Agenda item

Replace conservatory with single storey extension, replace pitched roofs of rear extensions with flat roof, replace windows, apply render to ground floor front elevation, install electric gate to side, increase height of side boundary wall, replace felt hanging tiles with cladding between windows to front elevation and install security shutter (Part Retrospective) (amended description).

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 to replace conservatory with single storey extension, replace pitched roofs of rear extensions with flat roof, replace windows, apply render to ground floor front elevation, install electric gate to side, increase height of side boundary wall, replace felt hanging tiles with cladding between windows to front elevation and install security shutter (Part Retrospective) (amended description) and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to slides relating to the application site location and photographs of various views of the site.  He explained that some works were retrospective, and some works were yet to be completed.  He asked Members to note photographs showing the front elevation of the property prior to works and after, highlighting differing brick types used during previous alterations and tiled cladding above and below the bay windows.  It was added the current position included cleaned up brickwork at the first floor level, with grey render applied at the ground floor.  He noted the windows had new grey frames and the cladding between the windows had been renewed.

 

In respect of the side elevation, the Principal Planning Officer noted before and after photographs, noting signage from the previous use as a guest house having been replaced with new signage for the funeral business, which had been subject to a separate planning permission.

 

The Committee were asked to note photographs showing the current rear and rear and side elevations of the property, with the conservatory visible at the rear and the electric gate to the side.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the disjointed appearance, as a result of the extensions and alterations that had taken place over time, adding the application sought to rationalise the position.

 

Members were referred to slides showing the frontage of several nearby properties which had a render finish, as concerns had been raised was whether render was a suitable finish for the front of the application property. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the slides demonstrated that a render finish was not uncommon in the area, with two properties on the opposite side of the main road, one on the corner across the side lane, and with three further along the main road.  He explained as regards variation in material, with some having pebbledash, some plain render, with a majority being red brick.  He added this showed there was not consistency in terms of the type of finish used in the area.

 

The Committee were shown current and proposed elevations, showing the variations in roof line and the extensions that had been added over time.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the proposed elevations highlighted the retrospective elements and the proposed works, primarily within the rear yard area and demonstrated the rationalisation and tidying of the roof lines. 

 

In respect of consultation responses, it was noted that the Highways Section had offered no objections to the proposals.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the comments received from Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish Council, with points raised including the works not being treated as retrospective, and that while the works had been carried out to a high standard, the Parish Council did not consider that they were in keeping with the nearby Conservation Area.  He added that the and Design and Conservation Officer had offered no objections to the application.

 

The Committee noted there had been one letter of representation received and four letters of objection to the application, with a more detailed summary of the comments set out within the report.  It was noted that concerns and objections included: objectors not being notified of the change of use application resulting in a lack of confidence in the planning process; that previous concerns had not been addressed – highway congestion in the side lane; use of the building as function rooms for up to 35 people; operation of a mortuary and preparation room; how odours and waste would be handled, were the chapels to be used as chapels of function rooms with catering; applicants intending no trade waste, were there to be no preparation of the deceased on site or no food waste created; the proposed roof plan showed access to the yard, it was not clear if that was for access or congregation which could result in noise; and that insufficient information had been submitted with the application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the issues were fully addressed within the report.  He explained that established planning procedure was that any residents commenting on an application were not notified of an outcome, it was the responsibility of an individual to check on the outcome, with the correspondence sent to those commenting on planning applications advising individuals of that.  He noted the other points raised referred to the previous change of use planning application and could not be taken into account when considering the current application.

