Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved for 9 houses (5 houses to be starter/affordable homes).

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting with part of the application being within an area of high landscape value.  The application was an outline application with all matters reserved for 9 houses (5 houses to be starter/affordable homes) and was recommended for refusal.

The Committee noted that internal and statutory consultees had responded with the Highways Section noting poor access and objecting in terms of highway safety, and the Landscape Team noting that the application would have a significant landscape and visual effects.  It was added that the Sustainability Team had raised objections as the development had failed to meet some of the key principles as set out at the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 17.  The Senior Planning Officer added that the nearest settlement was West Rainton, approximately 1 mile away.  Members noted that the Council’s Environmental Management (Noise) Officer had noted there had been insufficient details in terms of allowing a proper assessment of the potential environment impact of the proposed development, with part of the site being in close proximity to the A1(M).

The Senior Planning Officer noted no objections to the proposed scheme from Northumbrian Water, the Council’s Drainage Officer or the Council’s Ecology Team.  The Committee noted that there had been 4 letters of objection from members of the public, including a letter of objection from the City of Durham Trust. 

Members were informed that there had been a petition with 240 signatures in support of the application and a number of letters from members of the public.

It was added that the applicant had cited “very special circumstances” in terms of development on the greenbelt, with the developer offering to pay £100,000 to the West Rainton and Leamside Community Association to clear debts on the community building known as Jubilee Hall.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that this was not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, would not be directly related to the development, and would not be reasonably related in scale or kind to the proposed development. 

The Chairman asked the Local Member for Sherburn, Councillor D Hall to speak in relation to the Application.

Councillor D Hall noted he had circulated a letter to Members of the Committee in respect of this application which set out reasons why it was felt the application should be granted, with referral to the Secretary of State.  Councillor D Hall added that he and a lot of residents felt that this application represented a last chance to save the 100 year old and well-loved community facility, namely Jubilee Hall and that the £100,000 being offered would get the centre back on an even keel and be of huge benefit to local residents. 

Councillor D Hall noted that three issues had been raised and he would address each of those in turn.  In respect of objections in terms of highways safety, Councillor D Hall noted that a recent application had been considered by the Council concerning 120 houses with a single exit on to a 40mph road which had been assessed as acceptable.  Councillor D Hall noted that this application was only for 9 houses and now Officers were saying access would not be possible in this case, however, Councillor D Hall suggested that safe access could be agreed by condition at the reserved matters stage.  In terms of sustainability, Councillor D Hall there was a “chicken or egg” issue in terms of housing to support services and services in place to support new housing, though it was noted that this proposal included affordable housing which should be welcomed.  Councillor D Hall added that, in respect of the application representing development in the greenbelt, he noted the Council’s Ecology Team had not registered any objections to the proposed development and local residents preferred small schemes to large developments, such as the previously mentioned development of 120 houses.  It was added that there were no issues of public access in this case and that any issues in terms of screening the site could be achieved as necessary.  It was added that this particular case was special and Councillor D Hall noted from guidance that there was no statutory definition of “special circumstance” and therefore it was felt that this application should be approved and to be referred to the Secretary of State for final determination.  Councillor D Hall noted he had sat on Committee where development on the greenbelt had been approved where the development would be to support a country house or large business and therefore he felt that there was a convincing argument for this application to support the community asset.  Councillor D Hall concluded by reiterating that residents were requesting that the Committee approve the application for the reasons stated with referral to the Secretary of State for final determination. 

The Chairman thanked the Local Member and introduced Mr J Morland and Mr A Percival, local residents, to speak in relation application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee between them. 

Mr J Morland noted he had been born and raised in a property, now demolished, only yards away from the proposed development and recalled that there had been a more houses in the area in the recent past.  Mr J Morland added that the scale of the development was such that it would not have a large impact on the area, and while understanding the application was within the greenbelt, it was not similar in scale to the recent approval of 120 houses on greenbelt land recently approved by the Council.  Mr J Morland noted that it was good for small pieces of land that were not currently being used for anything to be developed and this was supported by national policy and would have been by the County Durham Plan (CDP) should that have been in effect. 

