Agenda item

Application for reserved matters consisting appearance, landscaping, layout and scale from approval DM/19/00118/VOC

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer which sought approval of reserved matters consisting appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of Plot 12, The Pastures, Lanchester (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site plan, site photographs and the  proposed layout. Members had visited the site the previous day.

Parish Councillor David Friesner addressed the Committee on behalf of Lanchester Parish Council. He explained that the Parish Council objected to the application on several material grounds, as stated in their letter of objection. Their objections were focused upon three main areas; the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan, the planning appeal decision of 2017 and the Residential Amenities Standards of 2020.

This area was especially sensitive since an extension to the original settlement boundary was made on appeal. The original edge comprised of a mature development of modest, well-spaced single storey bungalows which respected and blended into their setting and rural character. There were several dwellings to be built along the inner edge of the plot.

The Neighbourhood Plan had taken several years to complete in order to understand the needs and development opportunities of the village. The policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should be given significant weight in determining this application. The application was contrary to Policy LNP 2 which concerned the design of new development. The development did not meet four of the five criteria set out in the Policy;  a, b, c and e. The development would not reflect the rural setting and did not reflect the existing settlement pattern. The Paddock comprised of completely single-storey bungalows with significant space between dwellings. The development did not meet several aspects of design guidance as detailed in LNP 2 e to do with modest scale, cohesive character, being in harmony, sensitive to local character, and well-integrated.

With regard to the appeal decision, the Parish Council’s view was further reinforced by statements made by the Inspector. Contrary to the Inspector’s statement this large, imposing development would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy and harm to the amenity of existing residents.

Referring to the County Durham Residential Amenity Standards, Councillor Friesner stated that the development was contrary to the Council’s own supplementary planning document, in particular sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.6 and 3.7. The Parish Council maintained that existing residents would be seriously affected, a view shared by local residents and Durham County Councillors. The size, scale, setting, density and character of the development in this very rural part of the Parish and County was not appropriate and would have a significant adverse impact.

He urged the Committee to give weight and significance to the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan, all of the associated adverse impacts and refuse the application.

Local Member Councillor Doug Oliver addressed the Committee. Councillor Oliver stated that he shared many of the concerns raised by the Parish Council. He spoke as both a local resident and local member for Lanchester. He lived a short walk from the site and wanted to articulate both his own impression of the development and the deep and widespread concerns of residents. Lanchester was a very vibrant village;  he recognised that the village was popular and required expansion, however like many residents he did not feel that this specific application matched needs and the existing built environment, particularly because of its size and dominance. The application for Plot 12 should therefore be rejected. He had received a large number of complaints from residents in the street and The Paddock. Thirteen objections had been received by the Council, including from seven neighbouring properties within this very small cul-de-sac. He had also spoken to the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Lanchester and the Parish Council.

Despite Officer assurances in the report, residents rightly remained concerned. Having met with residents on a series of visits he had been struck by the sincerity of their concerns and the apparent unanimity of them. Their specific concerns related to scale and design. The designs proposed were far bigger than those previously occupied properties in The Paddock which were limited to single-storey by restrictive covenant. Those proposed were two storey in height and therefore not in keeping with existing properties. This was of particular concern as it was at the edge of the village facing into the countryside.

The existing houses in The Paddock had large gardens which was appropriate for a rural location. In contrast these plots would be densely filled; 36% of the site would be filled as opposed to 25% in the outline application. The immensity of the proposals contravened the Council’s Residential Amenity Standards and the design section of the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan. Residents considered the development to be over-sized and out of sympathy.

A further concern related to privacy based on size, and the slope the pastures were built on, 1.9m above The Paddock.

Other concerns related to loss of trees, flood risk and extra road traffic generated by the proposed development. There was already a TPO on site and the trees were a vital community and environmental amenity. Flooding was a significant risk in the village and there were concerns that the paving proposed would increase the risk of water run-off and flooding.

In conclusion, in terms of scale, privacy, loss of trees and flood risk residents had identified significant material grounds for refusal of the application and to re-examine the proposals. Whilst he spoke with concern he was optimistic that this excellent site could be re-considered by developers with a more modest and practical proposal. As with The Paddock this was an excellent location for bungalow dwellings and new homes which residents would support, and he was confident this aim could be achieved. 

Emma Harvey addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Although the site looked to be some distance from her home her family still felt that it would be impacted by the development. They were currently lucky to have an open aspect to the rear of their property with much light, sense of space and privacy. These amenities would be lost if the proposed development went ahead. The applicant had referred to the overlooked part of her property as a side garden and felt that this had been done to give the impression that it was of little or no importance. She was sure that when Members had visited their property as part of the site visit they would have seen that it was more than a side or secondary garden but a well-used garden that would be over-looked and over-shadowed by the proposed development.

