Agenda item

Outline application for 10no. properties (all matters to be considered except landscaping).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for 10 no. properties (all matters to be considered except landscaping) at land between 3 Church Villas and 7 Rectory View, Shadforth, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Chairman gave the Committee the opportunity to consider two statements which had been submitted by local Members Councillors S Guy and D Hall, both of whom wrote in objection to the application (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 of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting. Members were advised that further letters of objection had been received since the report had been published, as such there was now a total of 74 letters of objection.

Councillor D Bell, representing Shadforth Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He advised that the green space at the site location gave the village character and appeal. The application site was greenfield land and Councillor Bell highlighted that a previous application to develop the site had been refused. Infill development would mean the loss of an ancient hedgerow which added to the character of the village.

Members were advised that there were serious parking issues in the area and were often roadblock issues. The Church opposite the application site had no dedicated parking and so whenever there were ceremonies or services, the already poor parking situation was exacerbated.

Councillor Bell advised that there was local concern that should the current application be approved, that could lead to further development of the land in the future and there were also fears that development would affect the biodiversity of Shadforth beck.

The Committee was advised that 81 new dwellings had already been developed half a mile from the application site and Councillor Bell advised that there was no community need or benefit for the current application to be approved.

Mr I Higginbotham, local resident, addressed the Committee, speaking in objection to the application on behalf of Shadforth Community Association.

Members were advised that there were no fundamental changes to the application since the previous application had been refused, the same number of dwellings were proposed and there were no changes in relation to the layout of the development or the parking issues.

Mr Higginbotham advised that the current application remained contrary to saved local plan policies H3, H4 and H5 and he suggested that there was flawed analysis of the NPPF and the conservation area.

Mr Higginbotham stated that Part 14 of the NPPF restricted the presumption of sustainability and in relation to the conservation area, while there was now an impact assessment, it was felt that this was not entirely sound.

Local residents felt that it was lazy of the applicant to propose the same poor infill design as in the previous application and the lack of a conservation area appraisal was felt to be unacceptable, especially as Shadforth was one of the few green farming areas in the county.

Members were advised that when the conservation area had been designated, the farmland had been an important factor and the Design and Conservation Officer had commented on the value of the farmland.

Mr Higginbotham stated that the application site was an important area of open land as it served to separate two settlements and the gap between the two served to m,aintain the separate character of the two areas.

There was much local concern that the development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area and Mr Higginbotham questioned the officers comments at paragraphs 56 and 59 of the report regarding sustainability and vitality. The Committee was advised that there were no local amenities and Mr Higginbotham highlighted that there was no affordable housing element to the application.

Mr Higginbotham further stated that condition 8 was felt to be completely inappropriate and he highlighted that Natural England had not been consulted.

Mr R Newlove, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He stated that there were technical objections to the application and that the only material objection was the impact on the conservation area. If that was considered to be of real concern, then it needed to be considered against the NPPF as to how much impact there would be.

There had already been a conservation area development in the Shadforth area and Mr Newlove argued that the test should be no harm to the conservation area, however the officer stated that the development would complement it.

Mr Newlove queried whether the current scheme was any worse to those which had already been approved. He highlighted that it was incorrect to state that the development would be intrusive on the open land as the development would only encroach on 0.03% of the open land.

The Committee was advised that the scheme had positive benefits, especially as it would integrate rather than segregate local communities.

Mr Newlove called for the application to be approved highlighting that the Council needed to demonstrate that it had a 5 year housing supply. At present, in light of the developments with the County Durham Plan, the Council did not have a 5 year housing delivery plan and would end up in a shortfall situation.

Ms C Dillon, Planning Policy Team, addressed the Committee to provide advice in relation to the 5 year housing supply. Members were advised that the most recent calculation of the housing supply had been for the Examination of the County Durham Plan and at that point it had been confirmed that a 5 year supply could be demonstrated. Based on current evidence, the Council maintained that it did have 5 year supply and as such the Committee should consider the propsed scheme at Shadforth irrespective of that issue.

Councillor Conway stated that the situation had not materially changed since the last submission had been considered and he felt that saved local plan policies H3, H4 and H5 were still relevant. As such, Councillor Conway moved that the application be refused. Councillor Moir concurred, stating that H3, H4 and H5 gave sufficient grounds for refusal.

In response to a query from Councillor A Bell, the Team Leader (Central and East) clarified that the material considerations on the application were policies H3, H4 and H5. In addition to those policies was the NPPF which could also be considered in its entirety.

Councillor Conway did not feel the provisions of the NPPF were sufficient enough to approve the application. There was no affordable housing element to the application despite there being a need in Shadforth and there were also sustainability issues.

Councillor Freeman did not believe that need had been demonstrated, he supported refusal of the application as the development would be in the greenbelt, outside of a village boundary and would not be sustainable development.

Councillor Davinson seconded the motion for refusal.

In response to a query from Councillor A Bell, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that although an outline application, all aspects of the scheme were to be considered apart from the landscaping. The Planning Authority was confident that the scheme was acceptable in design terms and would blend well with the surrounding area.

Councillor A Bell queried whether the NPPF would therefore override policies H3, H4 and H5 given that the design criteria had been met.

The Solicitor clarified that the NPPF stated that the weight afforded to local plan policies was dependant on their consistency with the NPPF. As such, should the Committee feel that H3, H4 and H5 were not consistent, then more weight could be given to the NPPF.

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to paragraph 72 of the report. The development was contrary to policies H3, H4 and H5 but that needed to be weighed against the benefits of the development. As such, the officer suggested more weight should be given to the NPPF.

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the reasons why the previous application had been refused. One of the reasons had been the impact on the conservation area as at that time there had been a lack of details. The Committee now had relevant details before them, as such that previous reason for refusal had now been overcome.

Councillor Conway highlighted that paragraph 55 of the NPPF supported strong and vibrant communities. He did not believe that the proposed scheme would have that affect in Shadforth. Furthermore the lack of affordable housing meant that there was no sustainability for people in lower income brackets.

Upon a vote being taken it was:-

RESOLVED:- “That the application be refused for the following reason:-

• That the development is contrary to policies H3, H4 and H5 of the City of Durham Local Plan, as the site is located outside the defined settlement boundaries and the development does not constitute the definition of infill development.