Agenda item

Erection of 2 dwellings with associated landscaping and works

TheCommitteeconsidereda report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for theerectionof2 dwellingswith associatedlandscapingand worksat landat thewestof TownheadFarm, IvestonLane,Iveston (forcopyseefileof Minutes).

Gemma Heron,SeniorPlanningOfficerprovideda detailedpresentationof the applicationwhichincludedphotographsof thesite, sitelocation,aerial photograph,primaryaccessroutes, siteboundaries,elevationplans andproposed visuals.

One letterof objectionhad beenreceivedwhichcitedthatthe proposed dwellingsdid notfit theaestheticof theareaand theincreasedtraffic would be dangerousand there was a need for a lowerspeedlimit.

A responsefromtheapplicantandagenthad beenreceivedafterthe publicationof the reporthoweverthishadnot changedthe recommendations withinthereport.

TheChair thankedthePlanningOfficerandinvitedagentsfor theapplicant, CraigRossandHannahWafer,to addressthe committee.

C Ross informed the committeethat theapplication had been granted approval in2019, which had sincelapsed.Thepurposeof the applicationwas to reapplythe previouslyacceptedproposal. The SpatialPlanningOfficer had raised noobjectionsto theproposaland theLocalConservationOfficerhad reached thesameconclusion.Theapplicationhadcharacteristics that werein keeping with thesettlement of Iveston whereasthe neighbouringpremisesof the Pavilionrestaurant conflictedwiththe characteristicsof villagewhich shouldnot beignored.An independentvisual assessmenthadbeencarriedout whichconcludedthatthe landscapeimpact would beminimal,andthe developmentwould beof ahighqualityanddesign.The proposalthat hadbeenput forwardto thecommitteewasfact basedand reliable. Mr Ross asked the committee to approve theapplication.

Claire Young, applicant, informed the Committee that planning permission had previously been approved on this site.  The newly adopted Area of High Landscape Value Policy resulted in the applicant having an independent visual assessment undertaken.  The findings of this assessment reported that the landscape impact would be minimal.  In accordance with Policy 39 it conserved the landscape and provided residential development of high quality and design.  The company who gave the independent report was Southern Green, a local company based in Gateshead.  Their expertise was regularly used by Durham County Council to support their arguments and from this it could be interpreted that their opinions were fact based and reliable.  For these reasons, and many others, Ms Young asked the Committee to support approval of the application.

TheChair thankedtheagent and applicantfor theircommentsand thenopenedthe debateto thecommittee.

CouncillorStelling reminded the Committee that Design and Conservation Officers, Highways Officers and Contamination Officers had raised no objection to the proposal with Design and Conservation commenting that the proposed development reflected the previous approval. The proposed development sat comfortably and tastefully in its location.  The proposal would make best use of the land while not prejudicing allocated or permitted development nearby.  The development of this site would be a logical extension of the village in a form which reflected the surrounding areas.  Policy 10 of the County Durham Plan related to development in the open countryside but given the location of the site this Policy was not considered to be of any relevance.  Equally, Policy 6 of the County Durham Plan allowed for developments which were within and outside of the built-up area provided that they were well related to the settlement and Councillor Stelling believed this development complied with Policy 6.  The site was located within the Conservation Area and officers had confirmed that substantial harm could not be demonstrated as a result of this development.  The development was of a high-quality design which had been praised by the County Council’s Design Officer.  Local companies would benefit during the construction phase of the development.  Councillor Stellling believed that the benefits of the development outweighed the insubstantial harm.

Referring to the site being located in an Area of High Landscape Value the site had experienced development over the recent years, currently providing access to an equestrian centre.  There were more obvious developments in this location, the equestrian centre and the Cantonese restaurant.  As demonstrated through an independent visual assessment this development in accordance with Policy 39 conserved the landscape and provided a residential development of both high quality and design.  While the Local Plan had been adopted since the previous approval the design and landscape impact was previously deemed acceptable and did not contravene Policy 6 or Policy 39 of the County Durham Plan.  Councillor Stelling could see no reason why this development should not go ahead and Moved that the application be approved.

CouncillorBlakeyagreedwithCouncillorStelling andSecondedthe motion.

CouncillorSterling informed the Committee that she drove past the location regularly and was familiar with it.  The buidings proposed were sympathetic and planning permission had been previously approved.  Councillor Sterling did not consider the location as an Area of High Landscape Value because within it was the Cantonese restaurant which was not of a high quality design, was near to two other building which had been worked on recently and was next to a main road.   Councillor Sterling considered that the proposed development fitted within Policy 6 of the County Durham Plan.  Councillor Sterling referred to recent approval for a development of 300 homes on three farmers’ fields within her electoral division which was considered well related to the to the settlement on the edge of the village then there should be no reason that this development which was located next to an equestrian centre and opposite a Cantonese restaurant should not be approved.

