Agenda item

Erection of detached garage to rear of 90 Ashbourne Drive.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Hurton, 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 application was for the erection of detached garage to the rear of 90 Ashbourne Drive, Coxhoe and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Officer, MH noted the proposed garage would be in place of an existing detached shed with access to be taken from the rear lane, between Ashbourne Drive and Cornforth Lane.  She explained that, as set out within the report, permission was only required for the detached garage, not the proposed access as the access was on to an unclassified road and therefore fell under the scope of permitted development.  She noted the Applicant would need to contact Neighbourhoods Services as regards the dropped kerb.  In reference to photographs of the location, the Planning Officer, MH noted garages located nearby on the opposite side of the back lane.  She noted the proposed elevations and layout of the garage, it to be sited two metres back from the road, with an existing fence to be removed and a dropped kerb installed.

 

The Planning Officer, MH noted no objections from the Highways Authority.

 

In terms of representations, the Committee were asked to note there had been objections received from Coxhoe Parish Council, with concerns including traffic, highway safety, parking problems in the area and setting a precedence for others in Ashbourne Drive.  The Planning Officer, MH noted comments from the Parish Council relating to the planning permission for the residential estate, FPA/P/4/95/0713, which had conditions attached relating to no access to be permitted from Cornforth Lane, except for emergency vehicles. 

 

 

She added the Parish Council had also noted that a planning  application was refused for a house within the rear garden of a property on Cornforth Lane due to adverse impacts on residential and visual amenity and, in their view, the amenity of local residents would be affected by the garage application.  She noted one letter of support and 11 letters of objection had been received from seven properties in the area, with the Objectors’ main points being summarised within the report.

 

The Planning Officer, MH noted in terms of the principle of development, the design was acceptable and reiterated that the access on to School Avenue did not require planning permission as it was not a classified road.  She added that if the design of the garage had been such that the height had been under 2.5 metres, it would have been allowed under permitted development.  She added that it was considered that the proposed garage would not adversely impact upon the current levels of residential and visual amenity enjoyed at the site, nor would it have a detrimental impact upon highway safety.  She concluded by noting that on balance, after taking all relevant planning matters into account, including both national and local policies and the objections and concerns raised, the application was acceptable and was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, MH and noted several speakers were in attendance to speak in relation to the application.  She asked the Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council, Claire Llewelyn to put forward the representations on behalf of the Parish Council.

 

The Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council explained she had been asked to attend the Committee by the Coxhoe Parish Councillors and added that the Parish Council had received representations from residents who were strongly opposed to the application, and raised concerns about the traffic, highway safety and parking problems in the area and the amount of traffic incidents and near misses that had already taken place.  She noted the area had a high volume of traffic and this was regularly reported to the Parish Council as a problem.

 

The Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council explained that Cornforth Lane was a bus route and additionally, with the primary school at the end of Cornforth Lane, that would mean that twice a day vehicles parked on the front, and even the back, of the lane in order to drop off or pick up children.  She explained there was an access point at the end of Cornforth Lane onto the A177 which residents reported was abused frequently.  She noted it was used by buses and by emergency vehicles, which obviously needed the length of the lane to be passable.  She noted that this all meant that residents had difficulties safely using and parking in their front street, and now felt their back lane was also being made more dangerous.

The Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council informed the Committee that local residents used the back lane for parking and for children to exercise and residents felt there would be an increased risk of accidents and damage if more vehicles were legitimately allowed to use the space.  She added residents were worried that providing vehicle access to the development would mean they could not park in the area available behind their homes, and that if they had to move their cars to the front street, that would further worsen the issues there.  She noted the Parish Council supported residents in their view that, as the application would, by adding further vehicular access to properties to the rear of Cornforth Lane, raise the risk of accidents further to completely unacceptable levels. 

 

The Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council added that the Parish Council was aware that the Planning Permission Approval from 1996 for the former site of Lansdowne Comprehensive School at Condition 10 stated that 'there shall be no means of vehicular access to the development hereby permitted from Cornforth Lane'.  She added that further conditions stated that there was to be no construction traffic access.  The Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council noted the reasons given for those conditions were 'the interests of the amenity of the area and of highway safety'.  She explained that those issues had not gone away and if anything, the issues had become worse.

 

The Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council noted that the County Council rejected an application for a house in the back garden of a Cornforth Lane house citing the 'adverse impacts of the development with regards to residential and visual amenity [which] are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the development' and Coxhoe Parish Council supported the residents in their view that the amenity of local residents would be affected by the current application.  She concluded by noting that Coxhoe Parish Council therefore objected to the application and respectfully requested that the County Council uphold its prior planning approval conditions and did not set any precedent for developments which would further affect the safety and amenity of residents of Cornforth Lane.

 

The Chair thanked the Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council and asked Councillor S Dunn, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor S Dunn thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and referred to slides that were shown to the Committee.  He noted he lived at Ashbourne Drive; however, his property did not abut the back lane and therefore he was not directly affected.  He added he was Chair of Coxhoe Parish Council; however, he had not been involved in the Parish Council’s representations to Committee and had not predetermined his view in that respect. 

 

Councillor S Dunn referred to photographs within his presentation and noted that, whilst his photographs were taken on a different day to those shown by the Planning Officer, the same two cars were seen to be parked in the same locations.  He explained that 90 Ashbourne Drive used to have a garage, but a previous owner had converted it into a useable room.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted he, on behalf of the residents of Cornforth Lane, objected to the application, because of the adverse impacts on those residents.  He explained that an application for a garage entering on to a back street looked quite reasonable on the face of it, however, there were a lot of history with the location, and building of the estate going back to 1990.  He added that to obtain planning approval for the estate, the then Applicant (Hassall Homes) had to agree to give up land to residents on Cornforth Lane, provide off street parking, and a new back street for their use to remove residential traffic from Cornforth Lane due to it being congested for bus and school traffic.

 

Councillor S Dunn explained that at a public meeting held on 28 November 1995 between the residents of Cornforth Lane and the then County Councillor Alan Thompson and the 3 City Councillors, assurances were given to residents of the street, many of whom still live there:

 

Councillor A Thompson - land boundaries around the whole site should be tidied up, and vehicular access should not be allowed onto Cornforth Lane from the new development via the existing 'school' entrance.

 

Councillors A Thompson and M Crathorne - told the meeting that it was in the hands of the County and District Councils to agree, part of which would involve consideration of the points raised, but would expect a decision sometime in January.

 

Councillor A Thompson - saw no way that they could be stopped from using this entrance unless written into the planning consent.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that on 28 January 1997, Durham County Council conveyed the estate, the former Lansdowne Comprehensive School site, to Hassall Homes with a covenant:

“(vi) …to fence with a 1.85m high close boarded fence and thereafter maintain and repair such fence along the boundary between the land and the Transferors Retained Land.”

 

Councillor S Dunn added that on 18 January 2001, Hassall Homes conveyed the extended gardens on to the residents of Cornforth Lane up to the newly constructed back road.

He explained they also conveyed the estate with the planning approval for the new estate on to Miller Homes, however, they did not include covenants to reinforce the intent that there should be no vehicular access from the estate on to Cornforth Lane.  He added that Miller Homes erected 1.85m fencing all the way along the new back road, preventing access on to Cornforth Lane.

 

Councillor S Dunn explained that the Hassall Homes Planning application 95/0713 was approved by Durham City Council 13 February 1996, the then Planning Authority with the following conditions:

“10. There shall be no vehicular entrance to the development hereby permitted from Cornforth Lane.

14. …the existing vehicular access to the site from Cornforth Lane shall be closed in a manner to be agreed with the Planning Authority.

16. The access road to the rear of Cornforth Lane shall be constructed to an adoptable standard to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.”

