Agenda item

Outline application for approximately 400 dwellings & office development (Use Class B1) together with ancillary uses (Use Classes A1 - A4 & D1 - D2), new accesses, associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping with all matters reserved except for access.

N Carter, Planning and Development Solicitor, informed the meeting that all Members had been provided with the following documents prior to the meeting, which had been received after the despatch of the agenda:

·       A letter of objection from GVA Planning dated 24 December 2015;

·       A letter of response to GVA Planning from Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners dated 4 January 2016;

 

A summary of a presentation from GVA Planning was circulated at the meeting.  This presentation was to have been made to the meeting but unfortunately a representative was unable to be in attendance.

 

Copies of all of the documents referred to by the Planning and Development Solicitor were available for anyone present at the meeting.

 

Members of the Committee took time to read the summary of the presentation from GVA Planning which had been circulated to the meeting before considering the application.

 

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for approximately 400 dwellings and office development (use Class B1) together with ancillary uses (use Classes A1-A4 and D1-D2), new accesses, associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping with all matters reserved except for access at Lambton Park, Chester Road, Bournmoor (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

C Harding, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site and setting and indicative layouts.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update on paragraphs 146-150 of the report.  The impact of the proposed development on openness would be significant, but the development would not significantly undermine the fundamental aim of Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.  The overall harm to openness would be more significant than suggested in the report, but it was considered this harm, and any other harm, would still be outweighed by the suite of benefits proposed by the applicant, including:

·       A significant level of investment in the restoration and preservation of valuable historic assets;

·       The provision of public access to the wider Lambton Estate, with associated positive tourism and cultural impacts;

·       The provision of affordable and executive housing to meet an identified need.

·       Office accommodation with job creation.

 

Such benefits were still considered to form the very special circumstances necessary to allow otherwise inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

 

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted and responded to the matters raised within the letter of objection from GVA Planning, which had been received after the despatch of the agenda.

 

The letter of objection from GVA Planning referred to the Inspectors Interim Report into the County Durham Plan and his finding that the proposed allocation of the site for Executive Housing was unsound.  The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the Inspector’s Interim Report had been quashed by the High Court and therefore had no legal status and this was the reason for no mention of this being made in the Committee report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer also highlighted that GVA Planning considered that very special circumstances did not exist and also that GVA Planning’s letter contained a number of inaccuracies, including a reference to an off-site affordable housing contribution which was not being proposed.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor advised that the harm in terms of openness would be significant, and not limited as was stated in the report.  He also clarified that it was this significant impact upon openness that the Committee should weigh in the balance.  Openness was the absence of development and any development would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  However, the impact on openness, and landscape and visual impact were separate matters.

 

The summary of the presentation from GVA Planning which had been circulated referred to Judicial Review if the application was to be approved.  The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee that he had not seen anything from the objector which would provide substantive grounds for a Judicial Review for the following reasons:

·       Pre-determination – GVA argued that because the way the application had been progressed there had been pre-determination of it.  This was not the case, the application had been brought to Committee for determination and it was both normal and appropriate for discussions on applications to take place between applicants and Planning Officers.  Indeed, this was encouraged by Planning Policy Guidance.

·       Lack of reference in the Committee report to previous planning history – this was a reference to the Planning Inspector’s Interim Report on the County Durham Plan.  This Report had been quashed by the High Court and in legal terms it was expunged.

·       A previous Judicial Review of a Council decision involving the applicant – this was irrelevant to determination of this application.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor went on to add that the presentation also referred to prematurity of determining the application and of it being prejudicial to the promoters of alternative Green Belt land.  He considered that this point would rely on the County Durham Plan being at an advanced stage.  The timetable for the County Durham Plan was still uncertain and discussions were ongoing with DCLG and the Planning Inspectorate regarding this.  As it could not be said that the emerging plan was at an advanced stage it was therefore difficult to maintain any prejudice or prematurity argument.

