Agenda item

28 no. affordable dwellings & 6 no. dwellings including landscaping and access.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for 28 no. affordable dwellings and 6 no. dwellings including landscaping and access at land north of Dunelm Road and A181, Thornley, Co Durham (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. The Committee were advised of the following alterations to the recommended conditions:

• Landscape Plan (ref: R/1508/1A), Layout Plan (Ref: 120-001 Rev M) and Junction Plan (ref: 3983-C-D9-01 Rev A) to be included in condition 2.
• Condition relating to archaeology work to be included
• Condition 7 to be amended and should now read: The submitted junction plan (ref: 3983-C-D9-01 Rev A) which details the highway verge improvements to the A181 shall be fully completed prior to the occupation of the first dwelling.

Further to a query which had arisen on the site visit earlier that day, Members were also advised that the mast which was located at the application site, was an Orange Telecoms mast.

Mr Stokoe, local resident, addressed the Committee. He lived next door to the application site and though one of the main qualities of the proposed site was the views of the surrounding area, Mr Stokoe advised that he would lose the views he currently enjoyed should the application be approved.

Members were advised that the local Parish Council were opposed to the application and Mr Stokoe queried why the strength of their objections were not fully detailed within the officers report. Furthermore he questioned the number of letters which had been received by the Planning Authority, believing there to have been more than the 4 detailed in the report.

Mr Stokoe advised that the owner of the site did not live in the village and so was not concerned with the fragmented appearance of the location. Although the officers report suggested that the development would give a balanced entrance to the village, Mr Stokoe disagreed that this appearance was necessary.

Members were advised that there were numerous vacant properties within the village as there was not a demand for further social housing in that area. Furthermore, there were already 2 other sites identified in the village for future development and Mr Stokoe feared that should the current application be approved, there would be no need for the other sites to be progressed in the future.

One of those sites had been ripe for development for years and had used to hold 120 dwellings which had been subsequently demolished.

In relation to the other site (H75: Dunelm Stables), Mr Stokoe highlighted that the officers report suggested it would be delivered within 6-10 years. He disagreed, advising that the covenant which currently restricted development of that site, was due to be removed in the coming months and so the site would be ready for development in the short term.

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

·         Parish Council Objections – The Committee was advised that the objections from the Parish Council mirrored the objections from residents and so were adequately covered within the report

·         Balance Of Site – The Senior Planning Officer referred to the plans for the development which he believed demonstrated a balanced appearance to the entrance to the village

·         Vacant properties – Members were advised that the development would be partially funded with a subsidy from the Homes and Communities Agency, as such development had to commence by the end of March 2014

·         Other Development Sites – The two other development sites within the village were still to be allocated in the emerging County Durham Plan. Planning Policy had confirmed that development of the current site would not  compromise development of the other 2 sites.

Mr A Willis, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He endorsed the contents of the officers report and took the opportunity to emphasise several key points.

Members were advised that 28 affordable dwellings would be provided on the site which he considered to be a substantial proportion of the recommended number which should be provided in accordance with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Mr Willis stressed that the delivery of this site would not jeopardise delivery of any other earmarked sites within the village.

In respect of the landscaping and visual effect of the site, Mr Willis advised that in designing the site the applicant was keen to create an acceptable landscape impact. As such the hedge surrounding the site at present was considered a significant attribute and so would be retained as part of the development.

In response to queries from Councillor Conway, the Senior Planning Officer clarified the level of importance which should be levied on the various planning documents – the NPPF, the emerging County Durham Plan and the saved Local Plan Policies. The Senior Planning Officer also reiterated that the 2 other sites within the village would in no way be jeopardised should Members decide to approve the application.

Councillor Holland expressed concern regarding the visible gaps in housing and the lack of regeneration within the village which he had witnessed on the site visit earlier that day. He believed that both affordable and infill development was required in that area. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the 2 sites which would be allocated in the County Durham Plan would see a lot more affordable housing introduced into the area.

Councillor Bell acknowledged that the site was within a sustainable location and would include 28 affordable housing plots. He did express concerns in relation to the junction at the rear of the site which accessed the A181. It had been noted that the speed of traffic on that highway made turning out of the junction somewhat difficult, Councillor Bell therefore queried whether any traffic calming or reduction in the speed limit could be introduced.

The Highways Officer clarified that the Area Traffic Manager had met with the local County Councillor on several occasions to try to resolve issues on the A181. Members were advised however that it would be beyond the scope of the proposed development to deal with any traffic arrangements on the adjoining highway.

It was agreed that the Area Traffic Manager should be made aware of the Committee’s concerns in respect of the A181.

Seconded by Councillor Kay, Councillor Bell moved approval of the application.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.