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that from these conditions the intention appeared to be very clear.  He added that Cornforth Lane was a very busy bus route, which was parked upon both sides making travelling along it difficult and busses often got blocked.  He noted that Coxhoe Primary School, at the end of the lane, had been extended twice to increase capacity as the village had grown from 215 pupils in 1995 to 320 currently, with a further extension planned.  He added that sadly 43 percent of parents did not walk their children to school despite considerable efforts by the school, Durham County Council and Durham Constabulary and referred to a photograph showing vehicles spilling on to the back lane.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that the back lane was introduced because of traffic problems on Cornforth Lane which had only got worse.  He added that the application could set an unhelpful precedent for other properties which was never intended to allow vehicular traffic for the estate to use Cornforth Lane and the back lane instead.  He noted that whilst he understood the Applicant’s desire for a secure garage, the property was purchased in the knowledge that the garage had been converted into living accommodation.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that approving the application, in his view, would increase congestion and potentially encourage even more residents to break out into the back street and use it for additional parking and access, contrary to NPPF Part 9.  He added that the estate was well designed to enhance the built environment and the current application undermined and eroded that, contrary to NPPF Part 12.

He concluded by noting that for the last 25-30 years it had been recognised that vehicles accessing Cornforth Lane from the estate would have an adverse effect on Cornforth Lane’s residential amenity and lead to further increases in congestion and he therefore requested that the application was rejected by Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor S Dunn and asked Ms Ellie Cutter, local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Ms Ellie Cutter noted she would start by talking about the unsuitability of the road for access to the proposed garage, adding that the road was used all day, every day by residents for parking.  She added that residents could not park at the front of their houses for a couple of reasons, one being that the row of houses was situated opposite a bus stop and has a bus stop on our side of the road and thus Arriva buses coming from opposite directions often cross each other at that point in the road.  She noted that she often watched those buses trying to pull off tricky reversing manoeuvres in order to get up and down the road, and to do so they regularly needed to mount the pavement, something they could only do because residents were not parked there.  She explained occurrences such as that only increased during the school term as numerous school buses dropped off and picked up at those points on the road.  She added that there had also been numerous documented cases of cars being swiped or hit by Arriva buses and she had witnessed that happening twice on her area of the road.  She explained that residents with small children also did not park on the road at the front as the standard traffic, such as cars and vans, speed up the road making it riskier for toddlers and kids potentially running into the road.

 

Ms Ellie Cutter explained that therefore the road being proposed as access to the garage was regularly filled with residents’ cars, those who use the area at the top of the road as a turning head.  She noted the road could only be used for parking on one side and regularly that side was completely lined with cars.  She noted the physical practicalities therefore of a van, or vans, being able to turn into and out of a garage were unrealistic.  She added that it was often a squeeze for a large car, let alone a van, to get turned around in the turning area because of the cars parked down the road.

 

Ms Ellie Cutter explained that the road was also increasingly busy during school time as parents used the entrance road and the back road to park to drop off and pick up their kids.  She noted residents regularly have to squeeze past those additional cars and do joint manoeuvres with them to access their properties.  She added that therefore, it was also unrealistic to set a precedent for those on Ashbourne Drive and the other adjoining roads to be able to request to build garages. 

 

She noted that should the other residents of the opposite estate start making requests for garages the road would become completely unusable for existing residents as it was just not wide enough.  She noted she believed it would be inevitable that such requests would be made as the parking provision on newer housing estates was insufficient and parking was an issue in those areas too.  She added that it was arrogant to assume that the problem could be resolved by encroaching on another estate that also faced the same issues.

