Agenda item

Outline application (all matters reserved except partial means of access, to, but not within the site) for the erection of up to 125 dwellings, associated landscaping and parking, plus demolition of existing buildings.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application with all matters reserved except partial means of access, to, but not within the site, for the erection of up to 125 dwellings, associated landscaping and parking, plus demolition of existing buildings on land at the former Sedgefield Community Hospital, Salters Lane, Sedgefield (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

C Harding, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site and setting and an indicative layout.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee of the following updates to the Committee report:

·       An objection had been received from Business Durham who had expressed concern that any residential development on the site may jeopardise future expansion of NetPark.

·       In total, 8 letters of objection to the application had been received

·       In total, 31 letters in support of the application had been received.

 

Councillor Davidson informed the Committee that Councillor Robinson would be invited to speak first to make representations on the application, following which he would withdraw from the meeting.

 

Councillor J Robinson addressed the Committee as a local Member and not as Councillor Lumsdon’s substitute Member on the Committee.  He informed the Committee that the issues surrounding the County Durham Plan had resulted in a great impact on both Sedgefield and Lanchester which had led to a piecemeal attack by developers lodging planning applications on areas around Sedgefield.

 

Councillor Robinson informed the Committee that he supported approval of this application which was on a brownfield site and therefore protected the green wedge around Sedgefield.  Approval of the application was also supported by Sedgefield Town Council.  However, Councillor Robinson sought assurances that, if the application was approved, further negotiations take place regarding access/egress, affordable housing and s106 payments.

 

Councillor Robinson expressed surprise that Northumbrian Water, who had not objected to an application for 300 houses at one end of Sedgefield, had now raised concerns on this application for 125 houses.

 

Referring to the sustainability of the site, Councillor Robinson informed the Committee that he had walked from the site of a previous application at Eden Drive, which had been recommended for approval, to the centre of Sedgefield and this was a longer distance than from this application site to the centre of Sedgefield.  Additionally, the site was near to Fishburn and the development may help to sustain both businesses and schools in Fishburn.

 

Approval of the application was supported by the residents of Sedgefield and Councillor Robinson asked the Committee to also support approval of it.

 

Councillor Robinson left the meeting.

 

Councillor Alan Blakemore of Sedgefield Town Council addressed the Committee in support of the application.  He informed the Committee that he was disappointed with the officer recommendation that the application be refused.  The application site was a brownfield site which was currently an eyesore in need of development and asked if not this development then what would be developed on the site.  The site was sustainable and near to Winterton and NetPark and within easy reach of both Sedgefield and Fishburn.

 

Paragraph 36 of the Committee report referred to weight being given to relevant policies in emerging plans.  The Sedgefield Neighbourhood Plan had been considered by an Inspector and considered to be sound, subject to modifications, and this site had been identified in that Plan as a preferred development site following public consultation.  The site would provide 125 of the identified 300 houses needed in the Sedgefield area.

 

The development would be sustainable, with a footpath and a cycle path already in place to both Sedgefield and Fishburn.  There were also two bus stops, one in each direction, which already existed.

 

The site, which was previously a 16 ward hospital, was not greenfield and the concrete footprint of the former hospital was still visible.

 

The areas of Fishburn and Sedgefield had, historically, been linked along Salters Lane from Fishburn coke ovens towards the River Skerne then past the General Hospital and Winterton Hospital towards Sedgefield and it was only relatively recently that this linkage had been removed.

 

Councillor Blakemore asked the Committee to approve the application.

 

Mr Lines, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the proposal.

 

Mr Lines informed the Committee that he was a resident of Sedgefield and a Town Councillor and was speaking in a personal capacity but expressing the views of many others with whom he had spoken but who could not attend the meeting due to work or other commitments.

 

The fact that this was a brownfield site did not in itself make it suitable for housing development and the site was not a good option.  Accepting that Sedgefield would grow, in order to allow for the development of a sustainable, cohesive community, it must be accepted that housing should be built within the existing community.

 

This site was demonstrably not within the boundary of what residents called Sedgefield.  It was clearly not within easy walking distance of services and amenities, particularly for the elderly, infirm and very young.  Mr Lines had measured the distance and it was a three mile round trip from the site to reach the post office, schools, churches, the doctors’ surgery, many sports facilities and the headquarters of Sedgefield Community Association where so many of the clubs and societies that make the town special were based.  This was not a 10 or 20 minute stroll in each direction for even the most active residents and would encourage the greater use of cars to access the centre of Sedgefield or, worse, encourage the spread of services outside the centre, which would damage the viability of the high street.  It was not in a location where people who desired to live in Sedgefield would want to secure a home.

 

If the development was approved, people who lived there would inevitably be marginalised.  They would be isolated from Sedgefield, which would cause many problems and make it extremely difficult to sustain a cohesive, integrated community.

 

Building on this site would directly contradict two of the Sedgefield Plan’s core objectives as follows:

 

Objective ii - Preserving Sedgefield’s distinctive identity.  There was a need to preserve Sedgefield’s distinctiveness from the physical growth and development of neighbouring communities such as Wynyard, Stockton and Fishburn, to preserve its important identity as a modern progressive community with an historic heritage.

