Agenda item

DM/22/03065/FPA - Site Of Former Pretoria Working Mens Club, Corbridge Road, Medomsley, DH8 6QY

Construction of a detached dwelling.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the construction of a detached dwelling (for copy see file of minutes).

 

L Dalby, Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan and the relationship to settlements, aerial photographs, photographs of the site and proposed layout and elevations. He explained there was an error in the report with regards to the address and clarified that 21 Cohort Close was the address of the applicant, not the address of the application.

 

Councillor Stelling, Local Member for Leadgate and Medomsley addressed the Committee in support of the application. He confirmed that he had visited the site many times when it was a club and it was difficult to say that the development was outside of a settlement as there were around 50-60 houses located there. A bus service passed the development hourly and a bus stop was located 50 yards from the development. With regards to shops, he confirmed that he had lived in the area for 71 years and there were two shops within walking distance. He confirmed that the development was sustainable in terms of transport and shops and that public houses were located in the nearby areas of Shotley Bridge and Ebchester. He highlighted that Highways had not objected to the application, nor had residents, and in his opinion, the copse of trees was not an issue. He stressed the houses were quality in terms of design and had spectacular views and did not believe the site to be in countryside. He informed the Committee that the applicant had been patient during what had been a long process and he believed that the application outweighed policies 6, 10 and 21 of the County Durham Plan (CDP). Councillor Stelling believed the application should be approved.

 

Councillor Stelling left the Chamber.

 

Ms C Pipe, Planning Consultant addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. She noted that the application had been refused for four reasons which was double the number of reasons for the original application that had been refused the previous year. She quoted the pre application response that was given in 2021 and advised that this advice had been given after the adoption of the County Durham Plan. With regards to refusal reasons one and two, Ms Pipe considered the site to be urban fringe as opposed to countryside and noted the proximity to bus stops that connected well to nearby towns and schools. Ms Pipe advised that an inspector had allowed an appeal in the area of Esh Winning due to the close proximity of a bus stop which made development sustainable. With regards to refusal reason 3, she stated that the development was proposed to be slate and stone and this was considered appropriate by officers. She also advised that an application for development was pending opposite the site which included five properties and explained how this highlighted the difference in density. In terms of refusal reason 4, she stated that the copse of trees had not been raised as an issue in the pre application advice and had not formed part of the previous refusal and advised that the foundations would not be near the tree roots noting that the nearest tree was 6 metres away. Ms Pipe believed that the development was sustainable, well connected, and the reasons given for refusal were unsubstantiated. Ms Pipe asked the Committee to support the proposal subject to a tree survey and allow the decision regarding harm to trees be delegated to officers, or alternatively, defer the application to allow the applicant sufficient time to provide the relevant information. 

 

Councillor Jopling could not understand why the application had been recommended for refusal. She gave an example of a similar application within her ward which had been approved and whilst she appreciated the officer had done due diligence, she stated that as it was previously developed land, it would be disingenuous to prevent development of the last property. In her opinion, she did not believe the land or the trees to be special but suggested a tree survey be included as a condition. Councillor Jopling felt the application should be approved.

 

In response to Councillor Jopling’s comments regarding the land being previously developed, the Principal Planning Officer stated that this was not the case and explained that the site had previously been grassland and was outside of the previous development site and clarified the location.

 

Ms Pipe clarified that the site was near terraced houses, a nursing home, and a car garage and was not situated alone as had been communicated by the Principal Planning Officer. The Principal Planning Officer agreed but explained that the test in policy 10 referred to settlements, not other developments, and he explained the definition of a settlement.

 

Councillor Jopling understood but felt there needed to be consistency with decisions. L Ackerman, Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) appreciated the comments from Councillor Jopling but explained that each application needed to be considered on its own merit and stressed that the application could not be said to be exactly the same as a previous application as it wasn’t in the same location or the same development.

 

Councillor Watson commented that he knew the area well and it was not in countryside. He considered the development to be executive in quality and which was needed to attract investment. In his opinion, the trees did not warrant a tree survey and noted that no objections had been received from Highways. Councillor Watson firmly believed the development to be in a settlement area which supported Policy 6 of the CDP and moved the application to be approved.

 

Councillor Brown pointed out that Policy 40 of the CDP was to protect trees and hedges. She went on to ask the Principal Planning Officer to explain the discrepancy between the committee report and the pre application advice.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the original pre application advice was outline advice and was given by a specific officer. When planning application are submitted, he explained that a working group considers the site and decides whether it falls under Policy 6 or Policy 10 of the CDP, and it had been agreed that this application fell under Policy 10.

 

Councillor Brown asked if the Committee could be reminded of the comments from DCC landscape. The Principal Planning Officer read out paragraph 33 of the report.

 

Councillor Earley advised that he had attended the site visit and it was evident that the proposed development was on land that Pretoria Club was not on previously. He stated that trees could not be disregarded and needed to be protected. Whilst he appreciated that residents had not objected, he stated that policies were clear and confirmed that the application should be refused in line with the officers recommendation.

 

Councillor Peeke confirmed that she had attended the site visit and the copse of trees was not large and was likely not to grow any bigger. She commented that whilst it would be interesting to have a tree survey, she did not envisage the roots of the trees to be damaged by the development. She felt the application should be approved.

 

Councillor Marshall stressed it was important for pre planning advice to be consistent. In terms of sustainability, Councillor Marshall noted that many areas had seen a reduction in bus services over the years. He confirmed that he was minded to support the application and questioned if the tree survey could be mitigated or conditioned as he did not think this should delay a decision being made by the Committee. 

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) advised that the Committee could not approve the application today as the tree survey could not be conditioned and officers thought it was necessary to approve the application, it was suggested however that the Committee could agree to defer the application subject to the completion of a tree survey for approval at a later Committee.

 

Following information from Ms Pipe who highlighted that there was no legal requirement to provide a tree survey, the Chair clarified that the requirement for a tree survey was not a legal requirement but had been legal advice from the officers. Therefore it was not compulsory to have and members could choose to approve without it.

 

He confirmed that Councillor Jopling moved the application to be approved without the requirement of a tree survey. This was seconded by Councillor Watson.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be approved subject to outstanding planning conditions delegated to officers.

 

Supporting documents: