Agenda item

46 dwellings, new access and associated works

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for 46 dwellings, new access and associated works (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Inch, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

In presenting the report the Principal Planning Officer advised that Sport England had sought clarification that the tests in paragraph 74 of the NPPF had been met.

The matter was clarified by the Officer who advised that paragraph 74 set out that playing fields should not be built upon unless an assessment had been undertaken to show that the site was surplus to requirements or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location. The application needed only to satisfy one of the tests, not both. The former was clearly satisfied given lack of use and quality, while the latter was satisfied to some degree by forthcoming alternative provision.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Playing Pitch Strategy and Playing Pitch Action Plan for Spennymoor had identified that there was an oversupply of senior and mini football pitches but a deficiency in junior pitches, and acknowledged that the former football pitch on the application site was not marked out and had not been used for a number of years.  The proposed provision of pitches at Tudhoe Grange Upper School would address this need and compensate for the loss of the pitch at Middlestone Moor.

Councillor K Thompson, local Member addressed the Committee. He considered that the proposals contravened NPPF policies; the development was not sustainable in that it would deprive a future generation of a play area and there was no requirement for extra housing in the southern delivery area, the area already having demonstrated a 5 year housing supply, in accordance with the NPPF. By way of example he referred to other large schemes at Durham Gate, Tudhoe Comprehensive and the former Electrolux sites.

He believed that at some point the piecemeal approach to new developments would have an impact on infrastructure, and he was concerned about proposals for sewerage to be removed by tanker until an upgrade to the existing treatment works at Tudhoe Mill was completed. Councillor Thompson felt that this indicated a desire by the applicant and DCC as partner to have the development completed quickly. 

To conclude he stated that the proposed pitches were nearly 3 miles away and whilst the report referred to the development of Whitworth School as a hub site there was no certainty or timescales for this to happen.

Councillor Geldard, local Member addressed the Committee advising that he was also speaking on behalf of local Member Councillor P Lawton. He reiterated the comments of Councillor Thompson, adding that this was the last large green area in Middlestone Moor and every resident he had spoken to was against the proposals. He sympathised with Sport England and whilst he appreciated that the loss of the open space would be compensated by alternative provision at Tudhoe Grange, this was nearly 3 miles away and in a different area.

It this site was closed to public access, Middlestone Moor would lose a massive part of the community for recreational use.

Mr Burtenshaw, local resident advised the Committee that people referred to the land as the old school field and had used it for recreational purposes for many years, a use which continued today.      

He disagreed with Planning Officers’ views that this was a poor quality site and was of the view that this was Green Belt; as such the Planning Authority should plan positively to maintain and protect it. The development of housing would be harmful to this Green Belt. The houses were surplus to requirements and with over 1600 new properties planned in the area it was vitally important to maintain this space for sport and recreation, in accordance with Policy L5 of Sedgefield Borough Local Plan. Mr Burtenshaw also referred to a petition with 150 signatures from local residents against the proposals.

Mr Leightell, a resident of Middlestone Moor informed Members that his concerns related to the availability of school places and obesity in children. School places in the area were over-subscribed and the additional housing proposed in Middlestone Moor and elsewhere would exacerbate the problem. Children were encouraged to walk or cycle to school but in reality they travelled by car and this would cause extra problems on the highway network and schoolgate parking.

With regard to obesity among children, he was of the view that the area needed more playing fields, not less and the casual user would be unlikely to travel to Tudhoe Grange for exercise.

The Chair invited local resident Mr McKenna, to address the Committee. Mr McKenna commenced by informing Members that he lived close to the north eastern boundary of the site and had purchased his property to be close to a safe, secure and peaceful open space for his children. If the application was approved this would represent a loss of 70% open space amenity in the village.

He reiterated the concerns expressed by other residents in relation to the distance to Tudhoe Grange and outlined the difficulties parents and children would experience to access the facilities.

