Agenda item

TheCommitteeconsidereda reportoftheSenior Planning Officer regardingan applicationfor the erectionofa singlestoreydwellingand associated accessand landscapingworks onlandto the north ofFentonWell Lane,GreatLumley(for copy seefile ofMinutes).

G Spurgeon,SeniorPlanningOfficerprovideda detailedpresentationof the applicationwhich includeda sitelocationplan, aerialimage,photographsof thesite, proposedplansproposedelevationsandroof planandproposed visualisations.Membersof theCommitteehad visitedthe siteand were familiarwith thelocationand setting.

Councillor PHeaviside,local Member,addressedtheCommittee.  Theapplication was supportedbytheParishCouncilwhich had alsosupportedthepreviously withdrawn applicationfor thesite.  Theproposeddevelopmentwould disposeofthe lastremainingbrownfieldsite in thevillage ofGreatLumley.  Therewas no doubt thatthis hadpreviously beena brownfieldsite with evidenceofthe previous developmentonthesite,a former school, stillbeingevident.Thesite hadbecome afocusforflytipping andthe tracktothesite hadbeen usedfor anti-social behaviour includingdrugtaking.

Thedevelopmentsitewas only50metresinsideofthegreenbelt andwas sustainable,beinglocatedclosetolocalamenities.  Therewas ashortageofthree- bedroomedhomes in the areaanda recent applicationfordevelopment at Sherburn whichwaswithinthegreenbelthadbeen approved.

Councillor HeavisideaskedtheCommittee toconsider theapplication on itsmerits andto approvetheapplication.

GDobson,agentfor the applicant,addressedtheCommittee.

Mr DobsoninformedtheCommitteethatrather thanrepeatwhathadbeensaidas part ofthe presentation he wished tofocuson thekeyissues inthiscaseas identifiedin thedraftreasonsfor refusal.

Planning permissionwas soughtfor amodernsinglestoreydetachedbungalow designedtobebarrier freeandsupport lifelongliving.  Thebuilding was ‘U’shaped informandhadbeendesignedto‘sit low’ andintegrate withinthelandscape.  It employeda ‘livingvegetation’ greenroofandprovidedfor solar andthermal panels to maximisesustainability.

The firstproposedreasonfor refusal draftedbyOfficers related to the GreenBelt statusofthesite.Thiswas apreviouslydevelopedsite andhadbeen accepted as such byPlanning Officers. As hometo theformer LumleyBoys School, itwas not an undevelopedgreenfieldsite.

Durham CountyCouncilPlanning Officers hadrecommendedthatthesite notbe includedin GreenBeltin theDraftversionoftheCountyDurhamPlan.  This recommendationwas removedatthelasthurdle.DurhamCountyCouncil Officers assessmentatthetimewas“removal of thesite fromthe greenbeltwouldnotbe visually intrusivenorwouldit impactonthe openness”.

At nopointduringthePlan preparationprocess were any objectionsfrom thepublic received to theproposal toremovethesite from theGreen Belt.

Paragraph148 oftheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework providedclear guidance for determiningapplicationsfor developmentin the GreenBelt.Tosupport developmentproposals in Greenbeltit was necessarytodemonstrate‘veryspecial circumstances’.