The band of scots pine trees had also been referred to in the applicant’s statement giving the impression that the development site was shielded by the trees and would not be seen. This was not correct as Members would have seen from their property. She acknowledged that the trees formed a distinctive boundary but would not conceal the proposed development and to suggest this was misleading.

The proposed house would be on view from their living room window, would overlook their garden and reduce light to their property. She also noted that it had been said that they had only lived in the property for one year; this was irrelevant and they were still entitled to privacy. The applicant had made reference to their occupation and that they wished to make a family home in the area. Emma Harvey stated that she had a young family and also ran a business in the local area but would not consider that job titles or a desire to build would give her family the right to impact upon another family’s right to privacy.

Siobhan McMahon, the Agent addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. The scheme had gone through pre-application advice and the design had been developed to be in keeping with the site. She appreciated that this site was in a sensitive area but it was the overall development that was sensitive, and each plot should be recognised as being individual. Plot 12 was at the very top western boundary of the site and had been designed to sit within The Pastures development; it was not part of The Paddock development but ran alongside it.

The objections were often delivered as part of the overall development scheme but she asked that this be considered as an individual plot to sit in keeping with The Pastures and the neighbourhood. Where scale, design and mass was referred to, it was referred back to No. 8 The Paddock. The adjoining plots were Plot No. 11 which was already built, and what would be Plot 14. Plot 12 had therefore been designed to respect floor levels, topography and aspect in relation to Plots 11 and 14, whilst also taking into consideration Plot 8 of The Paddock.

The objections referred to the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood but the surrounding neighbourhood of Plot 12 was The Pastures. She acknowledged that Plot 8 of The Paddock was across from Plot 12, but the main dwelling was angled away. The living room of Plot 8 had been granted planning permission for a garage and fitness suite but had been subsequently converted.

Plot 12 had been designed to give a softer approach to Plot 8. The development’s aspect looked across to agricultural land and towards the fort, and the whole of the main living areas looked west. The windows had been designed to avoid overlooking to Plots 11, 14 and 8. The constraints of the site level had also been taken into account and the restriction of the turning head, so there was a limit as to where the property could be constructed. Parking had to be accommodated on the site.

The distance from the gable of Plot 12 to Plot 8 was over 21m. The distances to Plots 11 and 14 also exceeded 21m.

In conclusion, Siobhon McMahon stated that the scale of the property had been designed to be in keeping with The Pastures development and had also considered the relationship to Plot 9 of The Paddock and The Middlewood Road development which had a similar make-up of bungalows and 2/3 storey development on higher ground. The relationship of this development should be considered against The Paddock, The Pastures and Middlewood Road as a whole rather than assessed against one resident, one dwelling and one plot.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the representations made. He noted the reference to the 25% limit on development within the plot, and advised that this had not been included within the Inspector’s decision as a restriction.

He continued that Officers had considered the application against both the Council’s Local Plan Policy and the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan, particularly in terms of scale and appropriateness, balanced against the Government’s advice on self-builds. Of the 23 properties that used to be in this rectangular area of the village, only The Paddock included single-storey dwellings. It was relevant that not only had Planning Policy changed but also the physical environment. The development was neighbouring the single and two storey properties that had already been built in The Pastures. The scale of those properties in The Pastures was relevant to what was being proposed, as were the properties on Ford Road at the bottom end of the site. The properties surrounding The Paddock were 1960’s shallow pitched roof, two storey dwellings. The approach to The Paddock was mostly bungalows but higher up the slope there were two storey properties. There were single-storey properties in The Pastures but surrounding The Pastures were two storey dwellings, some of which were recently built.

Councillor Alex Watson stated that the site visit had been invaluable. He accepted that this development ran alongside the site but that the buildings already there were large. This development was within Policy Framework as it had evolved significantly from the granting of outline consent and Officers had sought to give this appropriate weight, whilst also meeting legal requirements.

The opinions expressed against the proposal had been considered and been given due regard but ultimately trying to impose additional restrictions on development not intended by the Planning Inspector were not considered sustainable reasons for refusal. He did not believe that there would be any infringement on privacy, given the build that was already there. Councillor Watson moved approval of the application.

Councillor Liz Brown seconded approval of the application. The application was consistent with planning policy and she did not consider that it overlooked the bungalow.

Upon a vote being taken it was RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.