 

Objective viii - The elderly and infirm.  To create housing for independent living, as well as facilities and amenities that were accessible to those who had limited mobility encouraging intergenerational integration.

 

Mr Lines strongly believed that building on this site would also fundamentally undermine other objectives outlined in the plan, such as:

 

Objective v - Supporting generational continuity.  Sedgefield was characterised by families who had lived in the community for generations.  Future development must provide affordable housing for acquisition and rental in the community to enable the continuity of family development.

 

Objective vi - Supporting young people.  To acknowledge that young people were critical to a successful future of the community and plan to provide facilities that supported their development in the community.

 

These objectives were critical for sustaining a long-term cohesive community in Sedgefield.  Pushing the development of suitable housing for young people to a site that was clearly remote from the heart of the town would do nothing to promote generational continuity or integration, and would hinder sustainable prosperity in Sedgefield.

 

Although the site was the most favoured by residents in a site preference survey undertaken during the development of the Sedgefield Plan, the survey had attracted 331 responses which was less than 6% of the population of Sedgefield.  42% of the 6% favoured this site over any other, in a survey that was undertaken over two years ago, since which a lot had happened.

 

It was clear to Mr Lines, and to the many other residents who shared his view, that the SHLAA assessment of this site was absolutely correct, and that the officer’s recommendation was also correct.

 

Mr Lines urged the Committee to reject this proposal, which would marginalise the residents who lived on the site, would hugely damage the cohesiveness and distinctiveness of Sedgefield, and would fly in the face of everything required to build an integrated, sustainable community as the town inevitably grew.

 

Sarah Guest of Sedgefield Village Action Group (SVAG) addressed the Committee in support of the application.  SVAG was committed to representing the majority community view as shown in the Site Preference Survey.

 

This was a brown field site which was currently wasteland and was an eyesore which should be developed to enhance the area and provide part of the agreed 300 housing allocation for Sedgefield.  Although the site was on the outskirts of Sedgefield it was within walking distance of local amenities, approximately 20 minutes from Sainsbury’s via safe pathways through the Winterton estate.  There were also clear and safe cycle routes from the site as well as regular bus services to Sedgefield and beyond.

 

Ms Guest could not understand why the County Council claimed that the development would not be sustainable.  Near to Sedgefield large developments were being built which were not within walking distance of anywhere yet these developments were considered to be sustainable and the houses were, according to the developers, extremely popular and selling well.

 

People would drive from this development to Sedgefield and it was naïve to think that this would not happen because people already did so from other estates which were much closer to the centre of Sedgefield.  Parents drove their children to and from school, but this was more to do with people’s busy lifestyles and schedules than living too far from the town centre.  Additionally, the effective cycle routes and pathways from this development to the town centre would provide an alternative.

 

The site was within easy distance to all major routes north and south and was in a semi-rural setting, bringing all of the advantages that brought to people’s wellbeing and work life balance.  Public footpaths onto open countryside could be accessed from areas close to the development site, as could Hardwick Park.

 

Ms Guest was pleased that a developer had expressed an interest in the site and urged the Committee to consider the benefits of building on it.  It would mean that Sedgefield could retain the highly valued green land surrounding the town as well as going some way to meet the housing requirement for the area.  Homes on the site may also be slightly more affordable than homes built on green fields at the other end of the town.  This could allow for more young families to be able to afford a home within the boundary of Sedgefield, with excellent schools and prospects.

 

Ms Guest informed the Committee it was encouraging that people were having increased opportunity to express their views through the Localism agenda.  She hoped that in this instance the Committee would consider the views of local residents and approve the application.

 

Richard Irving of ID Planning addressed the Committee in support of the application.  It was right to share the presentation time with a community action group which was committed to delivering what was best for their community in terms of the provision of new housing and where that new housing should be.

 

Mr Irving’s colleague, Jonathan Dunbavin had written to each Member of the Committee to highlight both the benefits of this application and to express surprise that officers considered the site to be unsustainable.

 

While he did not want to repeat the presentation made by Ms Guest, Mr Irving wished to reiterate three key areas which he believed made this development proposal appropriate.

 

Firstly, notwithstanding the comments raised by Mr Lines, there was considerable support from key members of the community who believed in localism and were in favour of the development because of the benefits that would ensue.  Localism was not about simply objecting to any development in any location, but was about understanding and appreciating what was best for a community in the knowledge there was a requirement for further housing in the area and where best this should be located.

 

Secondly, there were no technical constraints to developing this site.  It was a brownfield site and as such was accorded first preference for residential development opportunities.  There were no flooding, ground or highways issues that could lead to a reason to refuse the application for a site which could, in essence, be developed immediately.

 

Thirdly, there was a clear indication from those who had spoken in support of the application that this was a sustainable and accessible location for residential development and many were at a loss why, based on the planning and transportation evidence which accompanied the application, the conclusion of officers was that this was not a preferential location for residential development.  Mr Irving firmly disagreed with this conclusion and the site related extremely well to Sedgefield and could not be deemed to be isolated by any stretch of the imagination.

