Agenda item

Erection of a single storey dwelling.

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie, 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 a single storey dwelling and was recommended for refusal.

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to the application site on both site plans and aerial photographs showing a square plot with a narrow access past the adjacent property, The Rowans.  He noted the context of the site within the local area, with a handful of detached properties all with large grounds.  He referred to the nearby A690 and the busy junction between it and Pittington Road.  The Committee noted photographs of the site showing the site and narrow access, which had recently been tarmacked and with fencing along the boundary with The Rowans.  Members noted the mobile home on site, currently occupied, which did not yet have planning permission, subject to an ongoing investigation by Planning Enforcement.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that enforcement action was not relevant in terms of the application before the Committee.

 

The Committee noted the proposed site plan with a rectangular bungalow, parking, turning area and garden to the rear.  Members noted the elevations, with the Principal Planning Officer adding the proposed bungalow was of a relatively low level and well screened from the main road.

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to a slide highlighting the extent of the Green Belt designation, noting it predated the City of Durham Local Plan, and effectively cut off at Pittington Road, with properties on one side of the road being within the Green Belt, on the other side being outside of the Green Belt.

 

In terms of responses, the Principal Planning Officer noted no objections from Northumbrian Water, subject to some advice on surface water drainage, and no objections from the Council’s Highways Section, the access and bin storage arrangements being considered acceptable.  He added that the Spatial Policy Team noted that, in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) a dwelling would impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would be inappropriate development and would be, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.  He noted that they added that such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Landscape Team had responded noting that the proposal would be sited within the countryside outside any defined settlement boundary and a dwelling on the site would encroach on the countryside and further erode the rural character and openness of the greenbelt in that location.

 

The Committee were asked to note the response from the Design and Conservation Team which stated that they felt the information submitted did not justify a new dwelling in the location and the design was such that would result in a new dwelling of simple design with little architectural merit.

 

Members noted the Contaminated Land Team would require a condition requiring a land contamination scheme, due to the previous uses of the site, and the Noise Action Team raised no objections and provided advice regarding achieving acceptable noise levels in the dwelling, in terms of nearby traffic noise.  It was noted there were no objections from the Air Quality, Drainage and Ecology Sections and that Tree Officers offered no objection, confirming the tree report supplied was satisfactory and complied with current standards.  It was noted that one tree would be removed with all other trees to have been found to be in good health and would be retained.

 

In respect of representations, the Principal Planning Officer noted at the time of publication of the report no letters of support or objection had been received.  He added that subsequent to the publication of the report a Local Member, Councillor B Kellett had been in contact to note that he supported the Officer recommendation due to the concerns expressed within the report as regards the Green Belt.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted there had been four letters of support, received via Local Member, Councillor D Hall on behalf of the applicant, from the local school, the health visiting service and traveller organisations.  He noted the main points of support related to: the family currently living in caravan; the family were settled in the area and wanted to remain part of the community; their children were established in the local school; and that mental health and wellbeing were important, especially in current times.

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the planning considerations, noting they were set out in detail within the report.  He noted the new County Durham Plan (CDP) was now in force, adopted in October 2020, and was the statutory development plan for consideration of planning applications.  He noted the site was a greenfield site within the Durham City Green Belt and the site was behind an existing property which was constructed prior to Green Belt boundaries being established.  He added that the proposal would be contrary to CDP Policy 10, Development in the Countryside, and NPPF Section 13, Protecting Green Belt land). 

He noted Officers felt that the application had not demonstrated any very special circumstances to comply with exceptions afforded by Policy 10 or NPPF Paragraph 145.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted in terms of the impact upon the openness of the countryside and the Green Belt, that Policy 20 stated that proposals would be determined in accordance with the NPPF and that NPPF Paragraph 143 stated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  He added that the construction of a new dwelling as proposed was considered to be inappropriate development as it did not qualify under any of the exemptions, for uses such as agricultural and leisure developments.  Members noted Officers did not view the site as being previously developed, the previous coal and rail related uses, as shown on historic mapping, had long since ceased and the site was therefore considered as a greenfield site.  The Principal Planning Officer noted no special circumstances had been identified within the application and reiterated that the proposal was contrary to Policy 20 of the CDP and NPPF Section 13.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted impact on the character and appearance of the area, being located within the countryside and beyond the residential framework of the locality and as it was proposed to be behind an existing property, it did not relate well to the established built form and would be an incongruent addition to the existing landscape.

