Agenda item

Construction of 2no dwellings

The Senior Planning Officer, Gemma Heron 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 Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the construction of 2no dwellings and was recommended for refusal, as per the reasons set out in the report.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked John Taylor, Agent for the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

J Taylor thanked the Chair and Committee and asked Members if this one more development would tip the balance, given that Hill Top consisted of approximately 30 dwellings of various styles and ages, although mainly traditional in appearance.  He added they were a mixture of small, terraced dwellings up to large, detached houses, approximately half of the properties being detached, he noted all in the main were built adjacent to, and on either side of, the B6278.  He explained that there was no predominant building line, some properties were built tight to the public footpath, others set back at various distances, with the character of the area being traditional single and two storey dwellings with stone walling and slate roofs.

J Taylor noted the proposed site and the overall plot frontage being approximately 70 metres with the two plots taking up only 34 metres of that length.  He added the plots were grouped centrally leaving substantial open space to the northwest and south east thus maintaining views to the open countryside, those open spaces complying with Durham County Council privacy standards in relation to adjacent dwellings.  He noted the proposed designs were very traditional detached two storey houses in stone and slate, with the mass being fragmented to provide a series of blocks thus avoiding a single monolithic unit and reflecting the organic character of the area.  He added that considerable amendments had been made in liaison with the Planning Department to produce an acceptable design and location on site.  He noted the amendments included removing garages, adjusting window design and relocating the units closer to the main road.

J Taylor explained that, taking those points into account he would strongly argue that the application should be considered under Policy 6 of the County Durham Plan (CDP) “Development of Unallocated Sites”. 

He added that, as set out in the supporting statement, the proposal was fully compliant with all aspects of the policy.  He noted that Planning Department had assessed the scheme under Policy 10 of the CDP “Development in the Countryside”, while the site sits within the Hill Top settlement.  He noted as regards the notion of rural living, comments on sustainability and not reverting back to a ‘category D’ village.

J Taylor concluded by asking Members to take the points made, particularly the number of properties within the Hill Top settlement and the identification as being part of Eggleston, as he believed the proposal sits within the body of Hill Top and could be justified as infilling within an established settlement, thus having no adverse impact on the countryside.

The Chair thanked J Taylor and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Atkinson asked as regards sustainability and category D’.  J Taylor noted that ‘category D referred to old policy which would hold back development within a village.  He added things had moved along and people wanted to stay in the area, with sustainability policies being in terms of access to services.

Councillor A Savory asked as regards plans and provision for a garage.  J Taylor noted there originally were, though it had been suggested they were removed.

The Chair asked as regards individual access.  J Taylor noted that it had been desired not to share facilities as this could create issues in the future, however, there would not be an issue to have a single access if required.  The Principal DM Engineer, Jarvis Robinson noted no issues in terms of access, and would not disagree with single access, as it would not impact upon congestion.

Councillor V Andrews noted after visiting the site, she would think the application would be in keeping with the area and another building would not impact.  The Chair noted the application was adjacent to the North Pennies an Area of Natural Outstanding Beauty (ANOB). 

Councillor A Savory noted that she had attended the visit and she had no objections to two dwellings in the middle of the settlement that may help, adding that neither of the Local Members or local council representatives were in attendance to give local information, with only seven objections.

Councillor I Roberts agreed that it was in the middle of the village, however, there were seven objections from a small settlement, and the buildings would split the area.

Councillor M McKeon noted she was torn in relation to the application, and noted the ‘settlement’ argument was key, if it was part of the settlement, then by being connected it was sustainable.  However, if not, then with no bus service it would not be suitable for those that did not drive.

Councillor S Quinn noted the issues raised, especially in terms of access and sustainability, with no support locally for the application. 

Councillor B Moist noted the issue was in terms of consideration under Policy 10 or Policy 6.  He added he found it difficult to go against the Officer’s recommendation, the design look obtrusive, would change the settlement and approval would mean the area would lose character.  He reiterated it would be difficult to go against the recommendation.

Councillor J Atkinson noted he too felt it was difficult to go against the recommendation, given the sustainability issues.

Councillor M Stead noted he was struggling to get past Policy 10 and felt Officers had got their recommendation right.

Councillor V Andrews moved that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation, she was seconded by Councillor I Roberts.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED, as per the reasons set out within the report.