Agenda item

New vehicular access and erection of 43 dwellings consisting of 2, 3 and 4 bed units including associated boundaries, roads, paths and garages together with change of use of land to private garden for properties 7-15 Oakfield Crescent.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding new vehicular access and erection of 43 dwellings consisting of 2, 3 and 4 bed units including associated boundaries, roads, paths and garages together with change of use of land to private garden for properties 7-15 Oakfield Crescent, at land to the south of Oakfield Crescent, Bowburn, Durham DH6 5DF (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting. It was reported that since the officers report had been published, a further 3 letters had been received, the majority of points related to issues already received in objection letters and subsequently addressed within the report.  Some additional points were raised regarding indemnity insurance regarding flooding, that DCC are under obligation to maintain an existing site boundary and that recent development in Bowburn has not helped with a sense of community within the village. Furthermore, since the publication of the report, the Environment Agency had confirmed that they had no objections to the revised application documents and proposed use of field drain.

The local Parish Council had also responded to the application consultation, querying whether the revised plan was to cater for access for future school redevelopment, whether the access road would adequately protect drainage infrastructure and whether this drainage infrastructure would in itself affect school redevelopment plans.

Mr Reed, local resident, addressed the Committee. He was a resident of Oakfield Crescent and objected to the application for the following reasons:-

• He believed that the access road to the proposed development would prove dangerous as it was to be located on a bend of a main road;
• In relation to flooding issues he felt the current drainage system was inadequate and the introduction of 43 new dwellings would exacerbate the drainage structure of Bowburn;
• Committee were advised that there were no plans to connect the field drain to the Northumbrian Water network. The current system stopped at no.29 Oakfield Crescent and merely held water in the ground at that point;
• The fencing at Oakfield Crescent was the responsibility of the Council and as such the developer would not carry out any repairs or maintenance to the fence. He therefore queried whether the Council would request that any necessary repairs could be carried out;
• Mr Reed advised that several properties would lose their privacy as a result of the development and in quoting the Human Rights Act, he highlighted that 2 storey properties should not be built to the rear of bungalows;
• Mr Reed quoted legislation which set down a persons right to light. If a property had enjoyed a minimum of 20 years of light without interrupt, then that property’s right to light became absolute. Members were advised that several properties in Oakfield Crescent had enjoyed that same right to light for 36 years and that the proposed development would threaten that right.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• Drainage – The response from Northumbrian Water and Environment Agency to the consultation was reiterated. Specific rates had been stipulated which must be adhered to and Members were advised that the site was within flood risk zone 1 which was applied to areas at the lowest risk of flooding.
• Highways – The Highways Officer advised that the average speed on Crow Trees Lane was 47mph as such a 120metre visibility play would the minimum requirement. The applicant was going to provide a 150metre visibility splay which would be suitable for a road with a 50mph average speed.
• In relation to the field drainage Members were advised that this was not originally required by any of the internal or external consultees, however the applicant had voluntarily put forward the field drain plan. Furthermore it was a condition of the application that no development shall take place until details of the field drain were submitted, which must include a means of outlet such as a soakway or borehole tank.
• Boundary issues – A new fence was proposed as part of the application and where requests had been made for remedial work or for the retention of trees, those requests had been granted. Complaints about the state of the existing fence had been passed to Neighbourhood Services to address;
• Privacy and Light – Members were advised that in relation to privacy and light, the test which needed to be considered by the Planning Authority was one of amenity. Taking everything into account the application was deemed to be acceptable. The distance between all properties would be in excess of 20 metres and although some were marginally below the required 21 metres, the difference was considered negligible and not sufficient to recommend refusal of the application. In relation to the issue of light, the Solicitor clarified that the right to light was a matter for private law and was not of relevance to the planning committee. Should any property have acquired rights to light under the prescribed Act, then that was a private legal issue. In respect of the Human Rights issues raised by Mr Reed, the Solicitor clarified that having respect for family and private life was a qualified right and required balanced consideration. Providing that a balancing exercise was undertaken when considering the appropriateness of a planning application, then that decision would be HRA compliant.

Mr I Prescott, applicant, addressed the Committee. He reiterated to Members that no objections had been made by any of the statutory consultees. As part of the consultation the developer had facilitated a meeting at a local venue which had been well attended by local residents. Members were advised that two key concerns had been raised at that meeting relating to flooding and boundary issues.

In respect of concerns regarding flooding, Mr Prescott advised that as developers, Keepmoat had witnessed Northumbrian Water becoming increasingly defensive in respect of claims made against them and as a result were much more rigorous in their consideration of proposed developments. The developer had therefore held in depth discussions with both Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency during the course of the consultation.

The Committee were advised that the run off would be no greater than the existing Greenfield run off via the extensive underground storage. Mr Prescott stressed that both Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency had fully approved the drainage designs and as such the developer had every confidence in the proposals.

