Agenda item

Outline Residential Development (Access to be considered).

The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding outline residential development (access to be considered) at land to the west of Elemore View and south of Front Street, South Hetton (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. 

Ms G Rodgers, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application.

Members were advised that the village had just approved the building of 80 houses at the rear of Windsor Drive which would more than cover any demand for new housing, as significant development had already taken place recently throughout the village. Four houses completed in the immediate vicinity of the site in the last 2 months were currently unsold and many houses in the village had been up for sale for more than a year.

In relation to road safety, Ms Rodgers advised that the proposed access to the A182 would be very close to a very busy bus stop which already caused problems for local residents. That current problem would be exacerbated by the already approved 80 houses.

Ms Rodgers stated that the comments of the Highways Authority appeared to show no appreciation of the considerable time spent and money required to install 3 further traffic calming measures in addition to those already in situ at the site of the proposed access. Members were advised that the Parish Council had also expressed their surprise that no highways issues had been highlighted by the Highways Authority.

In relation to public amenities, Ms Rodgers stated that the village was on the boundary with Tyne and Wear, it’s school was full and had already had 2 extensions . There was no scope to extend the school further and Haswell had no school, thus putting pressure on Shotton. Furthermore the small school at Easington was always full. Ms Rodgers argued that looking to Tyne and Wear to have children educated was unsatisfactory for local County Durham children and as there had already been significant housing expansion in Easington Lane and Hetton, there was now pressure on their schools.

In referring to sewerage and surface issues, Ms Rodgers highlighted that the plan showed a flood plain which covered part of a number of properties on Pinedale Estate. Members were advised that the inability of the pumping station and drainage beck to cope had been an issue for many years, Ms Rodgers stated that one property had partially collapsed under heavy rainfall and acute run off 2 years earlier when drains were overwhelmed. Parts of the field, beck and footpath adjacent to the proposed development had collapsed with sink holes appearing as the water which was drained underground had been too much for the system provided to date.

Ms Rodgers advised that residents at the Pinedale Estate had met the original costs as part of the development and without assurance that significant additional provision would be built into the planning application there was no sound reason to consider that flooding would be an inevitable consequence for both existing and new housing in that area.

In relation to visual impact Ms Rodgers advised that currently the approach to the village from Easington Land and Haswell reflected the rural nature of the village. The former industry was completely invisible and development on green belt land, which was in use for grazing, was felt to be inappropriate while there was sufficient infill and brown field opportunities elsewhere in the village.

On the issue of natural habitat, Ms Rodgers advised the Committee that the area in question was home to a wide range of wildlife and local residents noted that the applicant submitted a superficial view from a conservation society who made one visit, that there may be bats in the area. Ms Rodgers stated that there had been, and remained, a significant number of bats in the area. Furthermore, Members were advised that there were owls, newts, toads and a variety of other wildlife living in the area which would be threatened by the proposed development.

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

• Education - Members were advised that there had been a late response from the Education Department. Officers were of the view that while there was a deficiency of school places in South Hetton, that could be overcome by S106 contributions.
• Flooding – Members were advised that a flood risk assessment had been submitted and both Northumbrian Water and Drainage Officers were satisfied that there would be no impact

The Highways Officer responded to points raised as follows:-

·         Visibility – Highways Officers had concluded that there would be adequate visibility in both directions

·         A182 – The volume of traffic which would be generated from the new development would amount to approximately 20 extra vehicle trips per hour which was not enough to suggest that there would be a severe impact on the network

Mr J Whitfield, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. Mr Whitfield suggested that there was an overwhelming need to bring out sustainable sites to meet the target for new development over the coming 5 years. The proposal satisfied the NPPF in terms of sustainability. The proposals brought economic benefits to the area in terms of jobs, council tax and New Homes Bonus and from a transport point of view the proposals were also sustainable.

Mr Whitfield advised that a wide choice of homes would be delivered along with a significant area of public open space. Furthermore the applicant was committed to helping avoid a flood risk.

In referring to the third reason for refusal as detailed in the officers report, Mr Whitfield advised that a phase 1 ecological report had found no evidence of badgers in the area.

In referring to paragraph 60 of the officers report, Mr Whitfield failed to see the difference between the proposed development and the Windsor Drive application, which had been deemed by officers to have good access. The current application was for less properties than the Windsor Drive development and so would have less of an impact.

In relation to education, Mr Whitfield advised that in the previous academic year South Hetton Primary School did not fill all of its places. He concluded by requesting that the application be approved.

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

·         Sustainability of the site – Members were advised that officers did not dispute whether the site was or wasn’t sustainable, indeed an 80 dwelling development had already been approved nearby. The recommendation for refusal was not on the grounds of sustainability, but rather that the development would encroach on the countryside due to the location being on the outskirts of South Hetton;

·         Need for Housing – There was a need for housing across the county, however in accordance with the emerging County Durham Plan, South Hetton did not have any further allocations and so the proposed scheme was not considered critical to the delivery of the county’s houses.

Seconded by Councillor Bleasdale, Councillor Moir moved that the application be refused in accordance with officer recommendations. Councillor Clark echoed the motion to refuse.

Upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:- That the application be refused for the reasons detailed within the report.