 

Members noted that in terms of residential amenity, it was considered unlikely that the proposals would result in impact to the current levels enjoyed by neighboured properties.

 

In terms of sustainability, the Principal Planning Officer noted the site was not located within a settlement and was, by definition, in the countryside.  He added that occupiers of the proposed dwelling would need to rely heavily on the use of a private car for their day-to-day needs and the proposal would be contrary to Policy 21, Delivering Sustainable Transport, which sought to minimise the need for the use of a private car as the only or main source of transport.  It was noted Low Pittington was the nearest settlement, located approximately 1.5 km away, with an unlit road with a footpath.  He added that West Rainton was located on the far side of the A690, which would require a difficult manoeuvre across two carriageways to get to, and it was not felt as being a safe route on foot, particularly taking children to school.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated there were no issues in terms of highway safety, parking or ecology.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated the recommendation for refusal based upon the points set out within the report and summarised within his presentation.  He added that while there was a modest boost to housing supply and a temporary contribution to the local economy through the provision of jobs during the construction phase of development, the Council was able to demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of five years.  He noted the application referred to personal circumstances, however, it was felt these were insufficient to outweigh the harm due to the inappropriateness of development within the Green Belt and reiterated that the application and supporting information failed to demonstrate very special circumstances as required by Policy 20 and Paragraph 145 of the NPPF and therefore the proposal was felt by Officers to be unacceptable.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Local Member, Councillor D Hall to speak in support of the application.

 

Councillor D Hall noted he was a Local County Councillor for the Sherburn Division and respectfully requested Members of the Committee grant the application for a modest, one storey family home.  He noted he had e-mailed a statement to Committee Members and therefore he would keep his address concise to avoid repetition.  He explained he wish to address the main issue was that of the Green Belt designation, noting it was applied to large swathes of land of different types and uses including, in this instance, streets of residential houses and small plots of land behind them.  He explained that if it were not for the Green Belt designation, the application would have probably been granted without much delay and noted he felt the designation created a fog of semantic planning arguments which lost sight of the truth that the application referred to a relatively small, discrete, enclosed plot of land, adjacent to existing houses and a business, none of whom objected to the application, with no impact on the adjacent areas and was a sensible place for the proposed new home.  Councillor D Hall noted he felt that through its Green Belt designation the report had considered by default that the development was in the open countryside.  He noted this was not the case, noting it did not incur into the countryside and was already naturally enclosed and screened so that one would be hard pressed to spot the location now or once built out, as confirmed by the Committee report.  He added that it was an underused plot of land sitting redundantly alongside larger properties built before the Green Belt designation. 

 

Councillor D Hall noted there were no objections to the application, only letters of support and added it was sustainable development as it was within walking distance of the local primary school, pub, shops and was a one minute walk from several local and into town bus routes, not least on the A690.  He noted the A690 would have traffic lights and a pedestrian crossing installed next year for easier access to West Rainton. 

He noted the crossroads at Low Pittington and added there was an excellent farm shop selling a fantastic range of goods just next door to the application site.

 

Councillor D Hall noted the family were currently living with extended family in crowded circumstances and were trying hard to resolve the issue.  He added that they were an embedded part of the local community through their family upbringing, profession, support network, with their children doing well at the local primary school and also through their involvement and volunteering in the community.  He explained that recently had involved raising thousands of pounds for local COVID-19 and community projects.  Councillor D Hall noted Mr Thomas Ward was a hardworking local who had made himself a very successful professional boxer and used his experience and skill to mentor young people within the village through the local youth project, with special focus on children and young people that may be harder to reach.  He noted that the young family simply wished to have a home in their local village, on their own plot of land for their family’s needs.  Councillor D Hall noted the application was a sensible development, a good use of underused land, formerly industrial but long since turned green, and now perfect for a new home.  He noted there were no objections and he felt no real or physical harm to give weight to and added that thankfully there were Planning Committees with the democratically given powers to fairly weigh matters and make a decision in the best interests of all concerned, including the applicant and the community both of which he respectfully argued were best served by the granting of the application.  He noted that Planning Officers had confirmed to him that it was open to Committee Members to weigh the circumstances for themselves and it was perfectly within the Committee’s power to grant the application should they wish to, with no precedent set for future similar applications. 