In an attempt to allay any concerns regarding run off from new gardens, the developer had included a field drainage system in the application to mitigate any potential issues. Mr Prescott clarified that the field drain would lead to a borehole tank and was something which the developer had included in the application voluntarily.

In respect of concerns regarding boundaries, Members were advised that some residents had requested additional trees to be planted. Consideration of trees had been done on a plot by plot basis and letters would be sent to all residents to advise on the measures to be taken. The developer would legally transfer land containing trees into existing gardens and would also carry out any necessary maintenance to ensure that the trees would be transferred in good condition.

Councillor J Blakey, local Member, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the local Members had been disappointed to be told the full extent of the plans only after boring had taken place on the site and that the development could have been determined under delegated powers without Member involvement.

Councillor Blakey advised that the drains were working to capacity with the existing dwellings and would be unable to cope with the proposed development.

In relation to the adjoining road, the local Members had campaigned for some time to have the speed limit reduced in order for street lights to be installed. Once the lights had been placed in situ it had been noted that two additional lights had been erected, Councillor Blakey queried whether they had been installed in anticipation of the access road for the proposed development.

Councillor Blakey suggested that a much greater splay would be required at the access to the development than as set out in the application, in order to match the speed limits.

Photographs were circulated to the Committee highlighting prolific flooding which had occurred in the area and Members were advised that the same area had flooded approximately four times due to the inadequate drainage system. In addition Councillor Blakey advised that new developments at other sites in the area had also had a major impact on the drainage system and had caused flooding issues.

In relation to the school, Councillor Blakey suggested that although there were no current plans to extend the school, the potential to extend must be taken into consideration. In the future, without the option to extend the premises, local children would be forced to go to schools outside of the village.

Councillor Blakey concluded by advising that there was insufficient local infrastructure to support the proposed development.

Councillor M Williams, local Member, addressed the Committee. He reiterated the objections made by Councillor Blakey and advised Members that as local Members they had been trying to resolve the drainage issues in the village since 2006 which had involved meeting with Northumbrian Water on several occasions. He advised that both the development site and the school field were prone to flooding and one consequence was that mud from those flooding incidents was washed into the gardens of neighbouring properties.

In addition Councillor Willliams advised that the nearby pumphouse had always been prone to flooding over the years.

In conclusion, Councillor Williams reiterated the concerns put forward by Councillor Blakey in respect of speeding issues and street lighting.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• Awareness of the Application – Committee were advised that notice of the application would have been published on the planning weekly list which was issued to all County Councillors;
• Members were advised that the application would not have been determined under officer delegation due to it being in respect of a major development, therefore would always have been brought to the Planning Committee to determine;
• Drainage & Flood Risk issues – although the significant concerns were acknowledged, the Senior Planning Officer reiterated that none of the statutory consultees had any objections to the application;
• Highways – The Highways Officer advised how the size of splays was calculated and he assured the Committee that the Highways Authority were confident and satisfied with the visibility splays as detailed in the application.

Members of the Committee expressed concerns about the application based on the past flood issues which had occurred in the area.

In response to a query from Councillor Conway, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the Senior Drainage Officer had assessed the field drain plan and the results of the Flood Risk Assessment and had no objections to the application. The Senior Planning Officer also pointed out that Members must concentrate on the application site and development before them and would question weight that could be given to flooding in other areas of the village unless there is a certain link to this site. He further clarified that the 20% affordable housing to be developed as part of the application, met with the required standard.

Councillor Bleasdale advised of a similar development which had been built in the Seaham area where, over time, numerous issues started to occur in relation to water rising in the gardens and patios of the properties. The residents in that area were only able to go to the developer to assist with the issues and Councillor Bleasdale was concerned that similar issues could be experienced should the current application be approved. As such, Councillor Bleasdale moved that the application be refused.

In supporting the motion to refuse the application, Councillor Kay expressed concerns regarding the speed of vehicles travelling along the highway adjacent to the development site where the access to the development would be sited. He further expressed concerns regarding the radius of the bend on that highway and whether the diameter of visibility splay could actually be achieved.

Councillor Kay also expressed concerns regarding the separation distance between properties. He stated that the recommended separation distance of 21metres should be adhered to at all times.

In response to the concerns raised regarding separation distances, the Senior Planning Officer advised that Policy Q8 provided only a guideline. The difference was not be significant the Planning Authority would need to demonstrate why the minor difference in distance was deemed to be materially harmful.

Councillors Bleasdale and Kay clarified that the reasons for refusal were that the application contravened Local Plan Policies T1, Q8 and U10 and NPPF 10 on grounds of on site and offsite flooding, reduced separation distances and the unsuitability of the access onto Tail-upon-End Lane through oncoming vehicle speeds and visibility.

Resolved: That the application be refused.