 

Referring to the third page of GVA Planning’s letter of objection dated 24 December 2015 which quoted the interim position statement of the County Council on the consideration of applications on Green Belt land the Planning and Development Solicitor advised that this was produced when the Planning Inspector’s report was still extant and therefore in light of this change in circumstances less weight could now be afforded to this interim position statement.

 

I Croft, Senior Democratic Services Officer presented the comments of Councillor A Bell, Local Member to the Committee as follows:

 

As one of the Members for the Lumley Division I fully support this application.  Whilst approval would allow the Estate to be opened up for all to enjoy it, it will also preserve the heritage of the Estate, Lamb Bridge and other buildings not only now but for future generations.  Alongside this it will be a boost to the local economy and will provide employment for years to come.  If approval is forthcoming could the Trustees consider making requests, when appointing developers, that when possible to use local workforce and suppliers as well as creating apprenticeships if possible.

 

Mr Geoff Hughes, Chairman of the County Durham Local Access Forum addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Mr Hughes informed the Committee that the Tyne and Wear Local Access Forum supported the representations made by the County Durham Local Access Forum.

 

The County Durham Local Access Forum (LAF) was a statutory body established under Section 94 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to advise the County Council and others as to the improvement of public access to land in the area for the purposes of open air recreation and enjoyment and other matters as may be prescribed.

 

The Lambton Estate formed a large area of parkland, in the midst of the Tyne and Wear conurbation.  It represented a hugely significant asset for public access for local communities and the region.  It had the potential to bring visitors from a wide area all of whom could benefit from physical and mental well-being that access to the site could bring.

 

The Local Access Forums objected to the access proposals and did not agree that the access arrangements as proposed would open up one of the County’s hidden gems as a regionally important tourist destination to which the applicant aspired, as set out in the Lambton Estate Access Management Plan.  The LAF considered the revised Access Management Plan failed to provide permanent public access to the Lambton Estate and there were no proposals to afford Rights of Navigation on the River Wear beyond the tidal limit at Lamb Bridge which was within the site.  A proposal to extend navigation rights upstream of this point would afford the opportunity for water based recreation.

 

The LAF did not accept that public access on a permissive basis would maximise the potential of the park for use by the public, which was acknowledged as a weakness in the officers report and no consideration had been given to opportunities for water based recreation.  It was the view of the LAF that there were considerable advantages in dedicating routes as rights of way, dedicating land for area based access under the terms of the 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act and providing for a right of Navigation to the river.  Such measures would provide access which could be shown on the definitive map and publicly available Ordnance Survey maps and would provide certainty to prospective users that permissive access did not.

 

Such designation did not preclude an application for the closure of routes for special events or for land management purposes or the identification of other routes in the park where events could be held.  Despite requests from Rights of Way Officers of the County Council and the Local Access Forum there had been no opportunity to discuss access arrangements with the applicant and it was the view of the LAF that these matters should be reserved for further consideration at the full application stage.  Access matters could then benefit from a genuine discussion of the options which Members could then decide upon.

 

Mr C Harrison of Theakston Estates, on behalf of The Trustees of Lord Durham’s 1988 Voluntary Settlement, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The application would provide an unprecedented opportunity to open up public access to the Lambton Estate by providing 9.3 miles of permissive rights of way and opening up access to 40 acres of woodland.  The rights of way were not proposed to be public rights of way because permissive rights would allow for the practical management of the Estate to take place, and these permissive rights would be secured through a s106 agreement.  This proposed arrangement was no different to that which currently existed at Gibside and Hardwick Park.

 

The Committee had been made fully aware of the status of the Planning Inspector’s Interim report and in any event it was noted that the relevant extract had been circulated.

 

The application was a culmination of years of work to open up the hidden gem of the Estate and discussions had taken place with both Council Officers and consultees to produce the application before Committee.

 

Referring to the development of Green Belt land, Mr Harrison informed the Committee that the Campaign for the Protection for Rural England considered that very special circumstances may exist.

