Agenda item

Resubmission of application DM/14/01692/OUT (Outline application (all matters reserved with the exception of means of access) for the erection of up to 49 residential dwellings and 2,000 sq ft of retail floor space (Use Class A1) with associated landscape and infrastructure)

Consideration was given to the report of the South West Team Leader regarding a resubmission of application DM/14/01692/OUT (Outline application (all matters reserved with the exception of means of access) for the erection of up to 49 residential dwellings and 2000 sq ft of retail floor space (Use Class A1) with associated landscape and infrastructure) (for copy see file of Minutes).

J Byers, South West Team Leader gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site previously and were familiar with the location and setting.

Members were informed that there had been 25 letters in support of the application, and not 20 as stated in the report.

The Chairman invited local residents who were against the application to address the Committee.

Mr Foster stated that there were over 500 houses allocated in the Spennymoor area and building had been suspended because of a lack of demand. There were currently 14 houses for sale in the village. He was not aware that there were any differences between the resubmission and the original application that had been refused. In conclusion he stated that part of the site was located in the Conservation Area.

Mrs Lidster questioned the need for more houses in Kirk Merrington. She was also concerned about highway safety as the road through the village was very busy and was used by articulated lorries. The traffic survey by DCC had been undertaken during factory and school holidays when roads were quieter. There were often traffic queues outside her property and there had been an accident on the road 6 weeks ago. With regard to the retail proposals, the location of the shop was unsuitable, being off a fast road with 3 junctions. Crossing the road was dangerous for pedestrians, particularly for young children and the elderly.

Mr Jennings referred to the meeting at which the original application had been considered when the One Stop representative had referred to a similar store in Crook. He considered that a comparison could not be made between the two settlements. A general dealers of the size proposed was not sustainable.  A village with a church, 3 public houses and a hair salon was not ‘dying’.

He continued that the application was contrary to planning policy and there would be no point in having policies if they were not adhered to. If the application was approved the development would have a negative impact on landscape heritage, and would detract from the rural charm and character of the village.  As far as he was aware those people who had opposed the application lived in Kirk Merrington and those who had offered support did not.

Mr Wallace, the applicant’s agent stated that Mr Baister had lived in the village for 19 years. He had recently purchased the public house and had invested in the premises creating 14 full time jobs. He wanted the village to thrive. Kirk Merrington continued to evolve but there had been little new housing in recent years and he asked if people would choose to live in a village without a store.

The proposals would enable Kirk Merrington to grow organically with 49 new bespoke homes in a variety of house types, including bungalows for the elderly and affordable housing for young families. Visual impact would be minimal.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by the applicant concluded that the development would not significantly affect the character of the wider landscape and a Heritage Impact Assessment concluded that the impact upon the Conservation Area and upon listed and locally listed buildings would be negligible.

Officers were concerned about adverse landscape and visual impact but this could be mitigated against by a suitable landscaping scheme. The development would bring a range of social benefits and would support existing facilities.

Turning to housing supply Mr Wallace stated that the scheme would make an important contribution to the delivery of new housing. In the last 4 years DCC had failed to meet housing need and he understood that current housing land supply was less than 3 years. This was not a good position for ensuring that villages like Kirk Merrington continued to prosper.

Mr Wallace made the point that the NPPF made clear that a presumption in favour of sustainable development applied. Whilst this was a difficult decision he hoped that the Committee would agree that the impact of the development did not outweigh the benefits. Community consultation had demonstrated a mix of views but no overwhelming objections to the scheme. There had been no objections from statutory consultees, 25 letters of support and the scheme could be delivered without delay.

Mr Baister, the applicant addressed the concerns about highway safety. A traffic assessment had been undertaken and he had engaged with DCC to examine ways of improving the junction to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority.  There had been no reported accidents for a number of years. He reiterated that the scheme was deliverable and wider benefits included the provision of much-needed housing.

In responding to the comments made regarding housing land supply the South and West Team Leader stated that the Council was satisfied that it could demonstrate a 5 year supply.

Councillor Richardson considered that there had been no real changes to the original proposals considered in December 2014 and moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Kay stated that the site was 50 yards from his own ward and was similar to the previous application on the Agenda in respect of West Road, Willington in that the site was in open countryside and was sustainable. This application had been approved. Part 1 of the NPPF directed the Committee to a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Kirk Merrington was not a rural idyll and was not an unsustainable location. There was a new school being built at nearby Coundon. The public houses were well-frequented and the community centre was well-used. He believed that the houses would sell; Kirk Merrington would be attractive to skilled workers moving into the area as part of ongoing economic development. He noted the comments in the report regarding the impact on the deliverability of sites earmarked for development in Spennymoor and considered this to be immaterial.

He asked the Committee to apply consistency in the determination of the application. The local Members were not present, nor were there many objectors at the meeting. There should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development and he moved approval of the application.

Councillor Boyes reiterated the views of Councillor Richardson in that other than the position with the County Durham Plan very little appeared to have changed since the original application was refused. Following a question from the Member the South West Team Leader advised that there had been amendments to supporting information from the Applicant with enhanced landscape and heritage assessments, and an updated planning assessment.

Councillor Patterson concurred with the views of Councillor Kay in terms of the housing element of the scheme but she had concerns about the sustainability of the proposed retail development as the previous shop had closed.

In response to a question from the Member, the South and West Team Leader advised that the size of the proposed store was acceptable and was commensurate with the size of the village.

Councillor Clare stated that in terms of sustainability the key consideration was whether the store could be incorporated into the settlement, not its viability or business model.

Comments had been made about the need for housing but the reasons for refusal of the original application had not been about need. He recalled that at the meeting in December 2014 Mr Baister had made good points about the need for the houses and store, and he appreciated that the applicant wanted the village to prosper but the issue at that time was the provision of the scheme on this site. The scheme would constitute an incursion into open countryside and it had been rejected for that reason.    

The second reason for refusal was because of the impact of the scheme upon the views on the approach to Kirk Merrington. He appreciated that Mr Baister had done everything to minimise this impact but it was felt that this would not be enough. As much as he agreed with what had been said, nothing he had heard convinced him that the previous decision of refusal should be overturned. He therefore seconded Councillor Richardson’s motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Zair asked if the changes to the landscape assessment had improved the visual appearance of the site and if the offer of a mini-roundabout by the applicant would allay residents’ concerns about highway safety. The position with the County Durham Plan had also changed since the application was considered in December 2014.

In response the Member was advised that the layout had been changed to reduce visual impact but the proposed amendments were not deemed to be acceptable by Landscape Officers. The Highways Authority was satisfied with the proposed access arrangements. 

Councillor Kay considered that the application determined in December 2014 could be viewed differently because of the changes made to the scheme and the position with the County Durham Plan, as expressed by Councillor Zair.

This view was also shared by Councillor Armstrong. The scheme would bring affordable housing and a new school was proposed. The Member seconded Councillor Kay’s motion to approve the application.

The Planning Team Leader explained that the reasons for refusal of the original application had not relied upon the emerging County Durham Plan. The NPPF was relevant and the proposed scheme conflicted with this.  

The Chairman agreed with Councillors Richardson and Boyes that very little had changed since the original proposals had been submitted. The reasons for refusal at the time the application was considered in December 2014 remained valid, and therefore consistency should be applied. 

Following discussion the Chairman requested that a vote be taken on Councillor Kay’s motion to approve the application, as seconded by Councillor Armstrong.

Upon a vote being taken the motion to approve the application was defeated.

A further vote was then taken on Councillor Richardson’s motion to refuse the application, as seconded by Councillor Clare.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.