The Committee noted representations had noted that: the neighbour notification letter had not stated the application was part retrospective and the website had; it was unclear as to which parts of the application were retrospective and two separate applications would have indicated that; there had been objections to the previous application in respect of parking, with parking being poor since that approval; there were concerns in changing the pitched roof to a flat roof; and the development should not overhang the highway, with one of the roofs appearing to fall to the highway. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the first point was rectified as a further consultation process had taken place, and that it was felt it was reasonable to deal with the matter as a joint application, with all aspects given due consideration.  He explained that parking was not relevant to the application being considered as it only referred to external works, however, Planning Officers had not received any complaints as regards the use since it had commenced in terms of parking or other issues.  He noted the issues in terms of roof type, to be discussed later within the presentation, and roof overhang, with the latter having been addressed, all drainage now being into the yard.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that further objections had been received following the publication of the Committee report, and the objector asked that the concerns be put to Members.  He noted concerns included: receipt of four notifications altogether, two of which mentioned part-retrospective, two did not, leading to some confusion; how the Committee would know which elements were retrospective and which were not as queries relating to this had no response and there had been no changes; and how the Committee could make a decision without the correct facts. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that he was not aware of the Case Officer having any direct contact from the objector in order to be able to advise on the queries.  He added it was felt it was reasonable to assume that anyone living locally would have been aware of the works that had taken place and would have seen them in progress, though the Case Officer would always be available to answer queries as required.  He noted that paragraph five of the report set out a list of the retrospective works and reiterated that the application itself was for the whole development, whether or not already completed, and would need to be assessed upon that basis.  He added it made no difference to Officers’ consideration of a proposal whether part of the scheme had already been completed.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that while that was the case, retrospective applications were disappointing for Officers to receive and for Committee Members to have to determine where works had been undertaken within the relevant planning permission.  He added that planning legislation did make provision for such applications and for works to be regularised if they were acceptable or be open to refusal if they were not acceptable.

In reference to the principle of development, the Principal Planning Officer noted the change of use from guest house to funeral directors was granted in June 2020.  He noted the works proposed under the current application related to external alterations connected with the change of use.  He added that these included: replacement of the conservatory with an extension; replacement of the various pitched roofs with one overall flat roof; replacement of windows; an increase to the boundary wall height; and render to the lower part of the front elevation.  He explained the works that had taken place and were retrospective included the replacement windows, the render to the front elevation, and replacement of felt tiles with cladding.

 

The Committee were asked to note Officers felt that the alterations to the property, within a built up area, were acceptable in principle subject to consideration of detailed issues.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the site was not within the Bowburn Conservation Area, rather was situated on the edge of it, across the road.  Accordingly, the considerations were the character and appearance of the property itself and the potential impact upon the setting of the conservation area.  He explained the Council’s Design Officer had assessed those elements and provided comments to assist the Case Officer in consideration of the application.  It had been noted that the front render, while not usually appropriate on a traditional red brick property, was considered acceptable by reason of covering up the mismatched brickwork on a prominent front elevation.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the other examples of render within the vicinity, as demonstrated by the photographs within the presentation, meant that a render finish could not be described as out of keeping with the surroundings.  He noted that for similar reasons it was not considered to adversely impact upon the setting of the Conservation Area.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that flat roofs would normally be discouraged as pointed out by objectors, however, given the variation of roof lines at the rear a flat roof was considered acceptable in this case, the proposals would rationalise and tidy the current arrangement resulting in a simplified and improved appearance to the rear and side elevations.  He added the other works were to repair and upgrade the property and were considered acceptable.

 

Members were reminded that while the issue of highways safety had been raised by objectors, the current application was for external works only and had no direct implications for traffic movement other than vehicles associated with works being carried out.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the issue of traffic relating to the use of the property was considered in association with the previous application and could not be reconsidered as part of the current scheme.  He noted that Highways Officers offered no objections. 

 

 

In relation to residential amenity, the Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of neighbours’ amenity the reduction in roof height to the extensions by the removal of pitched roofs and replacement with a flat roof would lessen the visual impact and also allow more light into the yard of the adjacent property.  He added that other issues that had been raised had been fully addressed within the report and presentation.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that objectors were no longer notified of the outcome of a planning application, although it had formed part of the process some years ago, adding that the responsibility was with objectors to keep a check on an application.  He explained that matters relating to the operational side of the funeral business were not relevant to the consideration of the application before Members which was for external changes only.  He noted an objector had made reference to the original roof layout draining towards the external walls, possibly requiring guttering overhanging the highway.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the issue had been raised with the applicant and addressed through a revised design and submission of an amended plan, resolving the issue with all parts of the building draining into the site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the principle of development was considered to be acceptable, with the external changes proposed not being considered to have adverse impact upon the setting of the Conservation Area or current levels of residential and visual amenity around the site itself.

He explained that there were no highways objections and the proposal was considered to not detrimentally impact the character or appearance of the area.  He added it was felt that the application met the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and relevant local plan policies.  He noted that the objections and concerns raised had been taken into account and addressed within the report and that, on balance, the concerns raised were not felt to be of sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application.  He concluded that as some of the works were retrospective, it was standard practice to add an informative to any decision made, if approval was granted, to warn the applicant of the risks of applying retrospectively as that could lead to work having to be rectified and reinstated, in the hope that would avoid the situation happening again with the same applicant in the future.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Councillor M McKeon, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor M McKeon thanked the Chair and noted she had been contacted by Residents from the Durham Road West area, the area just behind the property subject to the application, as regards some concerns they had about the planning application. 

