Agenda item

Proposed Residential Development (Outline).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for proposed residential development (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Planning Team Leader provided the Committee with a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

 

Councillor D Boyes, local Member addressed the Committee and advised that Easington Village was a 12^th Century settlement. Policies within the District of Easington Local Plan were aimed at protecting the Green Wedge allocated between Peterlee and Easington Village.  Policy 6 limited development in the Green Wedge to the uses of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, wildlife reserves and informal recreation.

 

The site north of Lowhills Road had been granted outline permission for 900 houses, and with other allocations in Easington he questioned how many developments the area could withstand.

 

In conclusion he reiterated that this was a medieval settlement and if approved the proposed development would change the character and appearance of the area forever. He also understood that as the site of a former maternity hospital there may be baby burials on the land.

 

Councillor L Morton of Easington Parish Council expressed concern about the number of available school places. Easington Academy had a limit of only 1200 places and children travelled to the school from outlying settlements. The primary school was also small with no available places.

 

Housing stock in the village consisted of a mix of old and new dwellings, and as already stated there was planning consent for a major development of 900 houses, with permission for around 200 houses within the settlement itself. Little Thorpe was a small hamlet of 16 houses and if approved this development would represent a 100% increase in housing within the village.

 

Local people considered that there were too many houses proposed in the area in the wrong location and of the wrong type. Many were concerned that  there were no bungalows included in the scheme.

 

The Parish Council was of the view that the application was contrary to policies in the District of Easington Local Plan and that the site was not allocated in the County Durham Plan. This development, in addition to the scheme for 900 houses, would have a negative impact on schools and nurseries, and the already busy and narrow roads in the area would not be able to cope with the increase in traffic generated.

 

Councillor J Andrews reiterated the comments of Local Member Councillor Boyes and Parish Councillor Morton. The proposals contravened Policies 3, 6, P6 and 14 of the District of Easington Local Plan. The site was a natural habitat for flora and fauna. There were trees on the site which were protected by TPOs, and plants which provided nectar for all kinds of insects.  Proposals to provide bat boxes seemed to be a futile exercise as any existing roosts would be destroyed.

 

This development would constitute further erosion of the Green Wedge and there were existing brownfield sites allocated for residential development.

 

She understood that there were proposals to increase the size of the primary school but she still had concerns about the pressure the scheme would place on local schools, as well as the additional traffic this would generate. Traffic problems would be exacerbated along Thorpe Road which was used as a pedestrian route to the school and was busy at drop-off/pick-up times, and also along Stockton Road where the buses entered and left the school gates.

 

She was also concerned about the potential for an increased risk of flooding caused by surface water from Andrew’s Hill.

 

There was a strong local belief that there were baby burials on the site but unfortunately records of this had not been retained.

 

Currently there were 22 unoccupied apartments in Easington Village and she therefore questioned the need for the housing. Councillor Andrews disagreed with the applicant that the development would have no impact on the character and appearance of the area; the proposals would transform a rural area into a concrete urban jungle.

 

She appreciated housing targets but questioned the need for so much new development in the village. In conclusion Councillor Andrews urged Members to take into account the views of local people and avoid the risk of destroying the fabric of a village in order to meet house-building targets by refusing the application.

.   

Mr Styles, local resident stated that the people of Little Thorpe, Easington Village and Peterlee could not understand the reasons for developing this site. Whilst there had been a lot of information presented in support of the application he felt that the local knowledge and experience of the community should be taken into account.

 

A previous application to develop the site had been rejected at appeal and this site was classed as being in the open countryside. Mr Styles quoted Nick Bowles MP concerning development in the open countryside, who encouraged the re-use of brownfield sites, allowed for green space designation to protect green areas, and encouraged Planning Authorities to take into account the benefits of agricultural land. This site met all this criteria and also held special significance, being a baby burial site and an area where local people could find solitude and enjoy the local countryside.

 

Mr Frain, local resident reiterated the views made by the Parish Councillors about the need for new housing when there were already empty properties in both Easington Village and Little Thorpe.

 

He pointed out that suitable alternative sites had been allocated in the emerging County Durham Plan and that a previous application for the site had been refused and dismissed on appeal.