 

Councillor D Hall noted in summary that the proposed one storey development did not breach or harm the principle of the Green Belt and served the important service of providing a much needed family home through a respectful use of available screened and underused space next to existing houses.  He noted that he respectfully requested that the Committee grant the application for a family home with any conditions that Planning Officers would require.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor D Hall and asked Ms Chantelle Morrison, the applicant, to speak in support of her application.

 

Ms C Morrison thanked the Chair and introduced herself and Mr Thomas Ward, applicants in respect of the proposed development and noted they wished to build themselves a family home as they had lived in the area for all of their lives, both having grown up on the nearby Traveller site at Adventure Lane, which had been welcomed by the community of West Rainton.

Ms C Morrison explained that there was no availability on the Traveller site for them and they were not a priority in terms of Council builds.  She added that as Mr T Ward was self-employed they were unable to obtain a mortgage for a house that they would need and noted as part of the Traveller community they faced a lot of discrimination adding that if they were required to travel that would have a big impact upon their mental health.  She explained their children attended the school at West Rainton and noted they were thriving in terms of their education.

 

Ms C Morrison noted that should they obtain a smaller house elsewhere, they would still require planning permission for an extension adding it would be more cost effective to build on the land they had owned for many years.  She explained they currently lived in a caravan owned by Mr T Ward’s parents and noted that with 10 adults and 13 children it was very cramped with animosity developing due to the overcrowding.  She noted it was important that family did not fall out over the issue and she wished to maintain the strong family bonds and noted they relied upon family for support.  She reiterated if they were to revert to their Traveller roots it would have a big impact upon the mental health of her and her family, with her children having to leave their school for months on end, adding that the family had good relationships with their Doctor, Health Visitors and the local school which would be hard to rebuild if not settled in the same location.

 

Ms C Morrison explained that Mr T Ward was a very well respected figure in the local community and a great role model, supporting all local events and fundraising activities, volunteering a lot of his time to help others in the community.  She added that they had the full support of their neighbours and explained that the proposed property would fit in with the surroundings.  She noted that they would not be proposing to remove any of the trees on their land and would only developing less than half of the area for the property itself.  She thanked the Committee for listening and noted she, and Mr T Ward would be happy to answer any questions from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Ms C Morrison and asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond to the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted in respect of the Green Belt issues raised by Councillor D Hall that those issues were the fundamental concern in respect of the application.  He added that unless the Local Planning Authority agreed very special circumstances there was no subjectivity in terms of the application. 

 

 

 

 

He noted the NPPF was quite clear in stating that: “inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”, he added that exceptions included: buildings for agricultural forestry; facilities for outdoor sport or recreation that was clearly in place; cemeteries; alterations to an existing building or replacement of an existing building; and limited in-fill within villages.  He noted that therefore there was not an exception that could apply in terms of the application being considered. 

 

He added that Members had heard from the family in terms of their background and the impressive work of their family, and while there was sympathy for the situation they found themselves in, the reasons were not sufficient in planning terms to be considered very special circumstances to override the Green Belt.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted Councillor D Hall had stated that the application would likely have been granted had it not been within the green Belt, he explained that he would not agree with that and referred Members to statements within the report as regards the Officers view that the site was in an unsustainable location relative to shopping and other facilities.  He noted there was a farm shop nearby, however, that would not be able to provide a full range of shopping and any occupiers would need to make supermarket trips.  He reiterated that it was considered that attempting to cross the A690 on foot would be extremely dangerous and therefore it was far more likely that a private car would be used for trips to the school and for shopping.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Officers felt that approval of the application would undermine Green Belt principles and did not feel that there were very special circumstances to warrant approval and therefore the recommendation remained the same.