The 1600 new homes proposed would increase traffic congestion and he did not believe that the existing infrastructure would be able to cope.

The report made no mention of re-investment in the village and he was concerned that there had been zero engagement with local residents by the Planning Authority. He also considered that the notice given of the meeting was not enough.

He agreed that there was a need for affordable housing but that this should be in sustainable locations and urged the Committee to take into account the views of Sport England, residents’ human rights and the high amenity value of this land.

Mr Prescott on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee advising that he understood that residents had been able to access this land but reminded them that this was a former school, not an open space facility for local people.

He had listened to the concerns by Sport England and the views of local football clubs, and understood that the main issues were around the provision of quality facilities. DCC’s Sports and Leisure Team had ambitious plans to improve local facilities and, as the Council would receive a profit share in addition to the capital receipt which could feed into this provision, then if approved, this scheme could help bring about those improvements.

Councillor Clare objected to the implication that the Committee’s decision would be influenced by the capital receipt from the land. The Chair, Councillor Buckham advised that the Planning Committee was quasi-judicial, governed by strict rules. Whilst DCC was landowner and in partnership with the applicant, these were not material planning considerations and would not be taken into account in the determination of the application.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the comments made by local Members, residents and the applicant.

He explained that the site was not designated Green Belt. He acknowledged that the NPPF required Local Planning Authorities to demonstrate a 5 year supply, but that this did not prevent consideration of developments even where a 5 year supply of deliverable sites could be demonstrated.

With regard to the housing developments planned, the majority of these were in Spennymoor itself, and a number of the schemes with planning permission were in outline form only, some with little prospect of coming forward given the current economic climate.

In terms of highway safety, he explained that the Highways Authority had offered no objections. The vehicular access from South View was deemed to be acceptable, with the number of additional vehicles safely accommodated by the existing network.

Members discussed the application at length.

Councillor Boyes made reference to the concerns expressed in relation to the distance to the facilities at Tudhoe Grange, and to the preparatory work undertaken on site.

The Principal Planning Officer responded that the proposed facilities at Tudhoe Grange accorded with NPPF aims in that the existing site was surplus to requirements and its loss would be compensated for by the forthcoming availability of pitches for public use at Tudhoe Grange. The activities at Tudhoe Grange would be co-ordinated and people would travel from across the whole of the Spennymoor area to access the facilities. With regard to the preparatory work undertaken, he advised that site investigations were not unusual but appreciated the impression this may have given to residents.

Councillor Davidson advised that he was concerned about the loss of open space but was re-assured on the site visit that the site clearly hadn’t been used as a playing field since 2010 because of the poor quality of the pitch. Whilst the proposal would remove an area of amenity space there was a large play area close to the site with playground equipment and a grassed area for children to exercise.

In reiterating the comments made in relation to the distance to the facilities at Tudhoe Grange, Councillor Richardson also expressed concern regarding the density and size of the properties, and sought an assurance that parking provision was adequate.

A Glenwright, Highways Officer responded that there would be 76 spaces representing 1.63 spaces per unit and at 164% provision, was in excess of the 150% maximum contained in PPG.

Councillor Clare was concerned at the loss of open space from the centre of any settlement stating that within a community green spaces were essential to it’s character, however there were no valid planning grounds to refuse the application. The site was not protected open space, permission having been required from the landowner to use it. He was assured by Officers that the proposals would bring about improved alternative formal sports provision at Tudhoe Grange.

The NPPF did not prevent windfall sites such as this coming forward over and above the 5 year supply already demonstrated, and the sewerage issues had been addressed.

N Carter, Legal Officer clarified the process for final determination of the application if Members were minded to approve it, given the need for referral to the Secretary of State.

Following discussion it was Resolved:

That the Committee be MINDED TO APPROVE the application subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State through the National Planning Casework Unit: and, in the event that the application is not called in for determination by the Secretary of State, the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure the provision of 7 affordable houses and to the conditions outlined in the report.