 

Ms Ellie Cutter explained another point was the additional risk the increase in traffic would make to the children who used the back lane.  She noted children from across the houses on the lane use the road to play on a regular basis and while residents were aware of this, and acted accordingly in terms of their speed, adding more traffic to the road in the form of larger vehicles increases the risk of there being an accident.  She explained that, in a wider context, the additional traffic being added to Cornforth Lane was also not acceptable, with the issues on Cornforth Lane being documented, namely: buses clogging up the road which was unsuitable as a bus route; the road being used as a cut through by cars, taxis and vans which speed; those issues being exacerbated due to residents without back lanes having to use Cornforth Lane as their parking area; and the issues being exacerbated during school term time.  She reiterated that adding more traffic to Cornforth Lane was only going to make those even greater issues, especially considering again the setting of a precedent.

 

Ms Ellie Cutter thanked the Parish Council and Councillor S Dunn for their contributions.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Ellie Cutter and asked the Principal Planning Officer, Aland Dobie to respond to the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Officers did acknowledge there was a large volume of traffic at the pick up and drop off points for the schools, however, there was a fair distance between the application site and the school, around 340 metres, and therefore it was not felt what happened at the application site would directly affect what happened at the school.  He added that in respect of people legitimately using the lane, it was adopted highway and therefore anyone had a right to use it and the access, as referred to within the report and presentation, did not require planning permission.  He noted the garage itself only required planning permission as the height was greater than permitted development rights and therefore the Planning Authority’s control in respect of the development was quite limited.

 

 

 

In respect of the reference to the 1996 planning approval, the Principal Planning Officer explained that there was one condition that related to construction vehicles not accessing the site from Cornforth Lane during the construction phase and added that clearly that had now been completed.  He added that another condition related to the creation of an emergencyaccess further down the lane, approximately 140 metres away from the application site, adjacent to the access from Cornforth Lane and noted that neither of the conditions intended to restrict future vehicle movements to or around the estate.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that refusal of a permission relating to a development of a house was mentioned.  He added that it was clearly a different type of development and would have had different planning considerations taken into account and was not directly relevant to the application being considered by the Committee.  He noted that he would defer to the Highway Development Manager and Solicitor – Planning and Development on the issues raised by the Local Member and Parish Council on behalf of residents.  He concluded by explaining that in respect of the parking issues raised, the Planning Authority recognised those issues and indeed understood those types of issue were experienced across the county, and he reiterated that the controls the Planning Authority had in this particular instance were quite limited.

 

The Highway Development Manager, John Mcgargill clarified that the lane in question was publicly adopted highway, maintained at the public expense and there were no restrictions in terms of passing or repassing over the road.  He added the lane carried no private road status for the residents of Cornforth Lane.

 

With reference to Condition 10 of the estate planning permission, the Highway Development Manager noted it read: “There should be no means of vehicular access to the development from Cornforth Lane” and therefore was referring to the development, not individual properties.  He noted that his interpretation of the condition was that the development highway should not connect with Cornforth Lane and allow the full development to discharge traffic on to Cornforth Lane.  The Highway Development Manager noted that Committee report referred to the former school access being amended to allow “local residents” access to the rear of their properties, it did not refer to just the residents of Cornforth Lane.  In terms of precedent being set, the Highway Development Manager understood the concerns of residents if every resident were to build a garage and access the rear of their property from the lane, however, there was nothing preventing them from doing that at the moment.  He concluded by noting that from a Highways perspective the proposed access in the current application would not contravene Condition 10 of the previous estate permission.

 

 

The Chair noted Councillor S Dunn wished to clarify a point as regards Condition 10 from the estate permission.  Councillor S Dunn noted he felt contrary to the Highway Development Manager in respect of the condition and he read from the letter granting planning approval and quoted Condition 10 from that letter it stating: “That there shall be no means of vehicular access to the development hereby permitted from Cornforth Lane”.  He added that there were retrospective interpretations as regards what the condition actually said and reiterated what he quoted was what the approval letter to the estate development Applicant said and there was no mention of construction traffic.  Councillor S Dunn noted he felt the intentions of the County Councillors and City Councillors at that time were absolutely clear, as was the approval letter to the Applicant at the time.

 

The Chair asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter to respond to the issues raised.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it was important to understand the scope of the application being considered by the Committee.  He added that the application under consideration by Members was for the construction of a garage, the creation of a means of access from the highway to that garage was not part of the application and therefore while the Committee had heard a lot of debate about what Condition 10 from the estate permission meant, it was not part of the application that was before Members for consideration.  In terms of Condition 10, the Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it was not entirely clear what it was seeking to achieve, and that further context could be put on that by looking at the previous permission granted in 1996, however, to his mind it was clear that Condition 10 could not prevent members of the public driving along the lane because, as the Highways Development Manager had stated, it was publicly adopted highway and therefore from a legal perspective Condition 10 could not take away those rights.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted a second point, that any suggestion that the creation of access to the proposed garage was not permitted development because of Condition 10 of the estate permission was not correct, and that the wording of Condition 10 was not sufficient to remove permitted development rights.  He explained that in order to remove permitted development rights for the creation of a vehicular access there needed to be very clear wording and to his mind Condition 10 did not have such wording.  He reiterated that while it was not entirely clear as regards the intention of Condition 10, it did not remove the rights of members of the public to travel along that road in vehicles and would not remove permitted development rights in terms of creating an access.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development reiterated that the access did not form part of the application being considered and any issues in terms of the access would be for discussion outside of the context of the Committee.

 

The Chair thanked the Solicitor – Planning and Development and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted he felt for the local resident who had spoken in objection and Councillor S Dunn in terms of the problems that would be caused for residents if the application was to go ahead.  However, he noted the main thrust of the objections seemed to be outside of the scope of the Committee.  He noted that the Solicitor – Planning and Development had it absolutely correct in that the means of access was not the responsibility of the Committee, rather the building of a garage for the issue to be determined.  He added that he felt that Condition 10 of the estate permission had been poorly drafted and that the condition was vague, open to interpretation, and as stated was an issue “for another day”.  He reiterated that the application was for the construction of a garage and the other matters raised were not relevant to the Committee.

 

Councillor M Davinson asked for clarification in terms of if the size of the garage was reduced, whether it would require planning permission and if it was known why such a large height was required.  He noted that the issues raised by objectors were issues experienced in all of the colliery villages across the county and noted the advice of the Solicitor – Planning and Development in respect of only considering the permission for the garage.  He noted that if the height was below 2.5 metres then the Applicant could erect a garage under permitted development and asked if there was any further background information as regards the application being for that particular design.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the design was such that the only aspect that fell outside of permitted development rights was the height of the proposed garage, being greater than 2.5 metres.  He explained that the height to the eaves of the garage was 2.5 metres and therefore if a flat roof was specified it would fall under permitted development, however, the design included a pitched roof that took the height beyond the 2.5 metres.

 

The Chair asked if there were any further comments or if any Member would wish to make a proposal in relation to the application.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted he felt that while there could be an adverse impact upon residents, the Committee could not explore the issues in relation to the access and rather only look at erection of the garage, and it being one that was only slightly larger than one that would be allowed under permitted development.  He added he felt that the Authority would have a difficult time at an appeal justifying a refusal on the basis of such a small additional height and noted that the setting was a typical colliery village location, not an area with a “chocolate box effect”, with properties varying in terms of the types of extensions and garages.  Accordingly, he proposed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined within the Officer’s report. 

Councillor P Taylor seconded the proposal for approval, noting that the issues that may or may not be caused were outside of the scope of the Committee and the Members were only looking at the issue of the build.

 

Councillor M Davinson asked if Officers could look into the issue of Condition 10 of the estate approval in order to make it clear what was meant by the condition.  The Chair noted that she understood the sentiment of Councillor M Davinson, however, it could not form part of the vote on the application in front of Members.  The Highway Development Manager reiterated he did not feel there was any dispute as regards the wording of Condition 10, however it was acknowledged that there was a difference in the interpretation of the condition.

 

Councillor M Davinson proposed the application be approved, he was seconded by Councillor P Taylor.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the Officer’s report.