Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development of a maximum of 54 units on land to the North of Willowtree Avenue, Gilesgate Moor with all detailed matters reserved except access (for copy see file of minutes).

Councillor Moir left the Chamber before the presentation by the Officer and did not return until after the determination of the application.

The Principal 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.

The Committee were advised that the Electoral Division referred to within the report should be Belmont rather than Gilesgate.

The Principal Planning Officer advised of additional conditions to be included to the application as follows:-

• No development works shall be undertaken outside the hours of 7.30am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on a Saturday with no works to take place on a Sunday or Bank Holiday.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Policies H13 and Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.

• Conditions 11 and 12, as detailed on page 35 of the report should be amended to read as follows:

No development shall commence until:

a) the application site has been subjected to a detailed site investigation report for the investigation and recording of contamination and said report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

b) should contamination be found, detailed proposals for the removal,

containment or otherwise rendering harmless such contamination (the

‘contamination proposals’) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

For each part of the development proposal, the “contamination proposals” relevant to that part (or any part that would be affected by the development) shall be carried out either before or during such development and completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

If during development works any contamination should be encountered which was not previously identified and is derived from a different source and/or of a different type to those included in the contamination proposals then revised contamination proposals shall be submitted to the LPA; and

After remediation measures are implemented, a final validation statement shall be submitted in accordance with the “contamination proposals” and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised having regards to Policy U11 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

Councillor B Howarth, Chair of the Belmont Parish Council Planning Committee, addressed the meeting. She highlighted that several applications for development on the site had already been refused and nothing had changed to justify approving the current application. The Parish Council had serious concerns over ecological loss, increased traffic and road safety. There was no provision for a play area within the application and Mrs Howarth also expressed concerns as to whether a permanent safety fence would be erected around the electricity pylons which would remain on the site.

The Committee were advised that the area was prone to drainage problems and freezing hazards in winter months. There were also concerns further to the results of an environmental desk top study which had been undertaken by Northumbrian Water, which had assessed old mine workings beneath the site and warned of the potential effects which gases from that area could have on health. In particular, that report had recommended that no food should be consumed on the site, this would need to be considered if any works were to be undertaken.

Mrs Howarth informed the Committee of the outcome of a recent Parish plan survey where the majority of those surveyed said no to further housing, unless there were plans to develop flats or bungalows on the site. She strongly urged refusal of the application but requested that should the application be approved, a strict condition be attached to the permission to ensure the protection of trees.

Mr L Thomson, objector, addressed the Committee. He drew attention to the number of previous applications that had been turned down, some at appeal level. Although applications had been approved on the site, firstly for the grazing of horses and subsequently for the development of stables, Mr Thomson advised that the applicant had never actually used the site in accordance with those approved permissions.

He felt that the scale of the development was too high in density and he referred to the comments of the Design and Conservation Officer who found the proposal to be rather excessive in scale. There was no shortage of housing in the area, a number of houses were up for sale and he objected to the loss of green space. He pointed out that the entry near the junction was very poor and that he himself had been knocked down by a car near Willow Tree Avenue. Any increased traffic would exacerbate the problems in an already extremely high traffic area. He added that in winter residents experience flooding and icy patches.

The Committee were advised that local residents found the style of dwellings proposed were not in keeping with existing properties and there were also concerns that the development would destroy the privacy for those living in the vicinity of the site.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application as it would affect residents safety and quality of life.

Ms J Davis, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the layout of the site was only indicative at this stage, purely to allow the Planning Authority to determine whether that scale of development could take place on the site. In referring to paragraph 78 of the report, Ms Davis advised that an ecological phase 1 should have been included and apologised that it hadn’t been.

She felt that the application was within development limits of the local plan and had been identified as a suitable infill site in the 2012 SHLAA.  The site was further listed as preferred site in the emerging County Durham Plan.

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

• Layout – All matters ie scale of development, were reserved and it was highlighted that the application would be for a maximum of 54 units;
• Flooding – The Drainage Engineer was confident the scheme can be developed;
• Scale of Development – The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that there was no guarantee that apartments would be delivered and the details of the application could change given its speculative nature;
• Rights of Way – Any proposed diversions to public rights of way would be subject to relevant consultation;
• It was reiterated that the application included a contribution towards open space and recreational facilities;
• Although a dense boundary already existed, a landscaping scheme would be introduced in due course;
• Gas monitoring works were  picked up in investigations and in conditions
• 20% affordable housing would be delivered;
• Although the application conflicted with the City of Durham Local Plan in part, both the NPPF and the emerging County Durham Plan found the site to be sustainable and thus its proposed allocation as a Housing Site.

Councillor P Conway moved to reject the application after taking into consideration the views of the objectors, agent and planning officers. He found paragraphs 4 and 5 of the officers report to be conflicting in that while the only matter requested for consideration by the Committee was the access to the site, it was also reflected that the application constituted a major development.

He felt that although the NPPF provided guidance to Planning Authorities, it was important for all applications to be judged on a case by case basis.

Councillor Conway referred to paragraph 89 of the report which provided a warning regarding reliance on the County Durham Plan, and reiterated that the document was at consultation stage and would not be adopted until the end of 2014. The City of Durham Local Plan was in place and Councillor Conway felt that it was questionable that all considerations raised within the report were in line with that document. In particular, Councillor Conway felt the application contravened Policy E5a – Open Spaces within settlement boundaries; Policy H2 – New Housing Development within Durham City.

In relation to the access to the development, Councillor Conway found the objections raised to be very succinct. Although all previous development in that area had been sustainable, the development of 54 more dwellings would exacerbate traffic issues. The site visit earlier that day had been held at what would be considered a quiet time in terms of traffic, yet the traffic had still been at such a level that problems were encountered by Members trying to cross the highway.

Councillor Conway further commented that the estate would predominantly be a commuter estate and as such would contribute nothing to sustainable transport.

He noted that while there were numerous objectors, including the local Parish Council, there appeared to be no support for the scheme. In its current format Councillor Conway could not support the application as it was contrary to the current Local Plan and would not be on previously developed land and harm the appearance of the area. He suggested that should the applicant bring a future application forward, it should be a full application incorporating full details of the scheme.

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

• Consideration was only to be given to the principal of the development. All matters were currently reserved and would not be subject to consideration until a future application was brought forward.

• NPPF - the document accepted that not all the needs of future development would come forward on previously developed sites and that in some instances green field sites would come forward to meet that need subject to sustainability considerations. The NPPF emphasised the need to focus on sustainable development and the presumption in favour of it. The site met that criteria hence its support in the emerging plan, whereas policy H2 of the 2004 Local Plan was no longer considered fully consistent with the NPPF in that it only permitted development on previously developed land.  

In response to a query from Councillor M Davinson, the Highways Officer advised that the adjacent highway was a very busy road with a volume of 13,000 vehicles a day. He expected the proposed development to add 35 peak hour two way trips and 24 departures per hour from the junction. Such an increase would not have any significant material impact on the highway.

Councillor D Freeman seconded the motion to refuse the application and upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:

That the application be REFUSED.