 

On the basis of all of the technical information which accompanied the application, and the level of support afforded to the development, Mr Irving urged the Committee to review carefully the officer recommendation, overturn those recommendations, and approve a scheme which would deliver significantly more benefits than it did in its current state.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to issues raised during the presentations.  Referring to the Sedgefield Neighbourhood Plan the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the Inspector had suggested that this could be progressed subject to amendments.  It could only therefore be given a reduced weighting at this time because amendments were required, particularly to the policy which stated where housing should be allocated.  The Plan needed significant amendments before it could be adopted.

 

The proposed development site had always been categorised as red in the SHLAA as being not suitable for housing.

 

Northumbrian Water had advised that the sewerage treatment works was nearing capacity and had a 300 dwelling headroom.  It had advised that the Local Authority must coordinate the decision making process so that this capacity was not exceeded, and this was in line with advice given on previous applications in the Sedgefield area.

 

Ecology officers, while not objecting to the application, had considered there was an opportunity for some biodiversity enhancements although none had been forthcoming.

 

Referring to s106 monies, a requirement had been identified to extend school provision.  However, because the application was in outline form only, it was difficult to determine other s106 requirements until more detail of the development was known.

 

The distances to services in the report identified the distance to the nearest service available, whether this was in Fishburn or Sedgefield.

 

Public transport provision was such as three buses an hour operated in close proximity to each other and this was not a full day service.

 

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee he considered the Neighbourhood Plan could only be given reduced weight because it needed crucial amendments.  Although this was a brownfield site, such sites were usually within towns or cities.  Business Durham had lodged an objection to the application because of the possibility of it jeopardising future expansion of NetPark, which was a jewel in the County’s crown.  Rigorous tests and criteria had been applied to determine the sustainability of the development site which was in an isolated location and was not sustainable.  Councillor Dixon supported the recommendation and moved that the application be refused.

 

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that although this was a brownfield site because it was previously the site of a hospital, it was surrounded by greenfield farmland and located between the two separate settlements of Fishburn and Sedgefield.  This proposed housing estate would belong to neither settlement and may encourage lateral encroachment.  Councillor Holland seconded refusal of the application.

 

Councillor Shield informed the Committee he was troubled by the application.  The site was currently a blight in the area and no other development of it was planned.  The site was in need of development and was in close proximity to both Sedgefield and Fishburn.  The site was within reasonable walking distance of both settlements and cycle routes were also available.  Public transport could be re-timed to meet any demand from the development.  He was minded to refuse the officer recommendation and approve the application.

 

Councillor Nicholson informed the Committee he had attended the site visit and observed the isolated location of it.  Although there was public transport, this was only 3 buses each hour and he did not consider that demand from the development would be sufficient for this to be increased.  Additionally, this was not a full day service.  He did not consider that the location of the site was within easy walking distance of Sedgefield.  This was a brownfield site in a greenfield location and Councillor Nicholson agreed that the application should be refused.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that he agreed with Councillor Shield and that he considered the site was not far from Sedgefield.  This was a brownfield site and Councillor Boyes questioned what would be developed on the site if this application was refused.  There were no current plans to further develop NetPark.  The residents of Sedgefield were supportive of the development and while he had listened to all issues put forward to the Committee he considered that this development of a brownfield site should be approved.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that the previous failure of the County Durham Plan had thrown the issue of housing in Sedgefield into chaos and had led to multiple applications for Sedgefield with no coherent process.  It was crucial for Sedgefield to have some coherent process behind the development of housing in the town.  The Neighbourhood Plan had not been approved and therefore did not exist and the County Durham Plan was in its infancy.  Until such a coherent plan was in place Councillor Clare was minded to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee he had attended the site visit and his views were based on this.  There seemed to be quite a distance from the edge of Sedgefield to the site, and although he acknowledged there was a footpath, he considered this would not be used by residents of the development to access Sedgefield.  The site was neither within Sedgefield nor Fishburn and was outside of the perimeter of both settlements.

 

Councillor Conway informed the Committee that the site was located 2.4 km from the centre of Sedgefield and 0.8 km from Fishburn, yet had a Sedgefield address.  Paragraph 94 of the report which referred to distances of which many were beyond acceptable but within the preferred maximum.  On the issue of sustainability Councillor Conway asked why the emphasis was on distances to the community of Sedgefield rather than Fishburn.  He was familiar with the area and there had been a recent plethora of development applications for the Sedgefield area.  He was undecided about this application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the distances in the report were those to the nearest facility, whether they were in Sedgefield or Fishburn.

 

Councillor Conway considered that 90% of the secondary school population would be outside of the preferred maximum distance.  While the distances to facilities for everyday living, such as doctors, post office and primary school were not ideal, they were within the preferred maximum.

 

Councillor Davidson informed the Committee that because this was a brownfield site it did not imply that it was suitable for residential development.  He referred to Chester le Street where applications for development at isolated villages surrounding Chester le Street had been refused because they could lead to ribbon development and eventually the isolated villages would become part of Chester le Street.  If this site was granted permission for residential development then it would be more difficult to refuse future applications which could lead to a ribbon development to join Fishburn with Sedgefield.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons contained in the report.