Agenda item

10 no. residential units (outline).

The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the development of 10no. residential units (outline) at land between 3 Church Villas and 7 Rectory View, Shadforth, 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.

Councillor D Bell, Shadforth Parish Council, addressed the Committee and reiterated discussions on the item which had been recently held at a meeting of the local Parish Council. A number of Parish Councillors had attended a Residents Association meeting and had reported that the vast majority of those in attendance were against the proposed development.

It was felt that green spaces gave villages a certain appeal, the area was a greenfield site and previous planning applications had been refused.

Councillor Bell suggested that the development would result in the loss of the ancient hedgerow and as no garages were planned, road blocking issues were inevitable. The site was also situated opposite a church which had no parking facilities, therefore the proposed development would only exacerbate the current parking issues on the main road.

Members were advised that there was a field to the rear of the development site and so residents were also concerned that further development could occur. Councillor Bell also highlighted that there were no development allocations for Shadforth within the emerging County Durham Plan, it was therefore felt that there was no need for an unallocated site to be developed. Members were also advised that the development would have an impact on the historic beck to the rear of the site.

Councillor S Guy, local Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had attended 2 local meetings which had been attended by over 130 residents and there was a very real local objection to the development. He pointed out that despite him objecting to the application, that had not been reflected in the report.

In referring to the relevance of the Local Plan, Councillor Guy advised that the 1990 Act stated that Planning Authorities should have regard to a Local Plan unless material considerations said otherwise. As such, he highlighted that the Saved Local Plan stated the need to maximise development of brownfield sites and to minimise the loss of greenfield areas. He argued that the application did not meet the expectations of saved policy E7 and stated that the area was farming land and so was clearly outside the settlement

Councillor Guy made reference to paragraph 58 of the NPPF and argued that the NPPF did not automatically accrue greater weight during the consideration of applications. In referring to paragraph 59 of the report, he suggested that because people from Shadforth tended to commute, the site could not be considered as sustainable. He argued that there was sufficient housing within Shadforth

In referring to paragraphs 60 and 61 of the report, Councillor Guy argued that whether or not an area was open countryside, it was countryside either way and so should not be developed.

Councillor Guy spoke of the implications the development would have on wildlife and the historic beck and stated that it was conceded that the site was within a conservation area. He also stated that the application contravened parts 11 and 12 of the NPPF.

In relation to traffic, Councillor Guy stated that the proposed entrance to the development posed risks and traffic flows would be affected and would attract high volumes of traffic.

In summary, Councillor Guy called for the application to be refused on the grounds that it contravened  policies H3, H4 and H5, section 54a of the Town And Country Planning Act and parts 11 and 12 of the NPPF.

Mr I Heginbottom, Shadforth Community Association, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Members were advised that at a recent public meeting, 85 residents had voted against the proposals. He stated that the Community Association were appalled at the poor standard which had been outlined.

Mr Heginbottom stated that the NPPF was very clear that sustainable development was restricted within a conservation area and would require a full heritage impact assessment. The Community Association believed that the application therefore failed to fulfil paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

There was no overriding public benefit to the application, as such Mr Heginbottom stated that an exception could not be cited as reason to approve. The benefits of the development would be very limited.

In relation to highway safety, Mr Heginbottom argued that the development would be dangerous and detrimental,. A significant number of vehicles travelled at over 30mph, as such a wider splay was necessary.

Mr Heginbottom stated that Shadforth was one of the few historic farming and agricultural villages remaining in the county and as such strongly objected to poor quality housing being developed there.

Mr R Newlove, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. While acknowledging that the site was within the conservation area, Members were advised that the village was not totally against the development and he pointed out that preservation and conservation were two different things. It was paramount to ensure that the conservation should not be harmed, but Mr Newlove stated that a terrace of houses did not warrant such harm that the application should be refused.

Members were advised that the development would reinforce the traditional linear form of the village, complimenting the area with a robust rather than sporadic scheme.

It was highlighted that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and the Highways Authority found the proposals to be acceptable. Mr Newlove stated that whether the site was developed or not, parking at the church would remain an issue. On balance he argued that the application was acceptable.

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

·         Conservation Area – the site was within the conservation area, however the Design and Conservation Officer had fully assessed the application and the impacts were considered acceptable;

·         Policy – it was accepted that the development was not in accordance with local plan policies, but the local plan was soon to be replaced and the County Durham Plan would completely remove the concept of settlement boundaries. Furthermore the site was not within the open countryside as it was surrounded by properties both to the north and the south, as such the application accorded with policy 15 of the emerging plan

·         NPPF – In relation to sustainability, the Officer referred to paragraph 59 of the report and reiterated that it was believed the application was in accordance with the NPPF.

·         Hedgerow – while part of the hedgerow would be removed to meet visibility requirements for access, a reserve matters application would require landscaping proposals to be submitted;

·         Development at Rear – should further applications come forward in the future, they would have to be considered on their own merits. Members should only consider the application before them which was acceptable due to the linear form of the scheme;

·         Historic Beck – It was highlighted that the County Ecologist was satisfied that the development would have no impact on the beck. Should surface water run off, it was acknowledged that it could impact on voles, therefore a vole assessment would be undertaken to mitigate against possible affects.

The Highways Officer responded to points raised as follows:-

·         The additional traffic flow from 10 units would be approximately 8 trips per day per unit, which was a negligible amount;

·         There had been 2 road traffic accidents in the area in the past 5 years, both had occurred in darkness and had involved vehicles which were speeding

·         Parking – the parking proposed far exceeded the minimum standard

·         Stopping distance – The Officer clarified how the stopping distance was calculated and confirmed that the Highways Authority was more than happy with the 70m stopping distance proposed

Councillor Conway concurred with the assertion in the applicants statement that settlements did indeed change and develop over time. However he proposed that the application be rejected for the following reasons:-

·         The application contravened policies H3, H4 and H5 of the local plan

·         The application contravened parts 11 and 12 of the NPPF

·         There were issues with the layout of the development

Councillor Conway stated that as the application was outline only, then Members were unable to make a clear judgement as full details of the scheme were not available. Furthermore in relation to the County Durham Plan, there was no provision for allocations within Shadforth.

Councillor A Bell echoed the points raised by Councillor Conway. If the application would prove to compliment the conservation area, then that would be acceptable, however Councillor Bell stated that in the absence of clear proposals it was impossible to make a judgement either way. Councillor Bell also stated that the application site was graded agricultural land.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that although outline, both access and layout were being dealt with as part of the application, as such the actual layout of the development would be rigid and only design and landscaping would be dealt with by way of a reserved matters  application.

Councillor Kay felt that the report provided insufficient detail for a judgement to made either way and so seconded by Councillor Bleasdale, Councillor Kay moved that the application be deferred to allow more details to come forward, however the motion was immediately withdrawn.

Seconded by Councillor Clark, Councillor Conway moved refusal of the application for the following reasons:-

·         The development was contrary to policies H3, H4 and H5 of the City of Durham Local Plan, as the site was located outside the defined settlement boundaries and the development did not constitute the definition of infill development.

·         The proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character, setting or appearance of the Shadforth Conservation Area and would be in conflict with criteria detailed in Parts 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Resolved:-That the application be refused.