Agenda item

DM/21/02324/RM - 14 The Pastures, formerly plot 13) - 14 The Pastures, Lanchester DH7 0BT

Application for Reserved Matters consisting: appearance, landscaping, layout and scale from approval DM/19/00118/VOC

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer which sought approval of reserved matters consisting; appearance, landscaping, layout and scale from approval DM/19/00118/VOC (14 the Pastures, formerly Plot 13).

 

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.

 

The Chair welcomed Councillor D Oliver, local Member who was in attendance to speak on behalf of residents.

 

Councillor Oliver advised that ultimately, he agreed with the officer’s recommendation and noted the strong community feeling regarding the scale and mass of this development and the impact on No 8 The Paddock. He went on to state that it was felt that the design did not fit in with the community and its needs and the height of the property was out of character with other dwellings in this cluster of residential properties.

 

He furthermore outlined that the concerns raised by Lanchester Parish Council were valid and he agreed that there was scope for the applicant to bring forward a more synthetic development.

 

The Chair then welcomed Mr D Friesner, representing Lanchester Parish Council who was in attendance to speak in objection to the application.

Mr Friesnerstated that Lanchester Parish Council welcomed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application and noted their conclusion that the application fails Policy 31 of the County Durham Plan. However, Lanchester Parish Council maintains that there were additional reasons for recommending refusal, which although referred to in your officer’s Report and Conclusion, are not included within the overall recommendation.

The two additional reasons relate to: the significant importance and weight which should now be attributed to Policy LNP2 of the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan, since it was made by the County Council earlier this year, and Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan 2020.

Our original letters of objection clearly laid down the many and several material grounds for refusal.

He went on to reference the decision made by the Committee on Tuesday 28 September 2021, to consider another development at this location. Agenda item 5d considered a proposed development at no. 15 The Pastures (Plot 14), Lanchester (DM/21/02516/RM).

After much discussion, the Committee voted to refuse the application on the grounds that it was 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. Mr Freisener explained that those reasons were equally relevant in this application.

Mr Friesner went on to highlight thatthe application was for a very large development. The size, mass and density were considered to be too big for this plot – its scale and footprint is also being too large.

The whole Pastures development was clearly visible as you approached the village and the appearance of the overall site and developments to date were considered intrusive. Together with this development, they were not in keeping with and nor reflected or respected the rural village setting and character of Lanchester.

Furthermore, he explained that the relationship of the development to existing properties within the Paddock was of critical importance, more so than other houses within the vicinity such as those which faced on to Ford Road. The Paddock comprises completely single storey bungalows with significant space between dwellings. This development will not integrate well with existing dwellings. Existing residents will face a brick wall barrier of development along the whole length of their garden boundaries. In this instance, the existing neighbour will be confronted by three properties overlooking theirs.

In addition, contrary to the Inspector’s guidance outlined in their Decision statement (paragraph 18) about privacy and amenity of existing residents, which they anticipated would be satisfactorily addressed at the application stage, this application does not achieve this. Significant and considerable loss of privacy and other harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents would result from such a large imposing and invasive development.

Since each of the 14 plots were to be self-build, the Inspector could not reasonably comment further upon specific development types. Each development would always therefore be evaluated at the Reserved Matters stage of an application. Therefore, it is important that again consistency is shown.

In conclusion he commented that Lanchester Parish Council agreed that the development is contrary to the Council’s own Supplementary Planning Document. Existing residents will be seriously affected, a view shared by local objectors and supported by our own County Councillors. This view is consistent with the Appeal Inspector’s statements.

He therefore requested that in voting to refuse the application, Lanchester Parish Council urged the Committee to amend the Officer’s original recommendation and reason for refusal, by adding 2 further reasons. The first additional reason relating to the Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan Policy LNP2 (a,b,c and e) and the second, Policy 29 (a and e) of the County Durham Plan 2020, both of which you have previously referenced in decisions of your Committee about the Pastures as outlined above.

The Chair then welcomed Mr M Lee, Applicant’s Agent who was in attendance to speak in support of the application.

Mr Lee explained that the application being considered was a far reduced and paired back design following consultation with Planning Officers.

Regarding the single issue of concern regarding privacy, he noted that the neighbouring property and window of concern was part of an extended part of the property now being used as a living space rather than a garage, the purpose of the extension when built.

He further noted that the two properties would have an angled relationship rather than a direct one, with a bathroom window always having been shown in the location to ensure makes the 24 metres distance point to closest habitable window. He went on to refer to the way in which the SDP provides guidance on how distances should be measured.

Mr Lee also noted that his client also wanted to ensure their own privacy and added that they had amended plans significantly to achieve the best outcome for both properties.

The Senior Planning Officer in response to comments made noted that the development site was landlocked and whilst the presence of these plots was already identified they had not all yet been built at full scale. With regard to suggestions made by Lanchester Parish Council regarding the addition of policies for refusal he advised that they were not considered relevant in this application.

Councillor Quinn noted that he had found the site visit undertaken the previous day to be invaluable and highlighted the privacy distances between the proposed property and existing properties at The Paddock, of which the separation distances did not meet the required 21 metres.

Councillor Watson noted that policy framework had significantly altered in recent years and recognised that the proposed application did not meet legal requirements in terms of scale and massing and was contrary to requirements of the SPD and Policy 31 of the County Durham Plan. He further acknowledged Lanchester Parish Council’s additional reasons but he was guided by officers and supported the recommendation for refusal.

Councillor Marshall asked whether the extension at No 8 had been completed before or after the outline planning application for this site. The Senior Planning Officer advised that many of the bungalows on The Paddock development had been extended prior to any permission granted at The Pastures.

With reference to the particular extension at No 8 The Paddock, he explained that this had been converted from a garage to living space, with a patio window and there was no route to challenge the internal use of that extension and nor was the extension relevant to this application. He further explained that a direct relationship was established between the two properties and it was important to ensure that the privacy of both dwellings was protected.

The Officers recommendation for refusal was moved by Councillor A Watson and seconded by Councillor L Brown and following a vote being take it was:

Resolved:

That the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed dwelling does not meet thew required separation distances set out in the County Durham plan Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2020 in so far as they required to ensure reasonable expectations of privacy as required by Policy 31 of the County Durham Plan 2020.

 

 

Supporting documents: