Agenda item

Conversion of existing garage buildings (or demolished and replaced with) to a single dwelling covering the existing footprint and an extension to the east.

                The Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings, 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 conversion of existing garage buildings (or demolished and replaced with) to a single dwelling covering the existing footprint and an extension to the east and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the applicant had agreed that the windows on the existing dwelling, Saanen Lodge, which would have been affected by the development could be obscure glazed and it was added that Officers agreed that could be achieved through condition.

Members were referred to site plan and aerial photographs and were asked to note the application site being separate and in poor relationship with the settlement, being within the countryside.  The Committee were asked to note as regards tree cover that would be retained, the track to be used for access, and existing garage buildings on the site.  Proposed elevations and site layout plans were shown, noting a two storey dwelling.

In respect of statutory responses, the Planning Officer, JJ noted no objections from Northumbrian Water Limited and the Council’s Highway Section, with the latter noting conditions relating to improved surfacing, access widening and a bin collection area storage.  She added that Spatial Policy had objected as the development was within the countryside and noted the application should be determined in line with the policies within the emerging CDP.  She noted the Tree Officer had noted no objections, with the arboricultural report being considered satisfactory, though tree protection measures were proposed and would be conditioned.  It was added there were no objections from the Contaminated Land section, Nuisance Action Team or County Archaeologist. 

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the Public rights of Way (PROW) Team had noted that one access was also used as a PROW and supported the requirement for surface improvements requested by highways.  She added that the Ecology section required that the recommendations within the Ecology and the Bat Reports were conditioned, with a Bat Licence being required to be secured before development proceeded.

The Committee were informed that there had been four letters of support received, noting supporting comments that included that the development: was well planned and well designed and would add to the small community of dwellings in the area; would support businesses in the village; would bring much needed investment in the village; was in close proximity to public transport and community centre and other services.

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 area had some sustainability merits, with a reasonable amount of services available, however, the proposal would not accord with emerging policy 10 relating to development in the countryside.  She explained that the proposal would represent adverse harm to the character of that part of the countryside, through substantial and disproportionate works to the garage building to create the dwelling.  She noted that benefits of the development included: limited boost to housing supply; limited uplift in economic expenditure resulting from development; and some sustainability merits due to a small range of services and a regular bus service.  The Planning Officer, JJ noted the adverse impacts were considered to be: adverse harm to the character of that part of the countryside through substantial and disproportionate works to the garage building to create the dwelling; and the extent of works proposed would be contrary to emerging policy 10 of the CDP.  She concluded by explaining that therefore, on balance, it was determined that the adverse effects resulting from policy conflict outweighed the benefits and refusal was recommended.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked Councillor E Huntington, Local Member, to speak in relation to the Application.

Councillor E Huntington thanked the Chair and Committee and noted she strongly supported the application which she believed would have a positive effect in terms of the economy of the county whilst also providing a new, high quality, accessible bungalow in a sustainable location.  She added that she was glad to see that the Authority had agreed that the proposed development was within a sustainable location, given the range of services and facilities available within Haswell that would meet the needs of future occupants. 

She noted the main housing area of Haswell was only a short distance away from the site and convenient access could be achieved by foot or bicycle and local bus services provided access to nearby large towns.  Councillor E Huntington noted that several residential schemes had received planning approval within Haswell over the last few years, within vicinity of the site.  She added that the four letters of support, three from immediate neighbours, stated the positive benefits of the proposal in terms of supporting local services and improving the character and appearance of the site.

Councillor E Huntington explained that there had been no objections from local people as they saw the proposal as benefit.  She noted while the Officer noted the scale of the development was not appropriate, the garage that it would be replacing was substantial in size, two double garages with high pitched roofs, being two-storey in height and having been used for the storage of waste before the current owner purchased the property. 

Councillor E Huntington noted the dwelling proposed provided much needed additional bungalow provision within the County and would be comparable in size to the existing bungalow, Saanen Lodge.  She explained that the design was of high quality, with access for those with mobility issues and the development would add to the housing supply at a time where the economy had been plunged into depression.  She noted that the local area needed jobs and such small scale developments provided opportunities for local trades people and while the report stated only minor economic uplift in this regard, many minor uplifts across many such small developments would build up.  She implored the Committee to support the development, noting the site was within a sustainable location and with an Inspector’s decision and other successful applications supporting this, the building not being isolated, rather located within a cluster of buildings.  She reiterated the boost to the housing supply, the guaranteed additional spend in the area and opportunities for local trades people to work and asked Members to approve the application.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the proposals represented a two storey dwelling, not a bungalow.

The Chair thanked Councillor E Huntington and asked Ms Claire Hattam, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

Ms C Hattam thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that the location of the proposed development had been agreed as being at a sustainable location by the Officer’s report and independent Inspectors at comparable sites through appeals decisions as well as by other residential development in and around Haswell that had been approved in recent years. 

She noted that the Officer’s report highlighted the level of services available within Haswell and local bus services and acceptability in terms of sustainability and highlighted that there were no objections from several statutory consultees, subject to conditions, conditions the applicant was willing to accept.   

