Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 of application 11/00748/FPA (Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 no. dwelling houses) revising layout of site together with alterations to rear elevation of northern plot dwelling and roof profile on southern elevation of southern plot dwelling

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer (Durham Area) regarding the variation of condition 2 of application 11/00748/FPA (demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 no. dwelling houses) revising the layout of site together with other alterations to the rear elevation of the northern plot dwelling and roof profile on the southern elevation of the southern plot dwelling (for copy see file of Minutes).

Mr James Taylor, Principal Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation, which included photographs of the site.  Members of the Committee had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor G Holland, local Member, spoke against the application and informed the Committee that his views were supported by Councillor Martin, local Member.  He outlined to the Committee the planning history involved with this site, which had been over a period of two years.  The current application still did not accord with Policies H7, H10, H13, Q8 and Q9 and it was his opinion that due procedure had not been followed in this application.  The proposed development failed and the application should be refused because it represented overdevelopment and would result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of a residential area.

Mr Anderson, local resident, spoke against the application, and informed the Committee he had similar issues as those considered earlier relating to Plot 4.  He challenged the legality of the original planning permission granted for the site because local objections would have been stronger if correct drawings had been submitted.  The gardens to the rear of Plots 5N and 5S were very narrow and there was no screening between these houses, which were 3 storeys high, and the properties they backed on to.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points made.  The sizes of the buildings on the site were slightly smaller than approved, although their position on site was slightly different.  Careful consideration had been given to issuing stop action, but the application was not considered to be contrary to the Local Plan.  Although the garden areas of Plots 5N and 5S had reduced, the available garden of the two dwellings was still acceptable.  A considerable amount of work had been carried out to ensure the plans reflected what had been surveyed on site.

Councillor K Thompson informed the Committee that he believed the application represented overdevelopment and recommended refusal.  Councillor J Bailey seconded this recommendation.

Councillor P Taylor informed the Committee that, although problems had been experienced with this development, the application must be judged on planning policies.  As it stood, the application accorded with planning policies and he asked upon what grounds it could be refused.

Councillor Freeman referred to the objection of Design and Conservation which was outlined in paragraph 66 to the report and added that the this, together with the application failing to meet Policy Q8 could be reasons for refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that while it was regretful how this application had progressed, the application had previously been found to be acceptable in terms of the design of the buildings.  The developer had discharged all key conditions and the applicant was commencing the development lawfully.  The concerns expressed by Design and Conservation were around the design and impact of the properties, but the design was consistent with others in the area.  The distances outlined in Policy Q8 had been met.

In reply to a question from Councillor Bleasdale regarding refusing the application, Mr Neil Carter, Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee that the planning permission granted for the development could not be fully implemented on site because of discrepancies on the plans submitted.  This was a section 73 application to vary condition 2 of the planning permission to remedy this defect.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the recommendations in the report.