I am David Sheen. I live at 3 Cedar Grove, Middleton St George.
‘The proposed development
would result in the loss of a substantial garden area, which together with other similar gardens nearby contribute towards
the character and appearance of the Middleton One Row Conservation Area. The loss of this garden area and those of properties
to the north for similar residential development would cumulatively erode the character of this part of the conservation area
to its detriment. The development would thereby be contrary to Policies E29 (The Setting of New Development), H11 (Design
and Layout of New Development) and H13 (Backland Development) of the Borough of Darlington Local Plan 1997 and Planning Policy
Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment 1994)’.
This is the reason given by the Council for refusing an application for the erection of two
detached houses to the rear of 63 Middleton Lane.
An application for a detached dwelling to the rear of 65 Middleton Lane
was also refused. The reasons were essentially:
1. The development would be out of step with the character of the surrounding area.
2. It would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area
3. It would have a negative impact on the street scene
4. It would have a significant detrimental impact on the long term health and vitality of trees
protected by tree preservation orders.
5. It would be contrary to Darlington Borough Council policies H11, H13, E29, E8, E11, E12,
E13, E21, E23 and to national guidance policy statements 1, 3, 9 and 15.
It also stated that there was insufficient information to assess the impact on local wildlife,
particularly bats and owls.
The Planning Inspectorate has recently refused an appeal for erection of a detached dwelling
in Church Lane, a short distance from the applicant’s
property. The key reasons were the damage to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the damage to trees.
I have copies of the relevant decision details, should you wish to read them.
It is clear that, from a procedural and policy position, this application should not be approved.
Indeed, some weeks ago, a senior member of the Planning Department suggested that, if such an application were submitted,
it would be unlikely to succeed. I find it perverse that the Planning Officer is recommending this application for approval.
The Planning Officer suggests that this application should proceed as it has a neutral effect
on the Conservation Area. This is not the case. I have here the artists impression of the property and a photograph taken
from a similar angle. I would suggest that there is a significant effect! I also have a photograph, taken from the estate
agents details, which shows the large mature garden which, by the Planning Department’s own admission characterises
the conservation area and which will be destroyed by the development.
As you know permission has been granted for the development of three town houses and conversion
of the existing property to four flats. This was granted subject to a Section 106 agreement requiring two affordable units
which it could be argued creates an ethical case for the existing proposals. However, from a developers perspective, it does
call into question the viability of the scheme. The new application, if granted, will not incorporate such an agreement, Furthermore,
any future application for the redevelopment of the existing house into flats will also not require such a commitment.
H13 also states that tandem development cannot normally achieve satisfactory standards of design,
privacy and access. The plans do impact on the privacy of 63 and 65 Middleton
Lane. I note that the report does suggest that this loss of privacy can be overcome by use of obscured
glass
The report states that ‘it will not be possible to achieve the advised visibility of
2.4m x 43m’. As a compromise, there is a suggestion that the wall be reduced to 1m. That may provide adequate visibility
from a 4 x 4 vehicle – but not from a sports car.
Of great concern is that Fire Service access requirements are breached. They have suggested
that they are happy with this as long as a residential sprinkler system is installed – which it is not proposed will
be a pre-requisite of planning permission. Can you see a profit orientated, builder spending money on a sprinkler system which
he is not bound to do?
I appreciate that the previous application was approved by Committee but understand that the decision
was marginal and that some members were unable to attend. This is an entirely different application and I would ask that the
committee follows the rationale displayed by the Council in rejecting similar applications from the owners of 63 and 65 Middleton Lane and that of the Planning Inspectorate and that
proposals are rejected. Failure to do so will open the flood gates to appeals from other applicants whose proposals have already
been rejected as well as encouraging further applications from those wishing to profit from the characteristic green space
which makes the Conservation Area so special.
