeting at 1.20pm

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Mr Darrell Harris, the applicant, to speak in support of his application.

 

 

Mr D Harris thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted he had been a builder for 24 years and in his experience tree roots, especially shallow ones, could undermine foundations of buildings.  He noted the proximity of the trees to his property and added that with trees in their current location, the house would not have passed building control regulations.

 

Mr D Harris noted his application had the correct specification foundations and drains and he added that paving in the area was already lifting as a result of tree roots.  He noted he would be happy to replace the trees as directed by the Tree Officer in order to help mitigate the loss of the trees. 

He reiterated previous comments that many trees had been felled in the surrounding area, in the nearby dene and town centre in addition.  Mr D Harris explained that he also wished to extend his property so that it was more practical for his family and he did not wish to move as his current home was close by to his elderly parents, one of which had a disability.  He added that being close to them was important and if required the extension would provide the opportunity for his parents to move in with him.

 

The Chair thanked Mr D Harris and asked the Principal Planning Officer for any comments.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that any trees that had been cut down in the area must not have been subject to TPOs, the trees in question themselves only attracting a TPO after the potential threat raised by the application.

 

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

 

Councillor J Robinson asked for the side elevation photographs to be brought up on the projector screen.  He referred to the photographs and noted in the context of the information as regards eleven trees felled in the area, and the remaining trees thereabouts, he did not feel there was a large issue.  He noted much larger trees in his Electoral Division that did have TPOs which had been removed in order to accommodate applications.  He added that the photographs as shown looked as if they showed damp at the bottom of the applicant’s wall.  He noted the Officer’s report set out that the loss of open space was acceptable, and the design and scale of the roof and extension was also acceptable.  He added that he felt if the refusal reason was based upon the issue of the trees on the site, the Tree Officer should have attended at Committee.  He concluded by proposing that the application be approved.

 

 

 

Councillor I Jewell thanked the Planning Officer, GS for his presentation and the site visit organised for Committee Members earlier in the day.  He added that he felt the recommendation was somewhat strange, given the support for the application within the report in terms being acceptable in relation to scale, design and loss of open space.  He added that if the TPO was in addition to other reasons for refusal he could understand, however, with that being the only reason for refusal he felt the argument for refusal was weak. 

 

Councillor I Jewell noted that while he was not an expert, looking at the trees on the site visit he did not consider them to be fine specimens and there was a large number of other trees in the area and therefore he felt that given this, and the offer in terms of replacement trees, he would support and second the proposal for approval.

 

Councillor A Bell noted he had been on various Planning Committees for ten years and it was the first time he had come across an “emergency TPO” and explained it did not sit comfortably with him, if trees required a TPO why would it not be in place before now.  He added the applicant had noted the issue of potential undermining, with some evidence of this, and that as the trees seemed relatively young, there was potential for this to increase in the future.  He also noted the issues raised by the applicant in terms of his extended family and therefore agreed with Councillors J Robinson and I Jewell in supporting the approval of the application.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted he disagreed with the Members that had spoken, he felt trees added to the amenity of the area, beneficial to residents.  He noted comments as regards eleven trees already cut down in the area and explained that in that case it made more sense to retain those established trees that remained, with any proposed replacements unlikely to be as mature.  He concluded noting he could not support approval of the application.

 

Councillor A Bell asked, should Councillors J Robinson and I Jewell feel acceptable as proposer and seconder, whether it would be possible to have some form of condition or advisory as regards the applicant entering into discussions with Believe Housing as regards replacement trees.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that there was a motion for approval and asked if Members were saying they disagreed with the Officers in terms of the loss of those trees not being significant in terms of amenity.  He added that the personal circumstances of the applicant, as mentioned by Councillor A Bell, were a material planning consideration which was for the Committee to afford weight as they saw fit.  In relation to any condition as regards replacement trees, there may be an option in terms of a “Grampian condition”, a negatively worded condition that would require replacement trees to be undertaken prior to works commencing on site. 

He explained that in this particular case that he understood the applicant did not own the land where the replacement trees were proposed and noted Members may wish to take a view based upon any discussions that may have taken place to date, to judge the likelihood of such replacement trees being agreed.  He added that should the application be approved there would be a need for a suite of the usual conditions, such as time-limits for implementation.

 

The Chair asked if the applicant wished to respond in relation to any discussions that may have taken place.  Mr D Harris noted he had not yet spoke to Believe Housing, however was happy to do so. 

 

Councillor P Taylor noted the Committee did not have the authority to impose such replacement of trees.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that while it was not possible to impose, the suggestion was that a Grampian condition could be used to require the tree works as a pre-requisite to the development commencing.  Councillor I Jewell asked as regards a condition in terms of replacing trees in the wider area to mitigate against the amenity and ecological loss.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the issue of land ownership would still remain and added that if such replacement planting was on the land adjoining the subject land there was still the potential for undermining as stated by the applicant.

 

Councillor A Bell noted in order to help progress the matter he would withdraw his suggestion in relation to a condition or advisory in relation to replacement trees.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted as regards the usual standard conditions relating to such extension applications including: materials, plans, three-year time limit in terms of commencing works; and type of fencing.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to a suite of conditions the details of which to be delegated to the Planning Officer.

 

 

Councillors J Clark and A Laing entered the meeting at 1.40pm

 

Councillor J Clark in the Chair