Agenda item

Erection of 2no. residential dwellings and associated works.

                  The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer for the Erection of 2no. residential dwellings and associated works on land North of Hill Top Cottage, Eggleston, DL12 0AU (for copy see file of minutes). 

G Heron, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation that included a site location, aerial view, site photographs, proposed floor plans and proposed elevations. She explained that the application was for the erection of two detached bungalows with their own access and gardens that was situated near the settlement of Eggleston in the Nutrient Neutrality constraint area.  She advised that there would be a need to seek credits from Natural England and no confirmation of this had been confirmed.  The application was being reported to Planning Committee upon the request of Councillor Savory to allow assess the landscape harm, design and location of the development given the changed scheme.  The site was located within a designated Area of Higher Landscape Value (AHLV).   There were issues with the landscape and amenities. There were 4 letters of objection including objections from the Parish Council.  Officer recommendation was to refuse the application as on the principle of development it conflicted with policies 6, 10 and 21 of the County Durham Plan and Parts 5 and 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Mr G McGill, agent for the applicant addressed the committee in support of the application.  He explained that it was an infill plot near existing properties of a similar size that had been granted permission.  The application had no highway safety issues.  Following the decision made at committee in 2023 the applicant was aware of the design and scale of the dwellings and understood the proposal was not acceptable.  The applicant commissioned a different team to pursue a reapplication that focused on the design issues that had been raised that was sensitive to the location.  The bungalows were to be built as family dwellings and were not developer lead that would not impact on amenities or privacy of other properties. 

The applicant had deal with the biodiversity net gain (BNG) and nutrient neutrality calculations had been revised and dealt with through a section 106 agreement if credits were not secured through Natural England.  He thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak on the application and hoped members would be minded to approve the application.

The Chair opened up the meeting for questions.

Councillor G Richardson directed a query at Councillor A Savory of whom he respected as to why she had called the application to committee when she was a local councillor for Weardale and the planning application was based in Teesdale.

Councillor A Savory responded that she had asked for the application to be brought to committee along with calling it to committee the first time as it had not been corresponded to by the local member and she was interested in a fair hearing.  She had brought it back with an open mind.  She requested clarification on what purpose the building would be used whether it would include being used as a holiday let.

Mr G McGillresponded that the building was to be developed as a family dwelling.

Councillor A Savory questioned if one property would be sold once both had been built. 

The Chair opened up the meeting for debate.

Councillor E Adam stated that the application was very similar to the previous application and moved to refuse the application due to the 3 reasons for refusal as detailed in the report.  He noted that the original application had been refused in April 2023 and felt that it was virtually the same application.  He had not attended the meeting in 2023 and determined it as a new application. 

Councillor M Stead read out statements from the minutes of the meeting that was held in April 2023 when the original application had been discussed.  He noted that there were still visual and design issues that were conflict with policy 10.  He felt that it would make the settlement to lose its character.

S Pilkington stated that there was not much to be said as the properties were stainable but it was the decision of members.

Councillor J Cairns felt that the elevation of the properties was very dominant and was out of character for the area.  She thought that had the design been for single storied bungalows she may have felt differently.  She believed that you could not have executive homes in the country.  She seconded the application for refusal.

Councillor A Savory made a point that no bus services in a rural area was a red herring within planning for sustainability as there were lots of places within the vicinity that was not supported by a bus service.  She commented that there had been notices of new builds being developed in close proximity to this land.  She noted that the applicant had complied with officer recommendation to scale down the properties.  She felt that the properties would be sustainable and there were no issues with highways as the vehicles would be off the main road.  The applicant had demonstrated a willingness to work with DCC officers and she was in support to approve the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

Resolved:

That the application be REFUSED.