She noted the concern shared was in respect of the electric gate and the arrangements for hearses and other vehicles to enter the yard, where it stated the cargo would be unloaded into the funeral directors.  She explained she had concerns as regards there not being enough room for a hearse to manoeuvre, or indeed fit within the yard, and that there would not be sufficient space for the vehicles that were needed. 

 

Councillor M McKeon explained that would mean vehicles, large hearses, parking regularly on the path which was a footpath which would become increasingly busy as the area behind Durham Road West was developed and more people used the footways to get into and out of the village.  She added that part of the reason for concern was that Planning Officers had stated there had been no complaints in respect of parking since the permission had been granted for the change of use.  She explained that was as a consequence of the nearby club not operating at its usual capacity, if operating at all, and similarly for the nearby the hairdressers as a result of current lockdown restrictions.  She noted the hairdressers had needed to cordon off half of the seats within the salon and was operating at half capacity.  Councillor M McKeon explained that meant if there was a parking issue, it would have not been detected so far and she added from personal experience of using the hairdressers that she was aware of congestion issues in that area.  She added that while Officers noted those issues were issues for the previous application and not the current one, she had looked at the previous application and had not been able to find a detailed highways report that confirmed the data or argument from the Highways Section in respect of the impact of the previous application, or current application.  She noted that the previous application had been granted during a time where it would not have been possible to undertake an effective parking survey due to lockdown, with a lot of traders that would normally have customers parking were not being able to trade.  She added that while she saw some of the argument for not including the issue within the current and future applications relating to the property, she noted she must disagree as the difficult situation that everyone had been living with for a year had meant that a proper conversation around the issue had not taken place.  She added she did not want the Committee to shut down that conversation as it could become pertinent to the village in the future. 

 

Councillor M McKeon noted that the application was retrospective, adding that while that was not a reason to refuse an application, a number of retrospective applications were being received across her Electoral Division.  She added that she, along with residents, Parish Councils, and community groups, were becoming more and more frustrated that work was taking place without residents being able to have a proper say through the planning process. 

 

 

She understood that it was not a matter a Committee could act on as such, however, she noted that wherever possible Local Members should take a stand against retrospective applications particularly when in such a sensitive area, such as the key commercial area of a growing village such as Bowburn.  She thanked the Committee for their time.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor M McKeon and asked Mr D Morgan to speak in objection to the application.

 

Mr D Morgan thanked the Chair and Councillor M McKeon, as she had noted many of the points he would wish to make.  He reiterated that it was the case that the process in respect of the development had been impacted by COVID-19, adding he felt the constraints on businesses and communication had not been fully appreciated, and certainly not appreciated in the decision making in respect of the initial consent for a funeral home in June 2020, as the country emerged from lockdown.  

 

He explained that residents, including himself, had made representations to the Planning Authority in respect of the application noting issues of: highway impact; amenity impact; noises and odours; and, at that time to a lesser extent, the impact on the Conservation Area.  Mr D Morgan recognised that those concerns appeared to have been considered and had been dealt with in June 2020.  He noted, concentrating on the application before Committee, that he, along with one other resident, had objected to the application  He added that such a facility for a funeral home was welcomed in the area, and any impacts alleged or otherwise that would be referred to were community impacts, not personal impacts on issues such as house prices.  He noted Members would have seen from the maps displayed that there was a Working Men’s Club in the area and that would not normally be conducive of increasing house values.  He added that the funeral home per se was not an issue and never had been.

 

Mr D Morgan noted that paragraph six of the report made reference to the application being considered by Committee as the applicant was related to a Councillor.  He added that, as far as he had been able to trace, such declaration had not been made in relation to the earlier decision process and therefore he felt there was a lack of consistency in terms of the process. 

 

Mr D Morgan noted the highway issue that he wished to concentrate on was that of the installation of the electric gate, echoing the concerns of Councillor M McKeon in that long wheelbase vehicles would not be able to deliver the deceased to the establishment without obstructing the footway.  He added that was clearly prejudicial to highway safety and also to wheelchair users and parents with children in pushchairs, they having to deviate onto the carriageway.