 

The application would allow for urgent investment in the heritage assets of the Estate and would open up public access to it, which, based upon comparable locations in the region, would attract around 75,000 visitors a year.  It would also expand the already successful Bowes Offices with a forecast creation of 460 to 525 new jobs.

 

Mr Harrison informed the Committee that the 400 new homes to be built included 60 affordable houses which would be on site, and the applicant was committed to using local labour where possible.  Additionally, the application brought with it a sum of £250,000 towards the provision of public art and over £500,000 towards the provision of additional school places.

 

Mr Harrison asked the Committee to approve the application.

 

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that he considered the application to have many positive benefits but had concerns about the proposed public access arrangements which he considered to be ‘woolly’.  He asked whether there would be an opportunity to revise or change these at a later date, for example at Reserved Matters, so that a firmer undertaking could be given that public access to the permissive rights of way would not change.

 

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that, over all, he was supportive of the application.  He had attended the site visit and had noted the openness of the site.  Heritage should be open to all and exceptional circumstances did exist in this application to build on Green Belt land.  The County Durham Plan currently did not exist and Members needed to take heed of the advice given by the Planning and Development Solicitor in this respect.  The suggestion that the application was pre-determined was an attack on the Committee, which was meeting to determine the application.  Councillor Dixon sought clarification on whether the proposed public access arrangements could be considered at Reserved Matters or whether they needed to be part of the Outline permission rights and asked whether this could be conditioned.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the current draft s106 agreement proposed adherence with the submitted Access Management Plan.  By their nature, permissive rights of way were exactly that, and the s106 agreement could not require the Estate to keep such rights open at all times.  He also indicated that he felt that the issue of access could not be discussed at a later date as public access to the wider Estate formed part of the very special circumstances and it needed to be established whether such circumstances existed prior to determination.

 

Councillor Davidson asked whether some of the proposed 9.3 miles of permissive paths could be made definitive rights of way.

 

Mr Harrison informed the Committee that the applicant was committed to deliver 9.3 miles of public access to the Estate.  Should the applicant seek to vary this in the future, officers of the Council would need to sign this off.  If this was varied unilaterally by the applicant then the Council could take an injunction against the applicant for the breach of the s106 agreement.  He clarified that the applicant wanted flexibility because the final use of Lambton Castle was not yet known, and public rights of way would not be compatible with all of the potential uses.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor provided clarification on permissive rights of way and public rights of way.  A public right of way was dedicated by a landowner and granted rights to the public to pass and repass along it.  It could only be extinguished by legal means.  A permissive right of way involved permission being granted by a landowner to use the route, but such permission was revocable.  The application was not proposing public rights of way but was proposing permissive rights of way via a s106 agreement.  This would ensure that the permissive rights of way were delivered and insofar as possible, remained in place, but no guarantee could be given that the permissive rights of way would exist in perpetuity.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that such permissive rights of way already existed at sites such as Hardwick Park, which was a County Council facility.  He was satisfied that there were special circumstances in this application, which would bring construction jobs, permanent jobs and a £28m restoration fund, to build on Green Belt land.  Should the applicant wish to vary public access to the Estate this would need to be discussed with the Council.  Councillor Boyes moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Moir seconded approval of the application.  The applicant had taken a conservative approach to public access to the Estate and Councillor Moir was satisfied that a balanced view would be taken.  Councillor Moir informed the Committee that rather than any pre-determination, his seconding of approval of the application was based upon presentations made to the Committee, and that officers had addressed all of his concerns.

