Agenda item

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 42no. dwellings and open space. Discharge of conditions 1, 2, 6, 8, 11 and 14 of outline approval CE/13/01651/OUT.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding a reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 42no. dwellings and open space. Also discharge of conditions 1, 2, 6, 8, 11 and 14 of outline approval CE/13/01651/OUT at land to the north of Willowtree Avenue, Gilesgate Moor (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 were advised that a landscape plan had not been submitted and so would be required should permission be granted.

Mr Pears, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. When the application had been completely rejected by the Committee in January 2015, residents had hoped that their concerns would be acted on by the applicant. However Mr Pears advised that had not been the case and instead the residents felt that the applicant had treated them with contempt. The public consultation which followed consisted only of residents being provided with a map of new proposals and the applicant had refused to engage with residents in relation to their concerns.

Mr Pears stated that the only change to application since January was the position of some properties. The tallest dwellings remained at the highest area of the site and so the issue of overlooking at the south side of the site was still of concern.

The developer had neglected to address the concerns relating to traffic problems, issues which had been experienced first-hand by the Committee during a previous visit to the site. Arrangements for works traffic also remained the same and the related concerns had again been ignored.

Other issues raised previously by residents had been ignored such as issues relating to flooding, separation distances between dwellings, excessive density of the proposed development and the contamination of the site.

Mr Pears felt that the developer had done the bare minimum in amending the proposals since the application had last been refused by the Committee. He highlighted that previously the Planning Inspectorate found that any development of the site would go against the core principles of the NPPF and Mr Pears pointed out that saved Local Plan Policy Q8 and part 7 of the NPPF were there to protect against over dense, overbearing and unsympathetic development schemes.

Councillor B Howarth, Belmont Parish Council, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. The Parish Council acknowledged that the proposed density of the development was less than that which had been granted outline planning permission. However the Parish remained disappointed with the proposals, particularly as the only affordable housing element was a block of apartments. Members were advised that none of the proposed dwellings were suitable for elderly residents, dwelling types which were much needed in the area.

Councillor Howarth echoed the concerns raised by Mr Pears in relation to the tallest dwellings being situated at the highest area of the site. Concerns were also raised in relation to the potential for parked cars to overspill onto the adjacent highway. The proposal for the bin store at the apartment block was also a cause for concern as it would be situated on the street front and could be an eyesore.

Members were advised that 3 storey development in that area was considered completely unacceptable and would have an adverse effect on residential amenity, thus contravening saved Local Plan Policy Q8 and part 7 of the NPPF.

Mr N Morton, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that following the refusal of planning permission in January 2015 the applicant had reviewed carefully the reasons for refusal and had met with officers and local Members to address the issues raised. Following that, a consultation had been held in February 2015 and further to the issues raised during that process, the applicant had updated the proposals as reasonably as possible.

Members were reminded that the site had consent for the development of 49 dwellings and access arrangements had already been dealt with. Issues relating to parking arrangements were not relevant to the current application as approval was only being sought in relation to design and layout.

Mr Morton advised that the allocation in the County Durham Plan was actually for 60 dwellings at the site, as such the proposed density of development was much lower. Furthermore the applicant was confident that the current proposals would have much less impact on the highway.

All 2.5 storey dwellings which had been adjacent to existing properties had now been removed from the proposed scheme. In addition all separation distances had been increased. Amendments had also been made to design and window arrangements.

Mr Morton highlighted that Design and Conservation Officers and the Highways Authority had no objections to the proposals.

In relation to the 3 storey apartment block Mr Morton highlighted that there was already a similar building to the east of the site.

Councillor P Conway advised that he was aware that the proposals were a contentious issue locally. He reiterated concerns that he had raised previously that the final decision for outline permission had been taken while an appeal decision was outstanding.

He did acknowledge that since the last application before Committee, the applicant had undertaken a consultation and had taken on board some of the concerns which had been raised. Councillor Conway however highlighted that it took for the application to be refused by the Committee in January 2015 for local residents to get a say in the proposals. Furthermore, the consultation had been very last minute and he did not feel that it had been acceptable.

Councillor Conway believed that saved Local Plan Policies H13 (character and amenity), H12 (affordable housing element), Q8 (layout) and the NPPF in relation to design, layout and sustainability, were all relevant reasons for the application to be refused. He believed that there remained issues with regards the drainage, flooding and ecology of the site. Councillor Conway also remained concerned about overbearing impact from the 3 storey apartment block. As such, Councillor Conway moved that the application be refused.

In response to a query from Councillor B Moir, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the landscape plan had been submitted however had not been included in the Committee report under condition no.2.

Councillor Moir felt that rather than being a consultation, what the applicant had actually undertaken in February 2015 had been a presentation. Residents had been provided with a map which basically set out the applicants plans and that process had not been intended as an opportunity to engage with residents over their concerns. Councillor Moir believed that the current proposals were based on the best option for the applicant as opposed to being based on the views of local residents.

In relation to the 3 storey apartment block, Councillor Moir believed it remained too high and too close to existing dwellings and would be best placed at the lower point of the site. He seconded the motion to refuse the application.

In response to a query from Councillor J Clark, the Senior Planning Officer clarified on a site layout map the location of the 2.5 storey dwellings. In relation to a query regarding floor levels, he further clarified that the finished floor level of the 3 storey block would be no higher than that of existing properties.

Councillor Conway clarified the reasons for moving refusal of the application as follows:-

The development would not be appropriate in layout, design and scale to the character of its surroundings and would detrimentally affect amenity within the locality, contrary to Policy H13 and Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 6 and 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Further, that the quality of affordable housing and the design of the apartment block were contrary to saved Local Plan Policy H12.

Following advice from the Solicitor and Senior Planning Officer, policy H12 was removed as a reason for refusal as it was not relevant.

Councillor Moir supported the final reasons for refusal and stated that residents, officers and Members all had a common goal of arriving at the best possible solution for development of the site in terms of design, scale and layout. While it was acknowledged that there was outline permission for development of the site, the final scheme had to be satisfactory to all concerned parties.

Councillor Kay acknowledged that there would eventually be development on the site at some point, however he too had reservations about the current proposals, particularly the proposal to place the tallest dwelling at the highest part of the site. Indeed he could see very little difference between the current application and that which had been considered by the Committee in January 2015. He supported the motion to refuse the application and urged the developer and the residents to communicate with one another to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution for the site.

The Senior Planning Officer took the opportunity to address some of the points raised as follows:-

·         Floor levels and building heights – In relation to the3 storey apartment block, the Committee was advised that in relation to residential amenity, the block would not have a detrimental effect as it would be situated well within the site and would not be positioned next to any existing properties;

·         Design – There was already a 3 storey block of flats in the area and the proposed block would not  be overly big by comparison;

·         The 2.5 storey dwellings which originally would have abutted Willowtree Avenue had now been relocated.

Councillor D Freeman concurred with the motion to refuse the application. Only slight changes had been made to the proposals since January 2015 and he concurred with comments from other Members that he wished only to see the best development scheme for the site.

Upon a vote being taken it was,

RESOLVED:- “That the application be REFUSED as the development would not be appropriate in layout, design and scale to the character of its surroundings and would detrimentally effect amenity within the locality, contrary to Policy H13 and Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 6 and 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework”.