 

Mr D Morgan explained, in terms of the conservation impact, the Conservation Officer had noted no objections to the use of render on the property.  He added that would give licence to other persons seeking to render properties within the Conservation Area and clearly devalue the protections to the wider community and impact the Committee in the future decision making relating to render within the Conservation Area.  He noted that at paragraph 29 of the report, the applicant’s statement noted there was no current parking problem.  Mr D Morgan added that there would not be, for the reasons Councillor M McKeon had described, the trading situation being at least only 50 percent.  He concluded by noting the pressure from a number of businesses in the area, competing for public parking space, with the funeral director business having no exclusive parking provision.

 

The Chair thanked Mr D Morgan and asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond to the issues raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in respect of the electric gate and whether there was sufficient room to allow for a hearse to enter and manoeuvre, he noted the previous report referred to the issue and the Highways Officer had considered it was acceptable, acknowledging it was a tight space, with an electric gate perhaps helping to facilitate vehicles entering the yard.  He reiterated that the issue had been considered during the change of use application and could not be revisited at this stage.  He noted the concerns raised by the Local Member as regards not simply dismissing highways concerns, however, the change of use application had been determined and granted by the Council.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that retrospective applications were always of concern to Members and Officers, with people perhaps feeling matters were a foregone conclusion, however, he noted that was absolutely not the case.  He added that while legislation allowed for the submission of retrospective applications, it required the Local Planning Authority to take into account all the relevant planning issues and if it was concluded that permission would not have been granted had the application been made prior to works, then permission ought to be refused.  He explained there could be a compromise position, where some elements are deemed acceptable and some are not, and conditions could be applied to rectify certain issues.  He reiterated that it was by no means the case that because works had been undertaken that Planners were fettered by that.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that there was no punishment the Local Planning Authority could invoke in respect of a retrospective application, the process of retrospective application being to provide the opportunity to have works regularised, with Officers looking objectively at the appropriate planning considerations when considering such applications.

 

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the issues raised in respect of the render finish, he reiterated the issue had been fully addressed within the report and presentation.  He noted the render was felt to be appropriate as there was a difference in the brickwork, as shown on the photograph within the presentation.  He noted that there were also other examples of render used in the area and added that each application would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the property was outside of the Conservation Area and therefore the considerations of the impacts were slightly less than if in the area.  He noted as it was on the edge of the area, legislation required that consideration was given to the setting of the Conservation Area and whether it was significantly adversely affected.  He noted that the Design Officer had concluded that was not the case and therefore it was not felt a refusal could be supported based upon the render finish.

 

The Principal Highways Development Management (DM) Engineer, David Battensby reiterated the comments of the Principal Planning Officer in respect of the previous change of use application having been dealt with and highways issues having been considered at that time.  He added that it had been noted that the previous application had been for change of use from a guest house and that use would have had parking generated from use of that business.  It had been noted that the amount of parking generated by a funeral business would likely be less than that generated by a guest house.  He noted there had been discussions at that time with the applicant as regards visitors to the premises and it had been noted they would be by application and only be one visit allowed to each unit within the property. 

 

In reference to the rear access for a hearse, the Principal DM Engineer explained it had been noted that the rear courtyard space available was approximately eight metres, with enquiries noting that the length of a hearse was six metres, therefore whilst tight, there was sufficient space to accommodate those vehicles.  He added that the use of a roller shutter was more beneficial than gates that would require opening into the yard as they would have further reduced space.  He reiterated the current application was for external works and that highways issues had been considered within the previous application.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked if highways had felt that the measurements and turning angles for a hearse had been considered sufficient to be able to turn into the rear of the property.  The Principal DM Engineer noted that was correct.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal DM Engineer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor A Laing asked if the size of the largest model hearse had been considered, noting such vehicles appeared to be very large nowadays.  The Principal DM Engineer explained that the size was based upon the model use by the applicant for their business.  Councillor A Laing noted vehicles would be replaced and therefore for future reference asked if it was known whether such vehicles could be larger than the six metres stated and whether a restriction could be placed in terms of vehicle size.  The Principal DM Engineer reiterated that issue had been dealt with through the previous application and it would not be possible to place a restriction via the current application, however, six metres was the average size of such vehicles.

 

Councillor A Laing moved that the application be approved, she was seconded by Councillor S Iveson.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

 

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

 

 

Councillor K Hawley entered the meeting at 10.20am