Agenda item

To determine a full planning application from North Tyneside Council for the variation of condition 1 of planning approval 22/01672/FUL in order to show increase in height of walls, eaves and ridge height of the approved bungalows following receipt of detailed site levels.

Speaking rights granted to:

·       Caroline Armstrong of Bellshill Close

·       Russell Edwards of Edwards Architecture on behalf of the applicants

(Councillor J Cruddas withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the following item.)

The Committee considered a report from the planning officers, together with an addendum circulated prior to the meeting, in relation to a full planning application from North Tyneside Council for variation of condition 1 of planning approval 22/01672/FUL in order to show increase in height of walls, eaves and ridge height of the approved bungalows following receipt of detailed site levels.

A planning officer presented details of the application with the aid of various maps, plans and photographs.

In accordance with the Committee’s Speaking Rights Scheme, a local resident, Caroline Armstrong had been granted permission to speak to the Committee. On behalf of residents in the area Caroline outlined her objections to the proposed increase in the height of the development. She disputed the planning officers’ description of the proposed change as “slightly higher eaves and ridge height of the roof” as the development represented a 20% increase in height. She referred to the distances between the bungalows and existing dwellings and described how the development was out of keeping and would have a closed and claustrophobic impact on the area. She refuted the planning officer’s judgement that the proposal would have no impact on daylight and sunlight for existing residents. She was concerned that the development would have a negative impact on the residents’ mental health and safety, restrict access to outdoor space, create barriers and isolation, divide communities and have a detrimental effect on amenity.

Russell Edwards of Edwards Architecture addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant to respond to the speakers’ comments. He referred to the need for affordable housing and for homes to meet the needs of an ageing population and to provide independent living. The conversion of the garages had involved sustainable building methods and would deliver high quality, energy efficient homes in accordance with the Council’s standards. The proposed change in eaves and ridge height had been necessary to ensure that the properties were level and accessible following an assessment of the existing levels which had been undertaken after the granting of the original planning permission. Russell outlined details of the proposed heat pump and solar panels and the applicant’s approach to out of hours working, health and safety and engagement with residents. 

Members of the Committee asked questions of Caroline Armstrong, Russell Edwards and officers and made comments. In doing so the Committee gave particular consideration to:

a)        the impact of the development on sunlight and daylight for existing residents;

b)        the reasons for the proposed change in eaves and ridge height; and

c)        the recommended separation distances contained in the Design Quality Supplementary Planning Document and how these applied in this case.

The Chair proposed acceptance of the planning officer’s revised recommendation as set out in an addendum to the planning officers report.

On being put to the vote, 8 members of the Committee voted for the recommendation and none voted against with no abstentions.

Resolved that (1) the Committee is minded to grant the application; and

(2) the Director of Regeneration and Economic Development be authorised to issue a notice of grant of planning permission subject to:

i) the conditions set out in the planning officers report and addedums;

ii) the addition, omission or amendment of any other conditions considered necessary by the Director of Regeneration and Economic Development

iii) no further matters arising from the consultation period which, in the opinion of the Director of Regeneration and Economic Development, would justify reconsideration by the Committee.