Agenda item

Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) relating to planning permission DM/16/00871/OUT

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 15  The Pastures (Plot 14), 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 existing and proposed layout. Members had visited the site the previous day.

Councillor David Friesner addressed the Committee. He was aware that each application would be determined on its individual merits. His presentation was largely the same as delivered for Plot 12 The Pastures and in the Parish Council’s letter of objection. With the agreement of the Committee, rather than repeating his presentation he would make additional observations. The Parish Council noted that there would be three very large dwellings adjoining one mature well-spaced dwelling in a rural setting. The Parish Council believed that space and density was relevant in this instance.

In addition the village contained a comprehensive mix of bungalows and other dwellings in most areas, including the area referred to by the Planning Officer between Cadger Bank and Ford Road. Speakers had spoken about one plot only and it had been said that the application should be determined on its merits, yet the Senior Planning Officer had referred to a quarter of the village which he did not think was relevant.

Councillor Douglas Oliver addressed the Committee. As with the Parish Councillor he did not intend to repeat his presentation as there were similarities but a particular concern with this property was the proximity to no. 8 and the impact that would have in terms of scale and design, and the sense of claustrophobia this could create on existing properties. A dozen further objections had been received in relation to this application. He echoed points that Councillor Friesner had made in terms of the specific rural environment, right on the edge of the village, and he did not feel it would be in keeping with the scale and density of development you would expect in this rural location. Having spoken to a number of residents there was concern about the integration of the build into the natural setting. He was concerned that it contravened aspects of the Inspector’s report from 2017. He felt that there were more positive solutions for this location which he hoped could be considered.

Emma Harvey addressed the Committee and stated that on the site visit Members would have seen the close proximity and scale of the proposed development which was closer than the previous application. This would undoubtedly cause a loss of privacy and loss of light and amenity as their outlook would be greatly altered. Loss of privacy was their greatest concern. The large scale of the house as well as there being no barrier to overlooking from the upper floor into the rear of their property, and the privacy of their two rear bedrooms, one of which was occupied by their youngest daughter, would be greatly compromised. Light entering these rooms would be greatly reduced. Although the trees formed a boundary, they were not obstructive at lower levels and did not interfere with light. The construction of a solid building behind these would block out any light previously available from this angle. Also due to the open aspect of their property all of the rear garden would be overlooked, there would be no area where they would feel private. Both the lawned and decked areas would be in full view of the proposed dwelling which they felt would leave them exposed. She acknowledged that there was a natural tree boundary but this would do little to obscure the view of the proposed house as the tree canopy was high, giving both the occupants of Plot 14 and her family a clear view of each other’s houses.

Mr Hall, the Applicant confirmed that he had nothing to add.

Councillor Beaty Bainbridge noted that the veranda around the bungalow  was about four feet off the ground, and therefore the rear windows of Plot 14 would intrude on the property.

Councillor Simon Wilson asked about the cumulative impact on plot 8 as a result of the previous application being granted, in terms of loss of privacy and overlooking.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that this was relevant but it was difficult when the proposals for plot 13 were not presented. The site visit was invaluable to consider the impact and complex relationships in terms of size and levels between all the plots but it was important to stress that each application should be considered on its merits, whilst taking care that the implications for the surrounding properties were reflected.

Councillor Wilson further asked if a condition would be included which would limit the ability to extend up to 50% of the garden. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the removal of permitted development rights was included as a condition.

Councillor Liz Brown stated that she was unhappy with the proposals; she noted that the scale had been reduced but did not think it had been reduced enough. She felt that the development was contrary to Policy 31 of the County Durham Plan and also to the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2, as it would be visually dominant, cause loss of light and was not in scale with any of the other properties. The massing was too big.

Councillor Alex Watson stated that this application had outline planning permission and the Senior Planning Officer had addressed all the issues raised. There was an agreement with the developer to ensure that there was no loss of light or infringement of privacy and he was satisfied with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Watson moved approval of the application.

Councillor Wilson seconded the motion to approve the application. He was satisfied that the removal of permitted development rights would give the Planning Authority control over any further extensions into the plot, and he hoped that an application for Plot 13 would be brought to Committee for consideration.

Upon a vote being taken the motion was lost. 

Councillor Brown moved that the application be refused on the grounds of Policies 29 and 31 of the County Durham Plan, and Policy LNP 2 of Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Bainbridge agreed with Cllr Brown but also asked if the developer could be asked to re-consider the windows and mass, and was advised that this would be a matter of further discussions with the developer, and was dependent upon the outcome of the application before Members.

Councillor Brown was asked to clarify the reasons for refusal, and explained that she considered the proposed development to be visually intrusive, too large in mass, would cause loss of light and would be very dominant.

Councillor Joe Quinn seconded Councillor Brown’s motion to refuse the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was RESOLVED that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed dwelling would have an adverse effect on the area's character in terms of design, layout and appearance, exhibiting an inappropriate scale and density, and would also have an unacceptable impact on the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the adjacent dwelling at 8 The Paddock, contrary to Policies 29 (a. and e.) and 31 of the Durham County Plan 2020 and Policy LNP2 (a., b., c. and e.) of the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan 2021.