Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 9no. dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application to demolish existing buildings and erect 9 no. dwellings (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor Savory, local Member addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents. The site was sloped and the erection of 9 dwellings would result in surface water running onto Lydgate Lane. The existing drainage system was inadequate and residents had already encountered problems with surface water flooding and sewage backing up into their properties. She understood that there were proposals for surface water discharge from the development to be directed to Trodbeck. This caused concern as the beck had flooded recently causing major damage, and the increased volume and pressure of water would increase the risk of further flooding.

She noted that the Environment Agency had not commented on the application and Northumbrian Water had offered no objections, however residents were concerned about responsibility for repairs should the beck flood again and cause damage to properties and the road.

Lydgate Lane was narrow and the hardstanding utilised by residents as a turning area and passing place would be lost if the application was approved. Lydgate lane was extremely busy at school times and a recent traffic count  revealed that 71 vehicles had used the lane in a single period. This would impact upon the safety of both pedestrians and drivers.

There were proposals for a footpath to be included in the scheme and this would pose a risk to pedestrians as vehicles travelling in both directions would have to mount the footpath to pass.

She also noted that a hammerhead was proposed on site and residents were concerned that there may be future plans for further development to the east.  

To conclude whilst residents appreciated that development would take place on the land they considered that a reduced number of properties would be more appropriate.

Shaun Roberts, local resident explained that not all residents were against development of the site but had concerns about the specific plans under consideration.

He reiterated the concerns expressed by Councillor Savory in relation to highway and drainage issues and he also expressed concern that the proposed building line was closer to the road than at present. The dwellings would be positioned very close together and whilst he accepted that this was not unusual in Wolsingham, this was a new development and most properties in the town were built in the 1800s.

Mr Lavender, the applicant’s agent stated that this proposal was in accordance with the NPPF and accorded with the Wear Valley District Local Plan. The development was within settlement limits and the proposed minor extension to the east was to improve visibility for safer access in and out of the site, in accordance with the advice of the Highways Officer.

With regard to the concerns expressed that the arrangements would lead to further development, he assured Members that the hammerhead was to allow access to the neighbouring field by the landowner.

The drainage proposals had been discussed with the Environment Agency and would represent an improvement to the current arrangements as there would be a measured and controlled direction of the flow of water into the beck without increasing the risk of flooding.

In terms of highway safety he pointed out that the site could be brought back into commercial or industrial use. This would be worse for residents because of the potential for commercial vehicle movements along the lane.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the comments made and questions from Members. The land used as a passing place was in private ownership and as such residents did not have any rights to use it. This did not constitute sufficient reason to refuse planning permission.

Residential properties in Wolsingham, including Lydgate Lane addressed the road closely and therefore the proposed building line would not be harmful to the character of the area. If the building line was set back this would compromise the garden space to the rear of the properties and could affect the viability of the scheme.

D Stewart, Highways Officer advised that the site already had extant planning permission for 10 dwellings and 9 properties would not result in unacceptable pressure on the local road network or lead to highway safety issues. The footway would become part of the adopted highway and the proposed access would improve visibility.

A Member stated that he was aware of new developments where flooding had caused problems and he therefore felt that the views of residents should be taken into account.

In discussing the application some Members considered that the application should be refused because of the increased risk of flooding in an area that already had problems, and in view of the highway safety issues raised. The comment was also made that the development would impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, although it was noted that this had been addressed in the report and that the proposals were in accordance with Local Plan Policy H24. 

However other Members felt that the issues raised had been addressed in the report, and by Officers at the meeting.  They took into account the concerns of residents with regard to flooding and drainage but noted that the existing site was mostly hardstanding and that the proposals for surface water drainage, as detailed in the report would improve the current situation.   

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.