Agenda item

Outline application for up to 70 residential dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Planning Team Leader – Strategic Team regarding an outline application for up to 70 residential dwellings (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

A Inch, Planning Team Leader – Strategic Team gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Chairman read out a statement from local Member Councillor Gunn who was unable to attend the meeting. The Member had discussed the matter with local Member Councillor Tinsley and they were both in agreement regarding this application. Councillor Gunn therefore endorsed the statement to be made by Councillor Tinsley.

 

Councillor Tinsley then addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents. He referred Members to Planning Policies ENV1 and H3 in the Wear Valley Local Plan.

 

Policy ENV1 sought to protect and enhance the countryside of Wear Valley and Planning Officers considered this to be relevant. The application was outside the development limits designated under the Local Plan and was therefore contrary to Policy H3. However limited weight had been given to the Policy due to its consistency with the NPPF which was silent on settlement boundaries. In his view this did not mean that it should not be given consideration. Paragraph 154 of the NPPF stated that development plans should be clear about where development should take place and as such Policy H3 was consistent with the NPPF and should carry weight.

 

In terms of the emerging County Durham Plan, the site had been discounted following a more detailed assessment as part of the SHLAA process. County Durham was able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply so there was no need for development of this site.

 

Turning to the responses of the statutory and internal consultees the Councillor noted that the Landscape Section had referred to the site as an attractive landscape of open fields and that development would be an incursion into it.

 

The Highways Authority had offered no objections but there had been a high number of fatal accidents on the highway within 200m of this site with the most recent being in early 2015.

 

The Coal Authority had objected to the proposals as the site was within a high risk area and no Coal Mining Risk Assessment had been submitted. He did not consider that the proposed condition properly addressed this.

 

Sewage capacity was of concern. Northumbrian Water had advised that the system was nearing capacity and he felt that the proposed condition would not address this.

 

If approved the development would constitute a loss of agricultural land. The NPPF stated that Grade 3 agricultural land should be protected which constituted over half of the site.

 

He was also concerned about cumulative impact as, if granted, this development and others in the area may render the medical practice unable to cope.      

 

In conclusion he stated that there had been too much weight attached to the NPPF and that policies in the Wear Valley Local Plan should be adhered to or the scheme would constitute a departure from Local Plan Policy.

 

Gillian Wood, local resident addressed the Sub-Committee against the application. She noted that the application had generated a number of individual objections but this did not reflect the strength of feeling in Willington. She advised that if approved this development would have a detrimental impact on an open rural aspect and would be visible from the A690. The Coal Authority had objected to the application and there were concerns about sewage capacity. The site was of archaeological significance and the proposals would have a detrimental impact on wildlife in the area. Locals had seen owls, bats and deer on the land.

 

Residents were also concerned about the site access which was directly onto the A690, a busy and highly dangerous section of road. The Highways Authority had advised that the 30mph limit would be extended but the current speed limit was rarely enforced. The NPPF encouraged solutions for reducing congestion and greenhouse gases; if approved this development would exacerbate congestion.  

 

Turning to sustainability, Gillian Wood advised that Willington was saturated with new homes. There were 95 properties for sale and one development had been under construction since 2007 with 17 properties still for sale on that site.

 

The occupiers of the proposed development would work, shop and socialise elsewhere but would use Willington’s already overstretched services. She had received an e-mail from one local resident whose autistic son was disturbed by noise and who was therefore concerned about the impact of the development on his health.

 

Flooding on the A690 was also a problem. This had been temporarily alleviated but would be worsened by water run-off from the site.

 

In summary Gillian Wood stated that the application contravened Local Plan Policy and that residents were strongly opposed to the proposed development.

 

Sandra Manson, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application. She advised that the application had been the result of a long and thorough process to ensure that the original concerns of Officers had been addressed. The SHLAA process involved detailed site assessments which had resulted in Officer support of the application. The proposed scheme was deliverable and would ensure that the development would integrate into Willington. The proposals were sustainable and the provision of affordable housing would be of significant social benefit, would meet local needs and was in accordance with policies in the NPPF and the Local Plan.

 

The application was supported by detailed site assessments. The Landscape Section had objected to the application but this was not supported by the Landscape Visual Assessment which demonstrated that the site would not be widely visible. As with any proposals the scheme came with a level of visual impact but in this case was minimal and had been mitigated against. Landscaping would ensure that the visual impact would be minor. The impact did not outweigh the significant benefits the scheme would bring.

 

It was standard practice to include conditions to address the Coal Authority’s concerns and sewage disposal, and the development would be unable to proceed without these conditions being satisfied. She commended the Officer’s recommendation to limit weight to Local Plan Policy and attach significant weight to the NPPF.

 

The Planning Team Leader responded to the matters raised and advised that Local Plan Policy had not been dismissed. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework the weight to be attached to Local Plan Policy depended upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. Weight had been attached to Local Plan Policy H3 which directed development to those towns capable of supporting it but Officers considered that the Policy was not wholly compliant with the NPPF in terms of the settlement boundary. On balance the overall benefits outweighed the conflict between Local Plan Policy and the NPPF. He confirmed that it was normal practice for matters such as drainage to be dealt with by condition in an outline scheme.

 

D Stewart, Highways Officer responded to the concerns raised about highway safety. He was aware of the accidents on the A690 but in relative terms these did not justify an objection to the scheme due to their infrequency. The most recent accident had been caused by a loss of control by the driver of a vehicle in the early hours of the morning. The visibility from the junction was deemed to be acceptable.

 

The Chairman made the comment that the Council had attached importance to economic regeneration and house building was a key element of this. The NPPF was predominant in the determination of planning applications to help achieve these aims and the weight to be attached to Local Plan Policy had to be considered against policies in the NPPF.  

 

In response to a question from Councillor Clare about embedded sustainability, the Planning Team Leader referred Members to condition 17 which sought to ensure a scheme to minimise energy consumption through construction techniques and the use of renewable energy.

 

Following a further question from the Member about sustainability and housing need, the Committee was informed that the Council was required to demonstrate an adequate housing land supply based on objectively assessed needs but market conditions determined whether or not there was a demand for the housing. It was not uncommon to find properties for sale in a town the size of Willington.  

 

Councillor Boyes expressed disappointment that the Coal Authority’s objection had been ignored and that no Coal Mining Risk Assessment had been submitted by the Applicant. He also noted that the sewage system was nearing capacity and asked the extent of works that would be required before development could commence.

 

The Planning Team Leader informed the Member that, although preferable, there was no requirement for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be submitted given that this was an outline application and the matter could be dealt with at a later stage through design layout or mitigation measures.

 

With regard to sewage disposal Northumbrian Water had not offered any objections, and although had highlighted that the system was nearing capacity it was satisfied that the disposal of foul drainage could be adequately achieved.

 

The Member also referred to the number of fatal accidents and asked if an increase in traffic generated by the development would increase the risk on the highway.

 

The Highways Officer advised that there had been no fatal accidents within 200m of the proposed access and the most recent accident was 220m to the east. There had been 2 recorded injury accidents in the last 5 years.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Patterson about the local wildlife sites, the Planning Team Leader advised that there were no designations within the development site, and existing reserves would not be affected by the proposals. The point was made by the Chairman that the Ecology Section had offered no objections to the scheme.

 

Councillor Patterson questioned the sustainability of the proposals given the concerns expressed that the site was outside development limits in the Local Plan, that there were a number of empty properties on another new development in Willington and that it was located in a Development High Risk Area.  

 

The Planning Team Leader responded that the development referred to may have been affected by the economic downturn in the housing markets. The Coal Authority, in responding to consultations on proposed schemes, highlighted whole areas as being high or low risk, however due to the mining history in County Durham much of the County was deemed high risk but this was not a barrier to development.

 

Councillor Richardson stated that he was not convinced by the Planning Officer’s recommendation; this was a greenfield site and would constitute a loss of agricultural land.

 

Councillor Nicholson referred the Committee to the responses provided by the statutory consultees as set out in the report, and noted that with the exception of the Parish Council and the Coal Authority, no objections had been offered. He appreciated that there were a number of objections to the scheme from residents but that Local Plan Policy H3 could not be afforded significant weight as it did not wholly comply with the NPPF. He therefore moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Clare stated that this was an outline application and although he was aware of the concerns about the lack of a Coal Risk Mining Assessment and sewage capacity he was reassured by conditions which would prevent the commencement of development until these matters had been satisfactorily addressed.

 

The issues for determination were highways and access, and the principle of development. In terms of the highway concerns the Committee had been told that the issues raised had been considered by the Highways Authority and the proposals were deemed to be acceptable. He noted that there were properties opposite the site with driveways that exited directly onto the main road.

 

With regard to the principle of development this was a Planning Policy issue and one of balance between the NPPF and the Wear Valley Local Plan. Objectors considered that the application should be considered in favour of Local Plan Policy but the NPPF stated that the weight to be attached to Local Plans depended on how much they were consistent with the NPPF. Planning Officers had determined that Policy H3 could be afforded little weight in this case. ENV1 was explicit but the NPPF stated that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The ancient woodland would be preserved and archaeologically the area was protected. Despite the concerns of the objectors a community of the strength and size of Willington was able to incorporate 70 new houses.

 

He appreciated that it was a difficult decision to make when there were a large number of objections to the scheme but unfortunately there were no planning grounds to sustain a refusal of the application. Councillor Clare seconded Councillor Nicholson’s motion to approve the application.  

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and to the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to secure a 10% affordable housing provision.

 

 

 

 

 

.