Agenda item

Erection of 62 no. dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 62 no. dwellings (for copy see file of Minutes).

J Orr, Senior 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.

Councillor Rowlandson, local Member addressed the Committee on behalf of residents. He expressed disappointment that consultation by the developers with local residents had been very poor with no attempt to alleviate fears about the impact of the development.

The proposed entrance to the site was very narrow with a school and residential properties in close proximity. It would be difficult for traffic to enter and exit the site safely and school drop-offs and pick-ups would be extremely dangerous.

Councillor Rowlandson then referred to the proposed layout. He expressed concern about the height of the proposed houses along the boundary which, because of the difference in levels would be overbearing on existing properties. Bungalows would have alleviated this. The Member also considered that the mix of housing was poor and that the proposed affordable housing provision was inadequate.

Councillor Blissett spoke on behalf of Barnard Castle Town Council. The Council considered that the application was contrary to Policies GD1, H12  and H14 of the Teesdale Local Plan, and represented a departure from Policies H3 and ENV 1. The proposals also conflicted with Policies 31 and 34 of the emerging County Durham Plan.

Councillor Blissett reiterated the concerns of Councillor Rowlandson regarding the mix of properties and the inadequate provision of affordable housing. The Town Council considered that 30% of the development should be allocated for affordable housing. The mix did not meet the specific needs of residents, and 2.5 and 3 storey properties were not in keeping with the adjacent residential development.

The Town Council was also concerned about water management. The existing drainage system was inadequate and would put adjacent properties at risk of flooding. He noted that there was no report from Northumbrian Water.

He was not convinced that the highways issues had been addressed. The proposals would have a significant impact on existing residents with road safety reduced. The land was close to the primary school which also had childcare and training facilities on site. During peak periods the road was very well used and the new development was expected to create in excess of 124 extra vehicles. The current traffic system would not be able to cope and he hoped that a traffic survey had been carried out during peak periods.

The Councillor noted that a Section 106 Agreement would secure a sum for the provision/maintenance of open space and recreational facilities in the locality, and he felt that this should be allocated to the Town Council.     

He also expressed concern about the proposals for footpaths 8 and 9 and questioned the sustainability of the site. The existing infrastructure would not be able to withstand such an influx of residents, and facilities in the town would not be able to cope.

In conclusion he stated that he was not persuaded that the site was sustainable and if Members were minded to approve the application he urged that the concerns of local people be addressed.

Councillor R Bell, although not a local Member wished to object to the proposed development because of the volume of complaints received from local people. He was concerned about access to the site and that there had been no formal traffic survey carried out. The type of housing proposed would generate a large volume of traffic, with two cars per household.

A better mix of housing including bungalows would have been preferable, in line with Policy 3 of the emerging County Durham Plan. The local AAP had stated the need to reflect the age profile of the town and the developers had refused to do this. He urged Members to reject the application, asking that residents be better consulted in future with any proposed development designed to reflect the needs of Barnard Castle.

Paula Ford, Head Teacher of the Primary School spoke against the application. The facilities at the school were unique and this already put a strain on the road network in the area. The nursery was full and flexible sessions meant that there were pick-ups and drop-offs at all times of the day. The childcare and holiday club had trebled in capacity and was open from 7am until 6pm. The facility was only closed for two weeks in every year. The school site also accommodated a teacher training centre with 41 students plus staff, and was open all year including school holidays.     

Mr N Courtley, a local resident referred to a photograph in the Planning Officer’s presentation and noted that this had been taken on a day when the school was closed. He was concerned about the safety of children walking to school and it was difficult for vehicles travelling along Green Lane for most of the day but was even worse at peak times. The development would increase the risk of flooding and he had already seen residents put sandbags outside their properties.

The development would not bring employment to the town as he expected the builders to be from outside the area. In conclusion he could not envisage any benefits the proposals would bring to Barnard Castle. 

Mr R Buckley of Barnard Castle School, the landowner, addressed Members in support of the application. He stated that this was part of a wider package of improvements to the school. A new 6^th Form Centre had been approved recently and would be funded by the capital receipt from this land. The school was the second largest employer in Barnard Castle and was an integral part of the guest house and hotel market which were used by families of boarders. It was also a local venue for charitable organisations and sports clubs etc. This was an indispensable resource for Barnard Castle and the investment from the sale of the land would help to provide top class educational facilities.

Having listened to the concerns of objectors in relation to the access, he was of the view that the development should help to alleviate the problems experienced on Green Lane as the additional streets created would assist traffic movement.

Mr Milburn, the Applicant’s Agent continued by referring Members to Planning Policy. The proposals complied with the aspirations of the emerging County Durham Plan in ensuring the delivery of an allocated site. The proposals would provide economic growth and employment in Barnard Castle. He had sympathy with the concerns but as could be seen from the report there were no objections from any consultees, including Highways, Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency, and the application accorded with Planning Policy.  There was no evidence to support refusal of the application.  

The benefits of the development included the receipt of much needed finance to expand the school, the provision of affordable housing, the creation of jobs, investment in the area with an increase in local spending, and a contribution of £62k towards open space provision/maintenance.

D Stewart, Highways Officer was asked to respond to the issues raised about highway safety. The Officer appreciated the concerns expressed about traffic generation but the situation at Green Lane was not unusual. Residential traffic could be objectively estimated and analysis focused on peak periods where there was maximum impact. However at Green Lane a number of observations had been made at different times and on different days, and this was deemed to be appropriate for the location.

In response to a question from Councillor Zair about the completion of a traffic survey he explained that in view of the contentious nature of the application Officers ensured that more observations had been carried out than usual. A traffic survey was not deemed necessary at Green Lane because in highway terms the development was modest.

With regard to trip generation the assumption was that all households with two vehicles would leave at the same time during peak periods when in reality this was not the case. Peak hour traffic from the development would introduce a new vehicle movement on average of one every two minutes. Section 32 of the NPPF stated that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. Observations at Green Lane had shown that much of the day was relatively quiet with busy periods. The additional traffic generated would not make the situation ‘severe’ within the meaning of the legislation.

In response to a question from Councillor Patterson the Highways Officer advised that the access would be a continuation of the road forward with a right hand spur into the development made up to an adoptable standard.

Councillor Nicholson, having listened to the submissions made, noted that the main concerns related to highways and drainage. Northumbrian Water had offered no objections and paragraphs 43, 45 and 57 in the report should address concerns and alleviate fears about the risk of flooding.

The Chairman noted the comments made with regard to affordable housing but advised that the proposed allocation of 15% was in accordance with the target identified in the emerging County Durham Plan.

Councillor Buckham referred to the NPPF and understood that the presumption of the current Government was that applications should be approved unless there were good planning grounds to refuse. If the application was refused without solid planning reasons, it was likely that the Applicant would appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. This was the legal framework within which the Committee was required to determine planning applications.

Councillor Clare continued that this site was included in the emerging County Durham Plan and careful consideration would have to be given to reasons for reaching a decision which was contrary to this. He appreciated the narrow width of the road and the issues regarding the access but the Highways Officer had explicitly stated that there were insufficient highway grounds to refuse the application. He was therefore of the view that the application could not be refused, given that the critical issue was traffic.

Councillor Zair remarked that consultation should have taken place by the developers with the school about the matter of road safety, and was also concerned that there were no bungalows included in the scheme. Mr Milburn advised that bungalows were difficult to sell and outlined the reasons for this.

Following discussion it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report, and to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the provision of 9 affordable dwellings, £62,000 towards the provision/maintenance of open space and recreation facilities in the locality, and a management scheme for the tree belt along the southern site boundary.