 

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

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he could get quite irate when reference was made to locations being unsustainable, he explained he felt a location 50 miles from anywhere was unsustainable and that a plot a few miles from facilities was sustainable.  He added that he felt the special circumstances in terms of the application would be that it was allowing a local family to stay in their local area, allowing their children to attend their local school and he felt the Committee should support the application and moved that it be approved, adding there had been no objections from residents to the application.

 

 

 

Councillor P Taylor noted he found it difficult in terms of not judging with emotion an application by a young family to build a home.  He noted from the presentation that there was a roadway constructed to access the site, the area had been cleared and asked why the application had gotten so far through the planning process, and whether there had been pre-application advice in terms of the principle of development on the site as, in accordance with policy, it was unlikely any such application would have been granted in the Green Belt.  He added that it was also important to take into account the personal circumstances of the young family, and he added he disagreed with Planning Officers as he considered the site to be a sustainable location. 

Councillor P Taylor noted he was torn as regards the application and noted he was always very mindful as regards planning rules and policies and was always strict in their application at Committee.  He added the application was for a site within the Green Belt and reiterated he was torn as regards the application and wondered if the family had been given false hope in relation to the proposal.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the applicants had asked for and received pre-application advice and were given firm advice that the proposal would not be acceptable, and the site was an inappropriate site for development, the applicants however proceeded with their application.

 

Councillor A Laing moved the application be refused in line with the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor L Marshall seconded refusal.

 

Councillor D Brown seconded Councillor J Shuttleworth.

 

The Chair noted no further comments or questions from the Committee and asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter to explain as regards the votes to be taken and for reasons in terms of the motion for approval.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the key policy test was that of the Green Belt and that development was inappropriate by definition and therefore was harm arising from that development.  He added that therefore if Members were to approve the development, they would need to be of the view that the circumstances were such that they clearly outweighed the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm that had been identified, with Members having been informed of additional harm in respect of sustainability, though Members may agree or disagree with that aspect.  He added that Officers had also identified additional harm in terms of the impact on the open countryside, the visual impact on the character and appearance of the location.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted Officers had set out their view, that being they felt the personal circumstances, while amounting to material planning considerations, would not be sufficient. 

He reiterated that if Members were to approve the application, they would have to be of the view that those circumstances were sufficient to outweigh that harm.  He asked if Councillor J Shuttleworth could indicate what material planning consideration he felt outweighed the harm and, if approved, there would need to be a standard suite of conditions attached to such an approval.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted that Councillor J Shuttleworth would be able to take the contrary view to Officers in order to justify his motion for approval of the application.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that in approving the application it would allow local people to live in their local area, adding it was often reported in the press that local people in the countryside not being able to have a home or buy a home due to the cost.  He noted that the proposal would help the family to stay in their local area, with their three children helping to support the local school.  He added that the shops were not so far away in terms of sustainability and therefore he felt the application should be allowed.  He noted he felt there were exceptional circumstances and he noted the contribution of Mr T Ward in the local community in terms of providing boxing training for young people.

 

Councillor D Brown noted in terms of the Green Belt and the application being an intrusion into the countryside, he noted the land was not agricultural land and he felt that it was a useless little corner that was crying out for development, would not intrude on anyone’s privacy and had received no objections from local residents.  He concluded by noting he felt the plot would benefit from having a house build on it and that approval was common sense.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development summarised that Members proposing the approval were noting they felt the applicants’ personal circumstances, together with the sustainability credentials of the site and assistance with the sustainability of the school in terms of pupil numbers, were sufficient to clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm that had been identified.  He noted that, should the application be approved, delegated authority would be required for Planning Officers to agree a suite of conditions in conjunction with the Chair and Vice-chair, and he asked if the Principal Planning Officer could give further information in terms of conditions.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that there would be requirements in terms of a contaminated land assessment as outlined within consultation responses within the report, as well as suitable conditions associated with materials, landscaping amongst others, again to be endorsed by the Chair and Vice-Chair as required.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted the vote was for the approval of the application, subject to a suite of conditions to be agreed by the Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

 

Upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

 

The Chair noted the result and asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development to take the vote in respect of the motion for refusal of the application.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons as set out within the report.