Mr J Morland noted that part of the application, Site “B” was close to the A1(M) and this area was not overlooked by other residents, did not impact in terms of congestion or footpaths, and was not in any area of high landscape value.  Mr J Morland noted that while Site “A” was within the greenbelt and an area of high landscape value, it currently formed part of a private residential garden, bounded by large trees.  Mr J Morland noted that there was not a public bus running directly along past the proposed development, however, it may be possible for a community bus to be organised.  Mr J Morland noted some comments that the development would not blend in with the village, however, he felt that one small row of terraced houses and few cottages would not detract from the character of the area.  Mr J Morland noted as Chairman of the West Rainton and Leamside Community Association that the development would be of massive benefit to the community, with the proposed £100,000 contribution being an opportunity to relieve the financial worries in terms of Jubilee Hall and enable the community asset to be used by local residents for years to come.

Mr A Percival noted as Treasurer of the West Rainton and Leamside Community Association that it was very important to retain the Jubilee Hall as a village hall and community centre, as there was a good footfall, with over 2,500 visiting the community centre, with many activities including employability projects.  It was reiterated that the proposed development represented a unique opportunity to save Jubilee Hall and if the application was not approved, Mr A Percival could not see the community centre surviving.

The Chairman asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Bell asked whether there had been any comments from Planning Policy Officers, as he could not see any within the report.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that no formal comments had been received from Policy, though he had spoken to colleagues and they confirmed agreement with the report.

Councillor J Lethbridge noted he was pleased to read within the report that the area was of high landscape value, having attended the site and found the area to be of outstanding quality, bucolic and delightful and that the instinctive feeling was not to change those characteristics.  Councillor J Lethbridge added that in relation to Site “A” he had concern in relation to the speed of the traffic travelling past this Site and also felt that a link in terms of the £100,000 for the Community Association to the proposed development was not there.  Councillor J Lethbridge recalled that at the site visit, the sheer noise at Site “B” from the nearby A1(M) was such that he felt it would be unacceptable in terms of anyone living at the location, requiring triple if not quadruple glazing and also there could be an issue in terms of fumes from the traffic.

Councillor B Moir noted that the application presented a difficult decision, with the money that could be used by the community association and with Councillor B Moir adding that he had recently “pinned his colours to the mast” in terms of supporting housing development.  However he added that he would divorce himself from the money consideration which was being offered. Councillor B Moir added the area was bucolic and noted that close proximity of Site “B” to the A1(M), however he felt it would be a case of caveat emptor for anyone wishing to live there.

Councillor B Moir noted the comments of the Local Member in terms of approval and referral to the Secretary of State adding that at this moment he felt that to be the preferable course of action.

Councillor M Davinson noted the lack of a noise report and asked whether such reports were normally expected for an outline application, adding that the edge of the site had only been 10-15 metres away from the A1(M).  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the Noise Officer had raised concerns and that a noise report would be expected at this application stage, regarding impact and mitigation.

Councillor G Bleasdale noted the gesture of £100,000 for the community association was a nice one, however, she noted that while on the site visit traffic going past the application sites seemed to be travelling very fast, there was poor visibility along the road, there was a lot of noise from the A1(M) as mentioned and accordingly Councillor G Bleasdale agreed with the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillor D Freeman noted he felt that it was not necessary to refer the application to the Secretary of State and that it was well within the means of the Committee to determine the application.  Councillor D Freeman noted he felt sympathy for the local residents at West Rainton in terms of the community facility, however, the decision on the application needed to be based on planning grounds.  Councillor D Freeman noted the issues raised in terms of noise and the proximity to the A1(M), however, noted the main issue was that of development in the greenbelt and that there did not appear to be any particular reason to go against the saved local plan or the NPPF and therefore he supported the Officer’s recommendation in terms of refusal.

