|
News releases will be posted here. The most recent first:
PLANNING RULES APPLIED INCONSISTENTLY IN NORTH EAST CONSERVATION
AREAS
Oct 08
The Friends of the Conservation Area (FCA) has published research which demonstrates
that councils across the region are failing to take a consistent approach towards planning applications in conservation areas.
The findings of this study – the results of which are published below – indicate
that the protection afforded to conservation areas by authorities across the North East varies widely. This is further highlighted
by the fact that 40% of all councils throughout the region do not centrally record information concerning developments in
these areas.
Local authorities have the power to designate conservation areas in any area of
'special architectural or historic interest' whose character or appearance is worth protecting or enhancing. This 'specialness'
is judged against local and regional criteria, rather than national importance as is the case with listed buildings. Within
a conservation area the local authority has extra controls over demolition, minor developments and the protection of trees
(see editor’s notes*).
The study reports as follows:
|
Name
of Council |
How many conservation areas? |
No of residents per Conservation Area |
How many approvals given go ahead in 2007-8? |
Average number of approvals per conservation area |
|
Alnwick District Council |
15 |
2,005 |
140 |
9.3 |
|
Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council |
12 |
2,227 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
Blyth Valley Borough Council |
6 |
13,264 |
23 |
3.8 |
|
Castle Morpeth Borough Council |
14 |
3,592 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
Chester-le-Street District Council |
2 |
26,321 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
City of Sunderland
Council |
14 |
20,645 |
8 |
0.6 |
|
Darlington Borough Council |
6 |
16,484 |
186 |
31.0 |
|
Derwentside District Council |
16 |
5,377 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
District of Easington Council |
4 |
24,456 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
Durham City Council |
14 |
5,762 |
242 |
17.3 |
|
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council |
22 |
9,072 |
157 |
7.1 |
|
Hartlepool Borough Council |
8 |
11,301 |
124 |
15.5 |
|
Middlesbrough Council |
6 |
23,474 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
Newcastle City Council |
11 |
23,594 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
North Tyneside Council |
17 |
19,228 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
Redcar and Cleveland
Council |
17 |
1,440 |
97 |
5.7 |
|
Sedgefield Borough Council |
15 |
6,035 |
48 |
3.2 |
|
South Tyneside Council |
11 |
14,063 |
103 |
9.4 |
|
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council |
11 |
15,810 |
30 |
2.7 |
|
Teesdale District Council |
22 |
1,094 |
140 |
6.4 |
|
Tynedale Council |
19 |
3,014 |
Data not collated |
- |
|
Wansbeck District Council |
3 |
20,241 |
30 |
10.0 |
|
Wear Valley District Council |
20 |
3,137 |
143 |
7.2 |
Commenting on the findings, David Sheen, deputy chairman of the FCA said: “Our
research shows that conservation areas in the North East are subject to numerous planning applications and that councils pass
these applications in different proportions. Conservation areas are strongly supported by local communities which often urge
local councils to reject applications within them.
What is needed is a consistent approach to conservation areas, with local councils considering
the creation of more as their communities grow and develop. Local councils should also start to collate data and analyse development
trends within the conservation areas that already exist. Throughout our research most councils did not flag up conservation
area proposals in the same way as, say, those connected to listed buildings and it was difficult to distinguish them from
planning proposals anywhere else. The status of these areas is important to our townscape and too few councils are actively
defending them at a time when developments of differing quality and integrity are being proposed.”
FCA WINS AT DARLINGTON COUNCIL
The friends of the Conservation area won its case when opposing the new application to develop executive
homes at 64 Middleton Lane. After an hour and a quarter of debate the Council's planning committee threw out the application.
The text of remarks to the committee by FCA chairman, Graham Robb & deputy chairman David Sheen, follows:
I am here as Chairman of the Friends of the Conservation Area. Hundreds of local residents are supporters or members.
We want to oppose this application and we believe that this committee has sound reasons for agreeing with us.
Firstly, we suggest that this committee should look at this application in the contemporary environment of its recent
decisions. It is true that the applicant was granted permission for back garden development on his property. But since then
this committee has had time to reflect upon its own policy and as a result it has returned the council to the position of
defender of the Conservation Area by refusing permission for similar developments at neighbouring properties.
This application is the middle house of three. It is in a wonderful herbaceous and green area containing numerous protected
trees within a Conservation Area. When the council granted permission for backland development at this property a spate of
other applications followed. These were heard after our local campaign started
and the council, to its credit, turned them down.
Now this new application seeks to build large luxury homes at the expense of the combination of affordable homes and
open market homes that the council granted permission for. A simple aerial view of the site demonstrates how easy it would
be for the three neighbouring gardens to link up and form a larger development of substantial executive homes. All it needs
is for the centre house to be granted permission today and the appeals against your recent decisions will be made so much
easier.
The officer’s recommendation to this committee is already being cited in this appeal document by the applicant
at number 63 Middleton Lane. If this appeal succeeds we fear that another development of a similar
size to the nearby Thorntree House development, about which the council was criticised by the Ombudsman.
