Agenda item

Erection of dwelling (demolition of workshop)

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a dwelling (demolition of workshop) to the rear of 13 Bede Road, Barnard Castle (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.  Members had also visited the site earlier that day.

Councillor Rowlandson, Local Member, confirmed that the application had received 16 objections and he was disappointed that the Town Council had approved it without having heard residents’ concerns.  There were existing issues with the access, the junction onto a busy road with restricted visibility due to parked cars.  This was a garden and a garage, not a brownfield site and residents were concerned about the effect on their amenity, given the size of the proposed residential building.

Mr Maughan, local resident, asked if he could share three documents with the Committee, but the Chair confirmed that they were unable to be circulated at such late notice.  He confirmed that should anyone wish to circulate information it had to be received in good time.  Mr Maughan confirmed that he had not been given sufficient notice of the hearing and had only received one of the items earlier that day.  The Chair asked him to sum up the content of the information in his speech.

Mr Maughan confirmed that he had lived in the area for 19 years and was acting on behalf of 16 other local objectors.  Their main objection was that Barnard Castle Town Council had made the decision to support the application 10 days prior to the deadline for objections.  The Town Council had not therefore considered the objectors responses as part of their decision and he wanted the application to be deferred in order for them to reconsider their submission.  He questioned the fairness of the decision making process.

Furthermore, Mr Maughan confirmed that a covenant existed on the site, which restricted the size of a dwelling, and this proposed dwelling exceeded that.  He queried whether the Committee could therefore make a lawful decision.

Mr Maughan argued that the site was not large enough to be defined as Brownfield as per the Town and Country Planning regulations.  It was also misleading to describe it as a workshop and a yard - it had been used as storage since it had been purchased by the applicant and prior to that was used as a garage and a garden.

With regards to highway safety, neither Victoria Road nor Bede Road were acceptable routes, there was a traffic island and bus stop within 10m of the junction off Bede Road, which was regularly used by school children from the three local schools.  The Highways Authority had accepted that there was restricted visibility, which therefore impacted on highway safety.  The access road was not appropriate for the increased number of vehicular movements a 5 bedroom house would create. 

Finally, Mr Maughan referred to the restrictions on building within a conservation area and although the report claimed the house would be relatively well concealed and acceptable, it was behind a four foot hedge.  He referred to at least three houses which had been refused planning permission for dorma windows even though they were concealed behind walls 8-10 feet high. 

The Solicitor explained that although the Town Council were consultees, they were not the decision maker and the Committee were in receipt of the full information in order to determine the application accordingly.  With regards to the covenant, she advised that this was not a material planning consideration and had to be addressed outside the remit of this Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the issue regarding whether or not the land was Brownfield was not the overall determining factor.  The NPPF promoted assessment of a site in all context to determine sustainability.  each individual application was assessed on its own merits and this site was linked to Barnard Castle Town Centre and readily accessible to shops and amenities.  Some change of use had occurred, but it could be described as a garden/ancillary which was divorced from a residential dwelling.  The Design and Conservation Officer had offered no objection, it met separation distances, and would cause no significant loss of amenity.

The Principal DM Engineer described the site as backland development, typical of urban areas in rear lanes.  It was satisfactory due to the low number of trips the development would convey, an NPPF based refusal could not be justified as there was already an existing building use which could generate movement.  It was clear it would not be suitable for two dwellings, hence the applicant had put forward one single dwelling.  The Highways Authority could not sustain an objection to the proposal.

Mr Harper confirmed that he bought the land in March 2019 as a workshop, it had not been used as a garden since the previous owner passed away.  There was a building used for storage and he referred to a heap of expensive stone which was not rubbish, but material used for building.  He lived local and knew some of the objectors personally - he did not want to cause upset amongst residents.  Mr Harper was well aware of the problems on Bede Road and had therefore ensured that there was enough room for 7/8 vehicles to park on site.  He was renowned for high quality work and confirmed that he was even prepared to retarmac the lane as a gesture of goodwill.

Mr Harper confirmed that he was unaware that a covenant existed and would make his own enquiries following the Committee.  This was the right house for the area and in addition to those objecting, a lot of people were pleased that he had purchased the land.  It was never going to be an allotment, it was too expensive of an investment and natural development.  Mr Harper said that objections were very similar and may have came from the one source.

With regards to the gable windows, Mr Harper confirmed that he would omit them if people were strongly opposed.  He was not a ruthless developer but had instead chosen to build one dwelling on a site that was large enough for two or three houses.

Finally, Mr Harper said that he was willing to liaise with local residents who had issues.  He had a good reputation and they could be assured that any issues would be resolved and the development and road would be left immaculate.  The Chair was grateful that the Applicant was willing to meet with objectors.

In response to questions from the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it was clear from the plans that there was more than enough space for vehicles to park.  With relation to the design of the building, Design and Conservation were particular in areas such as Barnard Castle and were satisfied with the scheme, subject to the control of building materials.

Councillor Brown noted the hours of operation and felt that 7.30 am was a little early on a Saturday morning and wondered if the developer could speak to the residents about this.

Councillor Tinsley had viewed the objector comments on the Councils online portal and was content having heard the comments from the Principal DM Engineer.  This was backland development in close proximity to services, it was an effective and efficient use of Brownfield land and an ideal development site.  He supported the recommendation and moved approval.

Councillor Richardson questioned what grounds the Committee could refuse the application and the Solicitor confirmed that it was clear from the report that the Council did not consider there to be any grounds to refuse.  Councillor Richardson confirmed that he and Councillor Rowlandson had received a lot of calls and whilst he could offer sympathy to the residents, as he suspected, there were no grounds in which the application could be refused.

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that he agreed with Councillor Tinsley’s comments and he was also grateful that the Applicant was willing to cooperate with objectors.  He seconded the motion to approve.

Resolved

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

<LAYOUT_SECTION>

1.FIELD_TITLE

FIELD_SUMMARY

</LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

2.FIELD_TITLE

</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE

</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE