Agenda item

Erection of one detached 3-bed bungalow.

                The Planning Officer, JJ, 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 one detached 3-bed bungalow (resubmission) and was recommended for refusal.

                The Planning Officer, JJ noted the location plan and aerial photographs, setting out the extent of the application area and referred to adjacent land owned by the applicant which contained a number of agricultural buildings and a mobile caravan providing day facilities, which had permission approved in February this year.  She noted the proposed location for development clearly read as undeveloped land and was outside of the settlement limits of Grants Houses and was within a countryside setting.  She referred Members to a number of site photos, proposed access for bins and proposed elevations for the new bungalow and explained as regards a revised north elevation to remove a bedroom window and the inclusion of obscured glazing to a bathroom window.

In terms of consultation, the Planning Officer, JJ explained there had been no objections from Northumbrian Water Limited subject to a surface water drainage plan and the Highways Section offered no objections.  She added that Spatial Policy objected as the proposal represented development outside of the settlement boundary and in the open countryside.  She added a condition would be required in terms of contaminated land and there had been no objections from the Nuisance Action Team. 

Members were asked to note that the Archaeology section required a condition relating to a watching brief in relation to remains of a World War II Camp and the Ecology section confirmed that a financial contribution was required due to the location of the development close to protected coastal habitats.  The Planning Officer, JJ explained this would be a sum of £756.61 to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.  She added that mitigation would need to be provided against habitat loss as a result of the development and the Ecology section had noted a condition was required to confirm the programme of works to be undertaken.

The Planning Officer, JJ six letters of support received with points raised including: the proposals make good use of land; residents were pleased with the efforts the applicant had made with the land and agree with the addition of a bungalow on it; and that the development would be a nice addition to a barren field and would add security at this part of Grants Houses.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the application would be considered under Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, with the emerging policies in the CDP carrying significant weight and therefore must be considered as part of the planning balance.  She added the site was in the countryside, with no local services, the nearest being 1.3 kilometres away, albeit with a regular bus service that passed the site, therefore offering some minor sustainability merits.  She added the proposal would not accord with emerging policies 6 and 10 relating to development on unallocated site and sites within the countryside.  She explained that the proposal would represent adverse visual and landscape impact.

She noted that benefits of the development included: limited boost to housing supply; limited uplift in economic expenditure resulting from development; and some very minor sustainability merits due to the regular bus service.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted the adverse impacts were considered to be: the development would detract from the existing form and character of the settlement; it would allow the urban form to intrude into, and erode, the open space at the edge of the settlement, having a suburbanising effect and resulting in an unacceptable encroachment into the open countryside; and that the works proposed would be contrary to emerging policies 6 and 10 of the CDP.  She concluded by explaining that therefore, on balance, it was determined that the adverse effects outweighed the benefits and the application was recommended for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked Councillor I McLean, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor I McLean thanked the Chair and noted he was Local Member for the Horden Division, which included Grants Houses.  He explained that the applicant was a very respected member of the village, a businessman with all of his businesses operating to the highest standards.  He added that the photographs within the Officer’s presentation were not particularly flattering of the applicant’s development at the adjacent location and noted that those developments had been carried out to a very high standard, attested by all those that had visited the site.  He added the access track was more like a road, being constructed of concrete.  He explained he supported the application and noted there was no opposition to the application, in fact there were several letters of support from residents.  He noted he has spoken to some residents and they were very supportive of the application. 

Councillor I McLean noted the applicant had developed the area over a number of years, the adjacent site containing several greenhouses that were used by the local Mencap as a community garden, and he felt it appeared the applicant was moving in the right direction in terms of developing the site. 

He added that proposed bungalow was three bedroom, was modest in scale and in terms of the proposal eroding the open countryside he noted that he disagreed with Officers as the development was within 15 metres of the nearest residential property so was not encroaching into open countryside in his opinion.  Councillor I McLean explained that it was alluded to by the Officer that there was some sustainability merits and he agreed, and he reiterated that there was a large number of people from the village that supported the application and therefore he would support the application.

The Chair thanked Councillor I McLean and asked Mr Barry Milburn, speaking as agent on behalf of the applicant, to address the Committee.

Mr B Milburn noted that the reasons for refusal appeared to be two-fold, with the first being set out in the report as “the development would detract from the form and character of the existing settlement, by reason of its position, detached and separate from the existing form of development”.  He noted that it was originally intended to position the bungalow closer to the existing buildings, however, power lines, as visible within the Officer’s presentation, meant that had not been possible with a requirement to maintain a 6 metre safe working distance from the power lines.  Mr B Milburn noted he felt a precedent had been established several years ago by the approval of detached three-bed dormer bungalow and double garage on 500 square metre plot, just off the northern tip of Angus Terrace, a location only one or two streets away from the application site separate from the existing terraced properties.

He added that in terms of the second reason for refusal, that the proposals would erode the open countryside and wider landscape setting, he felt that while the proposals were 11 metres south of the current settlement boundary as set out in the current Easington Local Plan, the NPPF adopted a more permissive approach.  Mr B Milburn explained that this had been taken into account for other applications that had been recommended for approval where and application was considered to be sustainable.  He added that he felt that the application site was sustainable by virtue of the availability of good local amenities at Easington Colliery and Horden, a walk or short bus journey away with links to larger towns such as Sunderland, Hartlepool or Durham.  He reminded Members of the recently opened train station at Horden and added that it was felt the proposed dwelling would be part of the existing settlement by virtue of its location, close to existing housing.

The Chair thanked Mr B Milburn and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Laing noted that the application was for a bungalow that was not very big and represented a high quality development that would benefit the local community and wider housing supply.  She noted the site was sustainable and had good accessibility, with a regular bus service and shops and facilities available at two neighbouring locations.  Councillor A Laing noted the amendments made by the applicant to meet residential amenity standards and as the site was sustainable and received local support from residents, she proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor J Blakey seconded the proposal for approval.

Councillor D Freeman noted he supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal as the site was outside of the settlement boundary and would adversely impact the area and set a precedent in terms of such development and proposed the application be refused. 

Councillor B Coult seconded the proposal for refusal, noting it was in line with the policies within the emerging CDP.

The Chair noted the proposal for approval had been moved and seconded first and therefore this would be voted upon first by Members of the Committee.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that in terms of the vote for approval, it would need to be subject to the usual suite of conditions and Section 106 Agreement in relation to Ecology, to be drafted by the Officer and agreed by the Chair and Vice-Chair.  Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to a suite of conditions and suitable Section 106 Legal Agreement, the details of which to be delegated to the Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.

Councillor J Clark left the meeting at 12.07am

Councillor A Laing in the Chair