 

Councillor Holland advised caution, and referred to the Planning Inspector’s Interim Report on the County Durham Plan.  The High Court had not quashed the Report because the reasons given in it were flawed, but had quashed it because it was procedurally flawed.  In the absence of a County Durham Plan the Committee needed to rely on NPPF and the saved Chester le Street Local Plan, noting that the officer had done well to highlight the detail of Green Belt policy in his report.  This was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt and was an opportunity for Lambton Estates to cash in on its landholdings in return for a promised investment in heritage assets and the provision of permissive rights of way and was, in essence, a commercial venture.  Councillor Holland expressed concern about the discharge of surface water from the development and asked whether this would lead to an increased flood risk.  He also sought clarification around on site renewable energy provision and the opportunity to make the development carbon neutral.  Councillor Holland informed the Committee he was uneasy about breaching Green Belt land.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee that because the Planning Inspector’s Interim Report had been quashed in its entirety, it was not possible to dissect it, in order to place reliance upon parts of it.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, in replying to Councillor Holland, informed the Committee that Condition 23 of the permission would ensure that sustainability was embedded.  Referring to flood risk, neither the Environment Agency nor the Council’s Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers had raised any objection to the application.  Because this was an outline application it was difficult at this stage to produce engineering solutions for drainage, however conditions would be attached before construction commenced.

 

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that there was a balance to make between developing Green Belt land and the very special circumstances proposed by the applicant.  The application was contrary to the NPPF and saved Local Plan Policies, and while he considered that weight could still be afforded to Local Plan Policies, Councillor Shield considered that the suite of benefits, including economic benefits, outweighed this.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he had been convinced by the Officer’s argument that special circumstances existed to allow this application.  The application would lead to restoration of historic heritage and also allow the public access to be able to see the heritage assets.  However, it was important that the issue of access was ‘battened down’.  He needed to consider whether what was being offered was sufficient, as it formed part of the very special circumstances and informed the Committee that he did consider that permissive rights of way were sufficient.  A public right of way, by its very permanence and perpetuity, could be a barrier to future estate management.  The permissive rights of way would be embodied in a legally binding s106 agreement and he was convinced that permissive rights of way would be sufficient having regard to the intention of the applicant.

 

Councillor Conway informed the Committee that he considered special circumstances for developing on Green Belt land had been met.  He referred to the permissive rights of way and asked whether these could only be revoked subject to the County Council’s agreement and also asked about navigable rights on the river.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor advised that revocation of a permissive right of way could not be subject to the agreement of the County Council.  He understood the applicant was suggesting that if any permissive right of way was extinguished, that a replacement alternative would be agreed with the Council and invited the applicant’s agent to confirm this position.   Mr Harrison confirmed that the applicant was committed to provide access to 9.3 miles of open routes over 40 acres of land.  In time, if it was found that these routes were not in the correct places, then a dialogue would take place regarding alternative routes.  However, the quantum and quality of access would be maintained.

 

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that while he was usually of the view that agricultural land was needed, he had been convinced that this development of executive housing was needed and would be of benefit to County Durham.

 

Councillor Davidson sought clarification regarding public rights of navigation on the river, which had been previously raised in the debate.

 

Mr Hughes, referring to navigable rights, informed the Committee that the Environment Agency had identified the high tide limit, which was the extent of navigable rights on the river, to be at Lamb Bridge and the LAF had asked that this be extended to throughout the Estate.

 

Councillor Davidson informed the Committee that as a Member of the former Chester le Street District Council he had pressed for the establishment of the Green Belt.  However he was delighted with this application and considered that the benefits from it would outweigh the detriment to the Green Belt.  Reservations about access had been fully discussed and he considered that the application should not fail for the want of public rights of access.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application be approvedsubject to;

 

·       referral of the application to the Secretary of State via the National Planning Casework Unit; and in the event of the application not being called in, the Head of Planning be authorised to determine the application.

 

·       completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure;

 

·       A programme of conservation works, as contained within the Conservation Management Plan

·       Public access to the Lambton Estate in accordance with the Access Management Plan,

·       15% affordable housing

·       A commuted sum of £250,000 towards the provision of public art,

·       A sum of £550,135 towards the provision of additional school places

·       The provision of 4.032ha on-site public open space with a pro-rata commuted sum payable in lieu if this proves not to be possible;

 

and subject to the Conditions contained in the report.