Agenda item

Proposed redevelopment of stables to provide 1 no. 3 bed dwelling.

The Senior Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings (JJ) 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 proposed redevelopment of stables to provide 1 no. 3 bed dwelling and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report. 

Councillor M Wilkes left the meeting at 11.47am

Members were asked to recall that a previous application for a four bed property over two floors had been refused by Committee and dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.  The Senior Planning Officer (JJ) noted that the resubmitted application had sought to address the issues raised in the refusal at Committee and dismissal at appeal. 

She noted that Officers had felt the current application was in line with policy and had addressed previous concerns, including as regards the impact upon the openness of the green belt, with the proposals having the same footprint as the existing stables.  She noted that an additional letter of support for the application had been received subsequent to the publication of the agenda papers.  She concluded by noting that the current application was felt to be in line with policy, and had also been considered in the context of the Inspector’s Report following the previous appeal decision, and therefore was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the Committee report.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) and asked Parish Councillor Grenville Holland, representing the City of Durham Parish Council, to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor G Holland thanked the Chair and Committee and reminded all that just over a year ago he had spoken at this Committee on behalf of the Parish Council about what was an ongoing attempt to construct a house at Fernhill which was located well inside Green Belt land, a status it had enjoyed for almost 20 years.  He explained that when Fernhill was included in a Green Belt in the 2004 City of Durham Local Plan it was with the full support of the Inspector, the City Council’s Planning Officers who made the recommendation, the Councillors and the public.  He noted that those plans were operational until 2020.  He explained that, however, during the preparation of the CDP, the County Council’s Planning Officers had been far less enthusiastic and earmarked Fernhill for removal from the Green Belt, but the Inspector had disagreed saying “I am not persuaded that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of Fernhill from the Green Belt.”

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that this background provided an insight into the planning history of Fernhill from 2003 to 2021 with eight applications, five of them either refused and dismissed on appeal or withdrawn.  He noted that despite the further adjustments that had been made to the 2021 application, the Parish Council remained concerned that this was still an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  He added that, in her report, the Senior Planning Officer had made great use of NPPF Paragraph 149 Section (g) which was seen as the only obstacle in the way of this intended development.  He explained that Paragraph 149 stated that “a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt”.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted the NPPF offered six exceptions to cover unusual circumstances, four of which fell well outside the realm of Fernhill, while the last two, (f) and (g) sequentially consider in (f): “limited affordable housing for local community needs”; and in (g): “contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need”.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that the NPPF focus when considering the Green Belt was on ‘affordable housing’ and emphasised that the proposed new house at Fernhill was most certainly not in that category.  He noted that the essential protective measures for the Green Belt were found in NPPF Paragraphs 148, 149 and 174.  He added that Paragraph 148 required that “local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt” while 174 noted that “decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by”, first, “protecting and enhancing valued landscapes”.  He noted that the application merely sought to minimise the environmental damage, but certainly did not enhance the environment.  He explained that those constraints underpinned CDP Policies 20 and 39 and DCNP Policies H3 and G4.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that in the report to the previous planning meeting on 9 November 2021, Officers had recommended approval, however, the Committee had recognised the strength of the planning issues involved and refused approval, a decision subsequently endorsed by the Inspector at the Appeal hearing.  He noted that the Officer’s report was very well written and presented, as she skilfully sought to answer the concerns raised by the Appeal Inspector.  He added that the report also hinged on the interpretation placed on NPPF Paragraph 149 (g).  He explained that the paragraph was split into two, with the first section addressing the impact on the openness of the Green Belt; and the second addressing affordable housing need within the area, which Fernhill clearly fails.  He noted, however, the two sections were separated by the word ‘or’ rather than ‘and’.  Parish Councillor G Holland noted that it might have been clearer if, in 2012, Paragraph 149 had been split into (g) and (h), or amended at a later review.

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that, however, the Parish Council continued to have concern that the application still constituted unjustified development in this Green Belt, contrary to NPPF Paragraphs 148, 149 and 174 and CDP Policy 20 and the DCNP Policy G4.  He concluded by noting that with the extensive planning history of Fernhill, and this Committee’s long involvement with the decisions that it had carefully made in the past, the ball was once more in their court.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked Joe Ridgeon, Agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

J Ridgeon noted Members would be well sighted on the application and the history of applications for the site.  He noted that the recommendation for approval by Officers was welcomed and had been as a result of a number of changes from the previous application, including going from two storey to single storey, which represented no greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing stables. 

He explained that in addition the design was sensitive to the site, working with notable architects, with the use of local materials and was sympathetic to the existing house.  He noted that Officers had noted the proposals were acceptable, with the footprint having also been amended to protect nearby trees.  J Ridgeon noted inclusion of impact assessments and measures to address the issues raised at appeal, reiterating that the impact on the openness of the green belt and on visual amenity were no greater than the existing stables, and therefore in accord with NPPF Paragraph 149.  He reminded Members of the previous Committee meeting where NPPF Paragraph 149 had been displayed on the projector screen, and noted that it was not a sequential approach.  He thanked the Committee for their time and asked that they support their Officer’s recommendation for approval.

The Chair thanked J Ridgeon and asked the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) to address the points raised.

The Senior Planning Officer (JJ) noted that Officers understood the history of green belt allocation as related to the site and noted the application was considered and assessed against green belt policy.  She noted that it was accepted that the proposals did not refer to affordable housing, however, the wording of NPPF Paragraph 149 doesn’t require it to relate to affordable housing but allows for development on previously developed land where the impact was not greater than the existing development.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor C Marshall noted he met the applicant in his previous role as Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration, however, he had approached the application with a clear mind.  He noted that the revised proposals represented a significant scaling back compared to the previous application and the site was within a fairly enclosed area, with the new scheme occupying almost the same footprint as the existing stables.  He added that he felt the Inspector’s comments had been helpful as regards which elements were not acceptable and noted he felt the current application was such that there were no planning grounds for approval.  Councillor C Marshall noted that, accordingly, he would propose the application be approved as per the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J Elmer noted that the previous application had represented a significant impact upon the green belt and had been refused by the Committee, against Officer recommendation, and the decision subsequently agreed with by the Inspector at appeal. 

He added that now a reshaped application was before Members, one that was as a consequence of the Committee defending the Council’s green belt policy at the previous application.  He noted that the Committee had affected a change and added that Members needed to be consistent in their application of policy.  Councillor J Elmer seconded the motion for approval.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

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