Councillor Watson considered the proposed development would have minimal impact on the area of High Landscape Value. 

Councillor Watson considered the proposed development wasa high-a qualitydesignand didnot contravenePolicies6 and39 oftheCounty DurhamPlan.

CouncillorJoplingcommentedthat thesitewasnotin a NeighbourhoodPlan area and there had been no objections from local residents.  Councillor Jopling commentedthat she wasunableto seehowthe proposed development had an unacceptableimpactor harmto thelocal area.Thesurroundingarea had beenmoreadverselyaffectedbypreviousdevelopmentswhichincluded terracedhomesandbarns. CouncillorJoplingremarkedthat the developmentwouldnot changethelocalcountrysideandalthoughthereport statedthatit wouldshebelievedthatthis wasonlybya technicalityand would not be a recognisablechange. Councillor Jopling also considered the proposeddevelopmentwas not detachedfrom theexistingbuilt-upareaof thevillage and agreed that the application should be approved.

CouncillorWilson sought clarification whether thebuildingmaterials proposed complied withthe ConservationArea guidelines.He considered that the designof the applicationwas notoutof keepingwiththe local area and sought details of the positionof thevillageboundaries.

The Senior Planning Officerrespondedthatthe characteristicsof the village andthe proposedsiteof thedevelopmentwere considered astwo different settlementsandtheproposalhadbeendeemedoutsidethesettlementof Iveston.Thisdecisionhad beenobtainedas theproposedsiteprovideda natural barrierin termsof aslope whichhad beendistinctlydifferentinprofile tothe settlementof Ivestonthereforetheboundaryhadbeenclassifiedas wherethephysicallandscapechangedin relationto thedevelopmentswithin the settlement.

CouncillorEarley considered the phrase less than substantial harm to be misleading as the development would still be harm.  Ivestonwas theonlySaxon settlement villagein North Durhamand thismustbe takenintoconsideration.Iveston was the onlytypeof the villagein theareabasedoff othercharacteristicsin comparisonto other neighbouringsettlements. While accepting that the proposed development was well designed it impinged on a Conservation Area and the historic site of Iveson. The location of the Cantonese restaurant needed to be put into context that the building had previously been a pub.  Councillor Earley supported the recommendations of the Planning Officer and would be voting against approval of the development.

CouncillorBrown informed the Committee that it could not consider the previously approved application as both the NPPF and the Local Plan had changed.  The application needed to be considered in isolation.  Councillor Brown was uncomfortable that the development was in a Conservation Area and an Area of High Landscape Value and could not see that the benefits of the development in this location would outweigh the harm. The development would havea high visualimpactdueto itspositioninginrelationto the adjacentmain road.

CouncillorRoberts considered the sight of the area of green land to be ofhigh valuesignificance on entry to the village and it was important for this to be retained.  As such she would be supporting the officer recommendation for refusal.

CouncillorHaneyremarkedthattheproposedapplicationwouldbe prominentandoverbearing on the countryside and believedthat approvalof thisapplicationwouldencouragefurther encroachmentinto thecountrysideand the Areaof HigherLandscapeValue.

CouncillorShawsaidthat thearea wasof High Landscape Value.NationalPlanningPolicyFrameworksection 16paragraph202 stated that harmshouldbe weighedagainstthe publicbenefitsof the proposal including,whereappropriate,securingits optimumviableuse. Hebelieved thatthe applicationhadfailedto achievethis.He alsohighlightedthat Policy39 oftheCountyDurhamPlanstatedtheneed to conserveandbenefitthe area. Allthe mentionedpolicies werelinkedin thewider conservationof landscapesandsettlementsinthe countryside. Councillor Shaw furtherremarked that the settlementprovidedclear boundariesasitwas aringedsettlementandthat theprevious,successful,application had been considered prior to the adoption of the County Durham Plan

C Cuskin, Senior Lawyer Regulatory and Enforcement clarified with the Committee that it had been moved by Councillor Stelling, seconded by Councillor Blakey that the application be approved because the proposed development was well related to the settlement of Iveston, that the harm to the Conservation Area and Area of High Landscape Value was outweighed by the benefits and the development would lead to the provision of high quality housing.  TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementsoughtdelegatedauthority fromthe Committee,should theapplicationbe approved,for asuite of Conditionsandlegalagreementto be delegatedto officersin consultation withthe Chair.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved

Thatthe applicationbe approvedand thatdelegatedauthoritybe givento officers inconsultationwiththeChairfor asuite of Conditionsandlegal agreement