 

The two key considerations were the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and whether development of the site would prejudice the preparation of local plan policies in the future.

 

In conclusion Planning Policy stated that developments should be located on sites which would help to consolidate the framework of existing settlements.

 

The Planning Team Leader responded to the submissions made and advised that this was a brownfield site on previously developed land. Evidence of the former hospital was still visible.

 

Residents had referred to a planning appeal in 1996 but Planning Policy had changed since the Inspector’s decision with the introduction of the NPPF. With regard to the comments about local people enjoying the site, she advised that the land was privately owned with no Public Rights of Way across it.

 

In terms of the mix of housing, the Officer advised that this was an outline application and details of house types would be considered at a later stage.

 

The School Organisation Manager had advised that there were sufficient places within existing schools to accommodate the new development. A Section 106 Agreement for the site north of Lowhills Road secured a payment towards school places.

 

In response to the comments made by objectors about the number of new developments granted in Easington Village she advised that there was no cap on housing numbers and approval of this site would not prejudice delivery of the emerging County Durham Plan. She pointed out that this site was outside the settlement of Easington and needed to be considered in context of the proposals for the wider area.

 

Mr Stovell, the applicant’s agent was invited to address the Committee. He referred to the Planning Officer’s report and commented on the following key issues:-

 

·         The site constituted previously developed land and was located within the Lowhills Road development site of 900 houses.

·         Although the site did not accord with Local Plan Policy it was in line with the NPPF and the emerging County Durham Plan.

·         Highways Officers had confirmed that the proposals would not compromise highway safety in the surrounding network and would be in accordance with Local Plan Policy.

·         10% affordable housing would be provided in line with the SHMA which would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The Section 106 Agreement would also secure a contribution towards play and recreational facilities.

·         The Council’s Ecology Section had confirmed that the proposals would be in accordance with saved policies in the Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF which sought to protect and enhance biodiversity and the natural environment. 

·         The County Archaeologist had offered no objections subject to conditions being imposed which would require further investigation works.  There were no formal records of baby burials on the site and this was not a material planning consideration.

·         No objections were submitted by Landscape Officers and the report stated that there would be no adverse impact on the visual appearance of the area or surrounding landscape. The scheme would be successfully integrated into the surrounding area.

·         The Council’s Drainage Officer, Environmental Health Officer and Northumbrian Water had not offered any objections and the proposal would not have an adverse impact in terms of drainage or flooding.

·         There would be school places available in existing schools.

·         The applicant was committed to 10% improvement in carbon emissions on the site.

·         Officers were sufficiently confident that a high quality layout, design and landscaping framework could be provided and the mature trees would be protected on the site.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Davinson, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a contribution of £500 per residential unit for play and recreational facilities was the amount identified for the East Durham area, and also applied to the Lowhills Road site. With regard to considering this application in the wider context, she advised that whilst the Lowhills permission was also in outline at present it was expected to come forward. 

     

Following comments from Councillor Kay concerning the weight to be attached to Local and National Planning Policy, and the emerging County Durham Plan, the Officer acknowledged that the application did not accord with local plan policies. However a decision should be taken against the criteria contained in the NPPF with limited weight attached to the emerging County Durham Plan.

 

Councillor Conway referred to paragraph 73 in the report. He felt that there was firm evidence in the Local Plan and the emerging County Durham Plan that should be taken into account in the determination of the application.  Policies 15 (development on unallocated sites) and 35 (development in the countryside) in the emerging County Durham Plan were relevant, and policies 3, 6 and P6 of the Local Plan were clear about the Green Wedge and the use of the site. He noted that the County Planning Committee had disregarded these policies in its determination of the application for the Lowhills Road site and asked if the emerging Plan contained a reference to the former Thorpe site and the matters contained in policies in the Local Plan.

 

The Member was advised that there were no policies in the emerging Plan which directly reflected usage of the site. The two key issues were the Green Wedge and use, and these should be examined against policies contained in the NPPF. The NPPF set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development and this site met this criteria. 

 

Moved by Councillor Kay and seconded by Councillor Dearden it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing; a financial contribution towards play and recreational facilities in the locality at a pro-rata rate of £500 per residential unit, and to the conditions outlined in the report.