Ms C Hattam noted the primary reason for refusal was the scale of the proposed dormer bungalow in comparison to the existing redundant garage structures on site, and she added that the Officer had considered that to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 

She explained that the applicant believed this assessment to be inaccurate as it did not take into account the size of the existing structures being substantial in size, two double garages with steep pitched roofs with a first floor mezzanine level for additional storage space.  She noted the existing buildings were not single storey structures as noted in paragraph 70 of the Officer’s report.  Ms C Hattam noted the photograph in the Case Officer’s presentation did not show the scale of the host dwelling by comparison and added that as such, while the proposed alterations were substantial, that did not mean the new dormer bungalow would have an adverse impact as a direct consequence.  She added that the new dwelling would be comparable in terms of mass and height to the host dwelling, Saanen Lodge, and it was the applicant’s intention to create a harmonious and high quality designed accessible home, the Authority conceding within it’s presentation that it would be a high quality designed property.

Ms C Hattam noted the area was designated as a landscape improvement priority area by the Council demonstrating the quality of the surrounding landscape was not currently as high as other parts of the county and was in need of enhancement.  She explained that the proposed development supported that policy approach by removing unused structures and surrounding overgrown scrub vegetation on site.  She added it was understood that policy 10 of the emerging CDP would allow for conversion of existing buildings within the countryside, however, it was felt the current proposals presented a greater opportunity to create a better quality accessible home for future occupants.  She noted that conversion of the existing garages would not present such an opportunity, however, the applicant noted that could provide a legitimate fallback position, as acknowledged by the Case Officer.

Ms C Hattam noted that the second refusal reason as set out within the Officer’s report noted residential amenity of the occupants of Saanen Lodge given the proximity of its windows on the eastern elevation to the blank elevation of the proposed bungalow.  She reiterated that prior to Committee, the applicant had confirmed that the window closest to the proposed bungalow served an office and already comprised of obscure glazing. 

She noted the furthest window on the eastern elevation of Saanen Lodge served a living room, which also benefited from bi-fold doors on the southern elevation.  She added that given the location and orientation of the proposed bungalow, it was also unlikely that this window would face the blank side elevation of the proposed bungalow.  In terms of the remaining window on that elevation of Saanen Lodge, Ms C Hattam noted this served a utility room and as the applicant was the owner of Saanen Lodge, they had the scope to frost the window, replace with a high level window or remove the window if deemed necessary.  She noted the verbal update from the Case Officer confirming that if Committee were willing to approve the application, they would be willing to accept the condition.

Ms C Hattam reiterated that the proposal for a detached dormer bungalow would not result in adverse impact on residential amenity, surrounding landscape, protected species or character and appearance of the area and represented a sustainable development with good access to services and facilities, with a scale comparable to the adjacent property and smaller in mass than several of the surrounding properties.  She concluded by sincerely asking Committee to approve the proposed development.

The Chair thanked Ms C Hattam and asked the Planning Officer, JJ to speak in response to the points raised by the speakers.

The Planning Officer, JJ noted the main contention was conflict with CDP policy 10, with the existing garage representing a footprint of 220 square metres, with the proposals having a ground floor of 264 square metres and a first floor of 144 square metres, the total being approximately double that existing and therefore disproportionate and significant addition to the building currently on site.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer, JJ and asked the Committee for their comments and questions on the application.

Councillor P Taylor noted he was always intrigued how each side of an argument would frame their comments and thanked the Local Member for her very good presentation, a credit to her community.  He added that, however, he must look at planning policy and he was quite shocked by the scale and massing of the proposed dwelling and agreed with the Officer that it was inappropriate and did not comply with policy 10 of the emerging CDP and saved policy 35 of the Easington Local Plan and therefore he would propose refusal in line with the Officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor A Laing noted she agreed with the Local Member, Councillor E Huntington, and felt very strongly in supporting these types of small, high quality developments that supported local communities, as well as contributing to the Council’s housing supply. 

She added that she felt the proposal was of an extremely high quality design with the added bonus of being accessible for those with disabilities or mobility issues.  She noted that there had been no opposition from members of the public and she felt it was a good development, especially in the uncertain economic times, had to be seen as a huge contribution to local communities and the county housing supply and therefore she proposed the application be approved.

The Chair noted proposals for refusal and approval and asked for further comments and any support for those proposals from Members.

Councillor D Freeman noted the proposals looked very nice from the plans, however, as Councillor P Taylor had stated it was disproportionate in size to the site and while he was generally in support of such conversion applications, the proposal did not represent a conversion, being approximately twice the size and was way beyond redevelopment and therefore he seconded the refusal of the application.

Councillor D Brown noted he had listened to the debate and looked at the site photographs and noted he did not think the existing buildings looked particularly tidy and while the proposals were not small, he felt they enhanced the area and he would support approval of the application.

The Chair noted that approval reasons would need to be cited at the appropriate juncture, however, the proposal for refusal had been moved and seconded first and therefore this would be voted upon first by Members of the Committee.  Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as:

1.     In applying the requirements of paragraph 11 of the NPPF the adverse impacts of the proposal to erect a dwelling at the site would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  In particular, the development, by reason of its position detached and separate from the existing form of development, would detract from the form and character of the existing settlement, whilst also eroding the open countryside area and wider landscape setting, to the detriment of visual amenity contrary to policies 3 and 35 of the Easington District Local Plan and paragraph 127 of the NPPF and emerging policies 6 and 10 of the County Durham Plan.

2.     The adverse impacts of the development with regards to residential amenity were considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development when considered in the context of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.  Specifically, the proposal would fail to achieve adequate distancing standards with the existing adjacent dwelling, resulting in unsatisfactory levels of amenity for existing occupiers, contrary to the aims of policy 35 of the Easington Local Plan, Residential Amenities Standards SPD (2020) and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF.

Councillor M Davinson left the meeting at 11.40am

The Chair noted as the technical difficulties had been resolved, application 5b would be the next item for consideration.