Paragraph148 oftheNPPF madeit clear that‘veryspecial circumstances’existed when thepotentialharmto the GreenBelt resulting from theproposal, was clearly outweighed byother considerations.Thespecific circumstancesin this instance were unusualandcumulativelycould bedeemedtoconstitute‘very special circumstances’ whenviewed alongwith othermaterial considerations.Thesewere thatCouncil Officers had previouslysupported deletion of this sitefrom theGreen Belt,thesitewas brownfieldpreviouslydevelopedlandandas suchrepresenteda more sustainableform of developmentthandevelopmentongreenfieldland,the site hadbeenrecognised by theCouncilas untidyanda focusfor anti-social behaviour andnotmaking a positivecontributionto theamenityofthe areain its currentform,thedevelopmentwould deliver a biodiversitynetgainonthesite asa result of thelandscapingproposalsfor thesitewhichwould enhance biodiversity comparedtothecurrentstatus.Inits currentformandcondition thesite made limitedcontributionto thefundamental aimofGreenBeltpolicydefinedat paragraph137 oftheNPPF,whichwas to prevent urbansprawl by keepingland permanentlyopen.The applicationsite waswithin 900metresor 10 minutes’ walk of serviceswithinthevillagewhichcompriseda Co-opfoodstore,convenience store,communitycentre,gym, nursery, primaryschool, two public houses,and various hotfoodtakeaways, all ofwhichwereconnected bylit footpaths.In addition,there was a bus stopwithin 150m of the sitewhichwas served by the No.78andNo.71 bus.

It was submittedthatthis was an instancewhere sitespecific considerations mean thattheproposeddevelopmentwouldnot giverise toharmto theGreenBelt.Given thecasefor ‘veryspecial circumstances’ identifiedabove and that,it was reasonableto argue thatthesite was located withinthevillage envelope,thus justifyinginfill development,there was ajustifiedcasefor supportingthe proposal in this GreenBelt location.

Finally,regardingtheproposedsecondreasonfor refusal, itwas contestedthatthe applicationsite was notlocatedin opencountryside and didnotcompromisethe special qualitiesofthesurroundingAreaofHigher LandscapeValue. As such Policy10 and Policy39 didnotapplyto the proposal.Inresponseto the previous refusal of permission,a comprehensivelandscapingproposal hadbeen prepared and was lodgedwith the application.  This incorporatedspecific landscaping measurestostrengthen thesite boundaryandintegrate thedevelopmentwithinthe wider landscape.

It was withinthegift oftheCommitteeto grant permissionfor the proposed development.Theapplicantwas of theviewthere was sufficientjustificationtodo this as outlined.Fundamentally,to grantpermissionwould notconflictwith the fundamentalaimofGreenBelt,therewas justificationfor veryspecial circumstances,thelocationwas sustainableandlandscapeimpactwas now successfullymitigatedin thecurrentscheme. Mr GibsonrequestedtheCommittee tograntpermission.

CouncillorBlakeyinformedtheCommitteeshe hadattendedthesite visitand foundit difficultto explaina formerbrownfieldsite whichwasnowin the greenbelt.Thefoundationand structuresof thepreviousdevelopmenton the site werestill visible.If the applicationwasto beapprovedCouncillorBlakey askedwhethera Conditioncould beplacedthat theapplicantused the existingdressedstoneon sitefor landscaping.

TheSenior PlanningOfficer doubtedwhethertherewouldbe enough materialon siteto usefor buildingbut furtherdetailsregardingboundary treatmentscouldbeConditioned.

CouncillorBlakeyunderstoodthe needforgreenbeltprotection,but greenbelt hadbeenmovedinthepast. Policy29 of theCountyDurhamPlan relatedto sustainabledesignandthe proposeddevelopmentwouldincorporatesolar panels. Thedevelopmentwouldsit belowthe levelof thesurrounding countrysideand wouldhaveno impactonthe landscape.CouncillorBlakey movedthattheapplicationbeapprovedsubjecttoa Conditionthat the applicantusedas muchmaterialcurrentlyon thesite.

TheSenior PlanningOfficer repliedthat whilethe useofsolarpanels anda livingvegetationgreenroof werea benefit,theywere notspecial circumstancesto allowdevelopmentwithinthe greenbelt.

CouncillorEarleyconsideredthat theapplicationcontinuedtostick onthe greenbeltissue,whichhad beenexploredwithinspectorsduringthe draft stageof the CountyDurham Plan,with theinspectorsconcludingthat this wasgreenbelt.CouncillorEarleymovedthat theapplicationbe refusedfor thereasonsdetailedin thereport.

CouncillorJoplingconsideredthe siteto bebrownfield,addingthattherehad previouslybeena schoolon thesite.Thearea currentlylookedlike ugly scrubland.Becausethe sitewas brownfieldwithremnantsof theprevious buildingstill onit sheconsideredthisgavethe Committeetheleewayto approvethe application.Theproposedbuildingwas alow-risepropertywith a livingroofandCouncillorJoplingagreedwithCouncillorBlakeythat the applicationshouldbe approved.

C Cuskin,SeniorLawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementinformedthe Committeethat whileit wasnotdisputedthatthe sitehadpreviouslybeen developed,veryspecialcircumstanceswere neededtoapprovethe applicationto justifytheharm tothegreenbelt.

CouncillorBlakeydidnot considerthe developmentwouldcauseanyharmto the greenbelt,addingthat moreharmthroughanti-socialbehaviourwas takingplacenowonthesite.

TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementrepliedthat underthe NPPF

inappropriatedevelopmentinthe greenbeltwasconsideredasharm.

CouncillorMoistconsideredthat theapplicationcompliedwithParagraphs12 and15 oftheNPPFand alsocompliedwithParagraph174 oftheNPPFin that itwould enhancethe localenvironment.He consideredthatany developmentat thislocationwouldenhancethe localenvironmentgiventhat thesite wascurrentlyplaguedbyissuesof anti-socialbehaviour.If the applicationwas approvedit wouldenhanceand protectthe greenbelt.

CouncillorWatsoninformedtheCommitteethat thiswasa brownfieldsite and theapplicationwas supportedbytheParish Council.Thiswas thelast brownfieldsiteand thedevelopmentwouldenhancethearea.He consideredthesewerethe specialcircumstancesto allowtheapplicationto be approved.

TheSenior PlanningOfficer referredto CommitteetoNPPF13 whichrelated tothe protectionof greenbeltland.Theaimof greenbeltpolicywas to preventurbansprawlbykeepinglandpermanentlyopen, theessential characteristicsof greenbeltwere theiropennessandtheirpermanence.This site wasdetachedfromthe developmentof GreatLumleyandthe County Councilhad existingpowersunder s215ofthe TownandCountryPlanning Actto dealwiththe issueof untidyland.Previousapplicationsput forward forthis sitehadcitedsimilar specialcircumstancesand aconsistentviewhad beentakeninthe past.

TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementsoughtclarityfrom the Committeeon whatit consideredtheveryspecial circumstancesto beinthis case.

CouncillorWatsonrepliedthatit wasa brownfieldsite, theproposalwould enhancethe area,it wasthe lastbrownfieldsite in the villageandthe developmentwouldbe ofa benefitto thewholevillage.

TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementsoughtconfirmationthatthe Committeeconsideredthat thebenefitstothe areaandimprovementsto the site wouldoutweighthegreenbeltprotectionand developmentin the countryside.

CouncillorJoplingconsideredthat theproposeddevelopmentwouldnot makeanysignificantdifferenceto thecountryside.Thedevelopmentwas a low-risepropertywitha grassroof onwhatwascurrentlyscrubland.The developmentwouldtidythe areaandbringbenefitsto thoselivingnearby fromthe reductionin anti-socialbehaviour.Thedevelopmentwouldnot makea significantdifferenceto thegreenbelt.

TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementsoughtdelegatedauthority fromthe Committee,should theapplicationbe approved,for asuite of Conditionsandlegalagreementto be delegatedto officersin consultation withthe Chair.

MovedbyCouncillorBlakey,Secondedby CouncillorWatsonthat the applicationbeapproved.

Upona votebeing takenit was:

Resolved:

Thatthe applicationbe approvedand thatdelegatedauthoritybe givento officers inconsultationwiththeChairfor asuite of Conditionsandlegal agreement.