Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development of up to 44 dwellings.

The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application with all matters reserved for the residential development of up to 44 dwellings at land to the south east of Brackenhill Avenue, Shotton Colliery, Durham (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. Members had visited the site earlier that day and were familiar with the location. The Senior Planning Officer advised of a late representation which had been submitted by Shotton Parish Council, which highlighted that the development was not included in the emerging County Durham Plan and also that the development would lead to localised congestion.

Councillor E Huntington, local Member, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the original plan had been for 5 dwellings for the applicant  and his family yet, despite applying recently for that proposal, the applicant had been advised that 5 dwellings could not be supported, however 44 could.

Councillor Huntington highlighted that the site was not proposed for development in even the most recent version of the County Durham Plan. The site was situated on a long, narrow lane, most of which did not have a pathway, yet it was determined to be a safe route to school. Increased traffic in that area was a very real concern , not least because access was only possible at one end of the lane.

Councillor Huntington advised the Committee that Dene Terrace and Dene Crescent were already coping with the impact of the recently developed 42 dwellings at Bracken Ridge. Both streets were experiencing end to end parking on both sides and as such were suffering undue pressure.

Members were advised that residents had strongly objected to the Bracken Ridge development, yet were not consulted on the current proposal, despite the fact that it would have an impact on the area.

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

·         Members were advised that the previous 2 applications which had been submitted for 5 dwellings had been withdrawn by the applicant, not refused;

·         Consultation – a full consultation exercise for the application had been undertaken, which exceeded the minimum required;

·         Access Road – The Highways Officer clarified that the access to the development had been assessed and was 6.25m wide, which met the standards required for a scheme of up to 100 dwellings. The condition of the area had been taken from the 2013 assessment which had shown no defects. The traffic which would be generated from 44 dwellings at peak times would be approximately 26 additional journeys per hour, which would not cause a significant congestion problem.

In response to a query from Councillor Bleasdale, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the previous applications had been withdrawn. The reason may have been a change in planning policy, as the NPPF was now the most relevant policy document.

Councillor J Clark raised several queries as follows:-

·         In relation to page 3 of the report and the reference to policy 36, although the application was outline, an indication of the scheme had been provided;

·         Paragraph 37 – Councillor Clark queried why there had been no thoughts as to nursery or primary school provision;

·         In relation to the access road Councillor Clark queried whether the highways calculations would be the same when there was only one direction traffic;

·         Councillor Clark queried the statement made at paragraph 54 of report, as the site was located in an agricultural area of the village

·         In relation to paragraph 63 of the report, Councillor Clark highlighted that the allocation for Shotton had already been met, therefore the current application would exceed the required 270 new dwellings

In relation to the query raised regarding education, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Education Officer looked at all school places in the catchment area and had determined that there were sufficient places to support future nursery and primary school admissions.

The Highways Officer clarified that the highway was not a one way road and that the 6.25m access was adequate for two way traffic flows.

Councillor Kay supported the application in the absence of any relevant grounds to refuse it. This was echoed by Councillor A Bell who, despite acknowledging the concerns raised by the local Member, found the application difficult to refuse as the NPPF was in favour of sustainable development.

In response to a query from Councillor Conway the Senior Planning Officer advised that although the site had been classified as unsuitable within the SHLAA, officers felt there were other community benefits which outweighed that classification. Planning Policy did not object to the proposals and did not believe that delivery of the application would harm delivery of the County Durham Plan.

The Solicitor clarified that although sites would be proposed to be allocated in the emerging plan, it did not mean that they were fixed and as such did not prevent alternative viable proposals coming forward.

Seconded by Councillor Bell, Councillor Kay moved approval of the application however upon a vote being taken, the motion fell.

Seconded by Councillor Bleasdale, Councillor Clark moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:-

·         That the application did not meet the requirements of the NPPF as it was in an unsustainable location;

·         That the application contravened the emerging County Durham Plan in that the site was an edge of settlement site which if developed, would erode the gap between Shotton and the industrial estates to the east;

·         That the application also contravened the emerging County Durham Plan in that the development of the site would result in a significant adverse landscape and visual impact;

·         That the application contravened policy 36 of the Saved Local Plan as it did not encourage alternative means of travel to the private car.

Upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:- That the application be refused.