Agenda item

Erection of 40 dwellings, associated access and landscaping works.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the erection of 40 dwellings, associated access and landscaping works on land to the south of Oakfield Crescent, Bowburn (for copy see file of Minutes).

Andrew Inch, Strategic Team Leader provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. 

Councillor J Blakey, local Member, addressed the Committee.  A previous application for the site had been refused planning permission in 2013, and this refusal was upheld on appeal.  Although this application was now for fewer houses than the 2013 application, Councillor Blakey expressed serious concerns regarding drainage and flooding at the location, with a serious flooding issue taking place in Bowburn as recently as 6 August 2014.  Until such drainage issues could be satisfactorily resolved, Councillor Blakey asked that the application be refused or deferred.

Councillor Mike Syer of Cassop cum Quarrington Parish Council addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Mr Syer informed the Committee of local concern that the proposed development would adversely affect any future provision for a new primary school in Bowburn.  The proposed development site, which was next to the current Bowburn Junior School, was the only site within Bowburn for a new school and as such should be reserved for future school provision.  A new head teacher had recently been seconded to the current Junior School to bring about the amalgamation of the Infant and Junior Schools in Bowburn and officers in Children and Adult’s Services had stated the intention to build a new school, when finances permitted, on the field of the current Junior School.  Since the current Junior School was built in 1975 the size of Bowburn had increased considerably and any new school would need to have 600 places, and the current school playing field was not large enough to accommodate a school of this size.  Access to the current school playing field would also need to be taken through this proposed development.

Colin Reed, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  A document received from Mr Reed outlining his objection to the proposal had been circulated to Committee Members (for copy see file of Minutes).  The previous application had been refused on appeal because of the overbearing nature of the proposed dwellings on the residents of Oakfield Crescent.  While this application had replaced some of the proposed dwellings with single storey properties, others were 3 storeys properties with windows in the upper storey, which would still be overbearing on properties in Oakfield Crescent.  The bungalows proposed in this development did not offset the impact of these proposed 3 storey houses which would overlook Oakfield Crescent.  The Planning Inspector had referred to Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan regarding impact on the occupants of existing nearby properties being minimised and Policy Q8 was consistent with the NPPF.

Mr Reed referred to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which he had been told was not applicable because Bowburn was not identified as a strategic development.  However, the IDP was currently undergoing a review, and Mr Reed requested that this application be deferred until the new IDP was produced.

Simon Longstaff, Drainage and Coastal Protection Manager informed the Committee that the development site had been designed to accommodate a 1 in a 100 year event allowing for 30% climate change.  The potential for the proposed development to flood the primary school had been addressed with increased storage provision now being proposed on site.  Currently the site was greenfield which presented the risk of flooding from surface water run-off, and the proposed development mitigated this risk.

Gavin Scott, Area Planning Team Leader informed the Committee that the IDP was one document prepared in preparing the County Durham Plan.  It was a plan for the future to ensure appropriate infrastructure was in place, for example, drainage and education.  The IDP was not undergoing a review, but would be examined during the examination of the County Durham Plan, which was currently taking place.  Planning practice and guidance stated that applications could only be resisted on grounds of prematurity if they were major developments.  Discussions had taken place with Children and Adults Services when preparing the County Durham Plan and It was considered that no new land needed to be allocated in the County Durham Plan to meet future education needs.

Andrew Inch, Strategic Team Leader informed the Committee that discussions had taken place with the Local Education Authority regarding future education provision and the possibility of the existing junior school site accommodating a new school.  The LEA was satisfied that a school with 593 places, including a 68 place nursery provision, could be built on a site of 20,000 m².  The land currently available for any school redevelopment was 23,500 m² and there was therefore no need for any of this application site to form any part of a future merged school.  This was outlined in paragraph 82 of the report.  Referring to amenity, the Strategic Team Leader informed the Committee that this application was a direct response to the issues raised by the Planning Inspector at the previous planning appeal with the introduction of bungalows and different house types, an increase in separation distances and gaps to break up what the Inspector had described as a ‘wall of development’.  Although properties with three floors of accommodation rather than three storeys were still proposed, the difference in height to a normal two storey property was only 0.4 metres.  The roof lights proposed for the properties would be above head height and were intended only as a source of light and would not therefore allow overlooking to occur.

Councillor Clark referred to the proposed site layout and asked how much integration here would be into the village of Bowburn for pedestrians.  The Strategic Team Leader replied that while pedestrian access to the north of the development would not be possible because of existing gardens on Oakfield Crescent, or to the west due to the school playing fields, there would be a pedestrian link onto the public footpath on the eastern side of the site.

Councillor Robinson referred to the comments made by the Coal Authority detailed in paragraph 51 of the report and asked whether an assessment could be enforced by way of condition.  He also referred to paragraph 67 of the report and asked whether only half the site could be developed as a compromise to alleviate local concerns regarding land for any future new school.

Councillor Kay informed the Committee that he had moved to refuse the previous application because access to the site was on the bend of a 40 m.p.h. road.  He asked what the Planning Inspector’s view had been regarding this highways issue and also asked how the Committee could be sure that the compromise proposed by the developer would not be overbearing, as referred to by the Planning Inspector.  Councillor Taylor replied that the recommendations contained within the report were based on sound planning policy.

The Strategic Team Leader informed the Committee that the comments of the Coal Authority were that the area contained mining features, but these were only relevant to the area of the south of the site, which was not to be developed.  Referring to the development of only half the site, the Strategic Team Leader informed the Committee that it could only assess the merits of the planning application as it was submitted, and the Local Education Authority (LEA) was satisfied that the site could be developed in its entirety.  During the planning appeal into the previous application, the Strategic Team Leader informed the Committee that the Inspector had examined highways issues and was satisfied that the proposed development was satisfactory in highway safety terms.

Councillor Stoker referred to the point raised by Councillor Syer regarding the site for a future primary school, which the LEA had said was appropriate to cope with current educational demand in the area, and expressed concern that there appeared to be no future-proofing for future demand.  Councillor Conway also expressed concern at the apparent lack of future-proofing for educational demand.

The Strategic Team Lead informed the Committee that the provision of a combined primary school would currently require 20,000 m² of land, and there was an additional 3,000 m² available on the school field, and therefore any future demand could be accommodated within the site of the current junior school.  Issues regarding field drainage and discharge rates were covered by planning conditions, with both the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water raising no objections.

Councillor Laing informed the Committee that the issues raised by the Planning Inspector had now been resolved and Moved that the application be approved.  Councillor Davinson agreed with Councillor Laing and Seconded approval of the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report and subject to the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.