Unlike previous objectors, our group has had the benefit of professional advice from the respected consulting firm
White Young Green Plc. From this advice we respectfully disgree with your officer’s report and suggest the application
is wrong on a number of planning grounds:
- We believe the proposal would have a detrimental
impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and by reason of their scale and siting would therefore be
contrary to policies H11 (design and layout of new housing development) and H13 (backland development) of the Darlington Local
Plan 1997.
- We also believe the development and would be contrary to the objectives of Government policy on Planning and the Historic
Environment and of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas Act) 1990.
- In order to allow traffic access the development will require the alteration of an attractive
wall that dates back to the earliest days of the Conservation Area,
- The development would need to stand empty until Northumbrian Water starts and completes
and upgrade of sewage treatment works. No start date has been given for this work.
- The development would not have adequate access
for fire service vehicles.
- The development will require the felling of existing trees, with an adverse impact on
the character and visual appearance of the surrounding area.
The officer’s report quoted
government guidance that “development of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation”. We agree with that
sentiment.
The council must not be mesmerised into granting permission for a larger development by stealth. You granted permission
for mixed tenure development, the market has not enabled it to be built so the applicant comes back for different permission
which, if granted would open up the whole site to properties which would encroach further into our Conservation Area.
We say, your policy discourages backland development. Your decisions since the local elections have stopped backland
development. Our community applauds those decisions. We are all relying on you to continue saying: ‘enough is enough,
the Conservation Area must be conserved.’
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.
CONCERN OVER EXECUTIVE HOMES PLAN
27th June 08
The Friends of the Conservation Area in Middleton
St George have hit out of Darlington Council’s recommendation to approve a controversial back garden development on
Middleton
Lane.
The proposed development in the grounds of 64 Middleton Lane is to build two executive homes. A previous
application for 3 new homes at this address was approved recently but the applicant has submitted a new proposal. There is
real concern from local residents that in light of the credit crunch two homes will be easier to sell and develop, furthermore
that granting permission result will be appeals by neighbouring properties which have had similar proposals turned down will
be granted. If the appeals are successful a new housing estate will be developed by stealth with Middleton Lane being freed up for intensive back garden development.
Chairman of the Friends of the Conservation
Area, Graham Robb, said: “The council has the chance to right the wrong decision to grant planning on this site made
earlier by refusing further permission. It is clear that in today’s economic climate the planning they originally granted
will be difficult to carry through to development. If they now agree to grant permission for executive homes they will enable
this back garden to be developed and open up their decisions on neighbouring properties to appeals. The real danger is the
council could allow a significant housing development by stealth.”
There is genuine disappointment at the officer’s
recommendation to approve this application. It is inconsistent with recommendations on neighbouring properties and completely
against the council’s policy on back garden development. Officers really do need to weigh the views of local residents
more heavily and show determination to protect the Conservation area that makes the village so special.”
ENDS
PLANNING DECISION WELCOMED IN MIDDLETON ST GEORGE
28th April
08
The Friends of the Conservation
Area in Middleton St George has welcomed the decision by Darlington Council to refuse planning permission to develop executive
houses in the garden of 63 Middleton Lane.
Following widespread opposition
and a detailed report commissioned by the Friends of the Conservation Area the Council has turned down the application on
the grounds of 'cumulative impact on the conservation area'.
Commenting on the decision,
FCA spokesman Graham Robb, said: “This is great news, not just for this application specifically but for any applications
for further development in the Conservation Area. Darlington Council has listened and adopted the correct approach, we hope
to build on this and engage the Council on how they can work with local residents to defend and improve Conservation Areas.
Whilst we can rightly
be proud of this decision, we need to keep the campaign going. Other applications have been resisted both for Castle Close
and further development at Thorntree House. We need to continue to fight for the preservation of the Conservation Area.”
It remains possible that
an appeal will be lodged by the applicant but the FCA will use its new found voice to ensure that Government officials know
we support the Council’s decision.
ENDS
MEDIA
RELEASE
14th April 08
The Friends of the Conservation
Area in Middleton St George have welcomed the support of the Middleton St George Parish Council in their opposition to ‘backland’
development proposals in the village’s Conservation Area.
The two proposals being
considered were at 63 Middleton Land and Castle Close. Both involved
residential properties being built in gardens (or a former garden in the case of Castle Close).
Residents who support
the group were represented by Graham Robb and David Sheen. Members of the Parish considered the applications and unanimously
agreed to recommend refusal when the applications are heard by the local planning authority, Darlington Borough Council.
In addition the group
had chance to share its report by respected consultants White Young Green, and received a welcome contribution of £500 from
the Parish towards the £1175 cost of preparing the report.
Commenting on the meeting
Graham Robb said: “We were delighted that the Parish unanimously agreed to object to the Conservation Area applicants
and to give a small grant towards the cost of the report. The grant is £500, a substantially contribution. We are all very
grateful, it demonstrates the real determination of the people of the village to cherish and defend our Conservation Area.”
He added: “Our group
is determined to present a positive and professional case for rejecting further damaging development in the Conservation Area
and have give both the Parish Council and Darlington Council a detailed report explaining all the valid planning and legal
reasons why these applications should be rejected and further attempts to develop resisted.”
ENDS
Contact Graham Robb: 01325
363436
|
