Agenda item

Erection of 8 No. Dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 8 no. dwellings (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

In presenting the report the Officer proposed an additional condition requiring the dedication of the proposed footpath link as a Public Right of Way to ensure that it was retained.

Councillor R Bell, local Member addressed the Committee and commenced by expressing the view that there appeared to be an inconsistent approach to the application of planning policy.

He noted that there had been some modification to the position of the houses within the site but he objected to the proposals because they were contrary to policies in the Local Plan. In his opinion the whole point of these policies were that they were local. This field was a valuable green space which had been used for agricultural purposes and grazing, although had been neglected more recently, giving it the image of a brownfield site. There was a play area to the north of the site.

Policy ENV1 referred to protection of countryside in a Conservation Area. This site was clearly greenfield land and was outside the village boundary.

Councillor Hunter, the Chairman of Cotherstone Parish Council spoke against the application, outlining the grounds on which their objections were based. The proposed development was outside the building line defined in the Local Plan and encroached onto agricultural land. Policies in the Teesdale Local Plan should be applied as the County Durham Plan was still in draft form.

Development of the site would have an impact on the character of the Conservation Area and would create an ‘estate’ type development on green space. The land was grazed until recently and the site had been untouched since this activity ceased, so this was a valuable green space.

If approved the scheme would represent over-development. This site and another recent development in the village would equate to 10% of the total number of houses in the village, all located in the east end of Cotherstone.

A significant number of residents were against the development which was demonstrated by a petition of 180 names and a further 74 household objections.

There was no real demand for the development as the village currently had a number of properties for sale, including the Post Office and shop and in view of this the Parish Council questioned the sustainability of the proposals.

In conclusion the Parish Council also had major concerns about the capabilities of the service infrastructure in the village, predominantly of the gas and sewerage network. Cotherstone was at the end of the gas main and problems had been experienced in previous winters. He was concerned that any further developments in the village would eventually have an impact on the existing networks.

Mr N Pennock, a resident spoke on behalf of local people against the application. He considered that too much emphasis had been placed on the emerging County Durham Plan and that detailed Local Plan Policy should be applied. Paragraph 8 in the report set out that the NPPF did not change the statutory status of the Development Plan as the starting point for decision-making. Proposed developments that accorded with up to date Local Plans should be approved and refused when they did not.

Officers relied on other material considerations, including the emerging Plan. The report stated that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies but this depended upon the progress of the Plan, the extent to which there were unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging Plan to the policies in the NPPF. Planning Practice Guidance stated that permission could be refused on prematurity grounds. He was of the view that the emerging Plan was not advanced and policies with unresolved objections could not be taken into account at this stage. For these reasons he believed that no weight should be attached to policies in the County Durham Plan. He suggested that the developers could re-submit an application when the Plan became final.

However, if Members were minded to attach weight to the emerging Plan the key judgements for new housing proposals on the edge of settlements were sustainability, settlement form and scale. These proposals constituted a significant alteration to existing settlement form. Cotherstone was a chocolate box village and if approved the development would also have a detrimental impact on a nearby historic asset, the Church.

Mr R Hepplewhite, the Applicant’s Agent, stated that the proposals were a result of close dialogue with Planning Officers and the developers had produced a high quality development which respected the character and amenities of Cotherstone. Revised drawings had been submitted and he believed that the proposals would make a significant improvement to the surrounding area. The land was previously occupied by sheds and a stripped car, and was currently used as a dog toilet.

The land was surrounded on three sides by housing with a play area on the fourth. This was an ideal location for infill development and was similar to the new housing scheme to the south east of the site.    

The proposals would bring the land back into use, was sensitively designed and was sustainable in form and location. The application complied with policies in the Teesdale Local Plan and the emerging County Durham Plan. 

By way of clarification he informed Members that the spring/watercourse referred to was an old water pipe that leaked from time to time, and would be addressed by condition 11 in the report.

In conclusion the County Durham Plan was at an advanced stage and should be given significant weight.

In response to a request for clarification, C Cuskin, Solicitor (Planning and Development), advised that Members had heard arguments from both the Applicant’s Agent and Mr Pennock about the weight to be attached to Local Plan Policies and the emerging County Durham Plan. It was for Members to decide, in the exercise of their planning judgement, what weight to attach to each material planning consideration.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the matters raised. The report set out the material planning considerations and the weight to be attached to each. Settlement form, sustainability and a contribution to the provision of off-site affordable housing were material planning considerations that accorded with Local and National Planning Policy and the emerging County Durham Plan. The weight to be attached to these outweighed the conflict with the Teesdale Local Plan and the proposals constituted an acceptable departure. Weight could be attached to the emerging County Durham Plan given its advanced status.

The Chairman referred to the Post Office, shop and bus service and asked if  this development would help the long-term sustainability of these facilities.

Mr Hepplewhite advised that in his experience of new developments in other villages, residents tended to commute to services.

Councillor Wilson referred to the representations made about the potential impact on bats and other wildlife, and was advised by the Chairman that this was considered in paragraphs 55 and 56 of the report. The Council’s Ecologist was satisfied that the likely risk of impact on protected and priority species and habitats was low.

Councillor Richardson stated that Cotherstone already had a new housing scheme in the east end of the village, and if approved these proposals would constitute over-development. He did not believe that there would be a demand for these new properties. The site was outside the boundary line in a Conservation Area, and the development would have a detrimental visual impact on the Church. For these reasons he could not support the application.

Referring to Planning Policy, Councillor Buckham commented that there were reasons within the saved policies in the existing Local Plan to refuse the application, but this was balanced against reasons to support the application contained in the NPPF. However, given the proximity of the Church and the comments made by the Parish Council regarding the size of the development in proportion to the total number of properties in Cotherstone, he could not support the application.

Councillor Clare noted that the site had been included in the SHLAA, and the NPPF, which superseded all previous PPS and PPG documents, stated that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The quality of housing proposed was very high and he considered that if the application was refused any future proposals that may come forward in accordance with the County Durham Plan may not be as desirable.

Having said that the site was in a Conservation Area and clearly conflicted with BENV 4 of the Teesdale Local Plan. Mr Pennock talked about sustainability and settlement form. The issue of sustainability was irrelevant but in terms of settlement form, Cotherstone was mainly linear except at this point of the village, which clustered around a green. The site also looked across towards the Church.

There was a need to consider whether the arguments for the development were strong enough to allow a departure from the Local Plan. The report stated that the proposal would not result in substantial harm to the character of the Conservation Area, however he was of the view that no greater harm could be caused than covering a grassed area with houses.

Sufficient grounds had not been argued to justify such a large change in the character of this part of the village. In conclusion, the application did not accord with BENV4 and the damage which would be caused to an area that was protected would be so great that departure from Local Plan Policy should not be allowed.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ comments and stated that the Conservation Area designation aimed to ensure that the overall character was not significantly harmed, not to prevent development. This site was not widely visible or significant to the rest of the village. Cotherstone would benefit from a high quality development that would not cause harm to the Conservation Area and that did not impact on the setting of the village.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-    

The proposed housing development would detract from the existing form and character of the settlement of Cotherstone, and together with the change of character of the site from a greenfield site to a developed site and the resultant impact on southerly views of St Cuthbert’s Church it would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Cotherstone Conservation Area. This is contrary to Teesdale Local Plan Policies GD1(A, Bb, Bd) and BENV4(A, D), as well as conflicting with NPPF Part 12 in relation to the conservation and protection of a designated heritage asset.