Councillor J Clark noted that there were some objections from residents, as well as those in support of the application and added that in terms of the saved local plan, Policy E10, it appeared that the applicant had thought of this and put forward a mix of property types.  Councillor J Clark added that on balance she felt the application could be supported and referred to the Secretary of State.

Councillor P Conway noted that it was very tricky to make a judgement on this application and that he had some points that he had made having visited the site earlier.  Councillor P Conway noted he did not agree with the report in terms of the sustainability argument as there were already a number of properties nearby.  Councillor P Conway added that the saved local plan was very sensitive in terms of development of greenbelt and also the noise levels at Site “B” were deafening, however, he felt this was similar to other housing such as Swinside Drive at Belmont, near the A1(M) and properties that run alongside the A690.  Councillor P Conway added that he was interested in the issues raised in terms of highways safety, in the context of recent decisions as mentioned by the Local Member, and added he did agree with Councillor J Lethbridge’s description of the area in question as bucolic. 

Councillor P Conway noted the arguments made by the Local Member in terms of the benefits of this development would bring for the community association and added he recalled sitting on Planning Committees where development was allowed in order to enable the restoration of a country house or the enlargement of an existing business and therefore queried whether this application fell into the same category.  Councillor P Conway asked whether the granting of the outline application would release the £100,000 to the community association, and whether this was something that the Committee could consider.

The Chairman asked the Highway Development Manager, J McGargill to comment in terms of the issues raised in relation to highway safety.

The Highway Development Manager noted he did not see any inconsistency in the comments from the Highway Section in terms of recent applications, with the same national standards from the Department for Transport having been applied to all applications.  In terms of the access for Site “B”, the Highway Development Manager noted national standards would be for a stopping distance of 210 metres, and that the measurement at the site was 136 metres, significantly substandard for a derestricted road in addition to restricted visibility and a climb that would hinder a vehicle getting up to speed.  The Highway Development Manager added that while there was some access to the highway from Site “A”, the proposed development would increase the number of vehicles using the access and that the current access was substandard in terms of Department for Transport standards and improvements that would be required to meet standards would necessitate the removal of fencing, trees and bushes at the site.  The Highway Development Manager noted that the Local Member had commented that safe access could be agreed by condition, however, the Highway Development Manager noted that it would be only possible to put forward a condition if it was reasonable and realistic and in this case it was not felt that was the case.  The Highway Development Manager concluded by reiterating that in looking at this application and recent applications there had been no inconsistency in assessment, with national Department for Transport standards having been applied.

The Chairman asked the Solicitor - Planning and Development, N Carter to comment in terms of the issues raised in relation to the £100,000 contribution to the community association.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that in terms of the application the key issue was that of development in the greenbelt.  It was added that inappropriate development in the greenbelt was harmful as stated in the NPPF, however, there was a need to balance that harm and the additional harm as set out within the report, such as highway safety, visual amenity, landscape impacts against the benefits of granting the application.  It was reiterated that it had been explained that there needed to be very special circumstances in terms of granting development on greenbelt land.  The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that Members were able to refuse the application today, however, would not be able to grant the application, as it would need to be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to call-in the decision.

Accordingly, the Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that if the Committee were minded to approve and refer the matter to the Secretary of State, then the Committee may wish to delegate the final decision to the Head of Planning should the decision not be called in.  In terms of the monies for the community association, the Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that the Committee could not give weight to this as the mechanism for such monies would be via s106 Agreements and legislation laid down several tests in terms of payments in connection with developments and in this case those tests were not met.  It was added that the application had not been made in terms of an “enabling development” and the Senior Planning Officer was invited to comment upon that.

Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter, confirmed that the application had not been put forward or assessed as an enabling development scheme.

Councillor B Moir noted he supported approval of the application in terms of reinvigorating the settlement in that area, which had been larger and more vibrant in the past, and this was development that many residents supported.

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be approved and referred to the Secretary of State; he was seconded by Councillor J Clark.  The motion was lost.

Councillor G Bleasdale moved that the application be refused; she was seconded by Councillor J Lethbridge.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed in the Officer’s report.