Agenda item

12 no. residential apartments

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie 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 application was for 12 no. residential apartments and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.  Members noted that a previous planning permission for the site had lapsed.

It was explained that the area had a mix of commercial and residential properties, some semi-detached and that access to the proposed development would be via the rear lane, accessing the 16 parking bays located at the rear of the site, deemed satisfactory by the Highway Section.  It was noted the design was for a building higher than existing neighbouring buildings, however, it was not as high as previous schemes and some other design improvements had been negotiated.  

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from the internal and statutory consultees in relation to the application.

The Committee noted the Local Member had raised concerns on behalf of residents, and a local resident had raised queries in terms of drainage and waste collection.  It was explained that drainage was an issue that was conditioned for, as set out in the report, and that the issue of waste was between the Developer and potential residents to deal with, speaking to the Waste Management Authority and the application being acceptable in planning terms.

The Principal Planning Officer added that the site was a brownfield site and such development was encouraged by both local policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and that the village of Wheatley Hill was considered a sustainable community and there were good links to local services and public transport.  It was added that approval would be subject to a s106 agreement in terms of securing £6,000 for off-site play/recreation provision.

The Chairman asked the Local Member for Trimdon and Thornley, Councillor M Nichols to speak in relation to the Application.

Councillor M Nichols thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted that he was opposed to the creation of flats at the site, previously a dance hall years previously, and that local people had fought for many years for the site to be developed and improved.  It was explained that a “for sale” sign had gone onto the land without speaking to people locally and it was added that as Chairman of the Parish Council he was opposed to the application.  Councillor M Nicholls added that previous developments of flats in the village had not worked and resulted in the removal of those properties after problems.  Members were informed of work ongoing in terms of securing grants to improve the shop-fronts within the village and existing issues of “rogue landlords” and empty properties.  It was put to Members of the Committee that there was no demand for such flats and that the actual demand was for 2-bed bungalows, especially in the context of a new medical centre just across the way from the application site.  Councillor M Nichols concluded by noting he felt that flats were not appropriate for the village and that if the applicant had spoken to residents, he would have been informed that a different approach would have been more appropriate.

The Principal Planning Officer noted the local issues at the front street as described by Councillor M Nichols, however, reiterated that in planning terms the application was acceptable, with the previous lapsed permission having also been for apartments, with it not being for Officers to dictate the dwelling types.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the NPPF encouraged “high quality housing” as well as a mix of housing types and this application for “in-fill” development could also help generate additional income locally. He reminded Members to consider the application in front of them rather than alternative schemes and advised that it would be difficult to sustain a refusal reason on the basis of the scheme being flats rather than houses.

The Chairman noted the comments of the Local Members and Principal Planning Offer and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor M Davinson reiterated comments he had made on the previous application in terms of a construction management plan and hours of operation to minimise the impact on neighbouring residents, asked as regards Condition 12 that referred to trees at the site, though the photomontage showed no trees at the site, and highlighted a typographical error in respect of Condition 13: “... 5 years from the competition die”, which Councillor M Davinson suggested should have read “5 years from the completion date”.  The Principal Planning Officer explained Councillor M Davinson was correct in terms of Condition 13, and noted that condition 12 was a standard condition in relation to trees, however, agreed that it could be removed should Members wish to do so.  The Principal Planning Officer added that a construction management plan could be included should Members wish to do so. 

Councillor A Laing asked whether there would be lighting, down the alleyways running down the sides of the property, as there was concern if the area becoming a “rat-run“ and there was a community centre nearby.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted that in the past a scheme that had contained a number of flats in the Bishop Auckland area had proven how difficult it can be to encourage take up of these types of property and noted issues with anti-social behaviour and asked whether there was the demand for this type of property in this particular area.  Councillor B Moir noted that Councillor M Nichols had spoken well as regards his local community and that NPPF Part 8 referred to Healthier Communities and that there were issues of quantitative versus qualitative information in terms of demand.  Councillor B Moir noted that the Local Member had explained the applicant had not engaged with the local community and asked how the development fitted in with the local community and economy.  Councillor B Moir added it maybe that the application was speculative, in order to improve the sale price of the land in question, however, he felt that the question that needed to be answered was that of how the application would satisfy NPPF Part 8 and asked whether it would be possible to defer the application.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that there was no lighting mentioned within the application for the access alongside the proposed property, however, these could be mentioned to the applicant or conditioned.  It was added that in terms of the NPPF, the NPPF encouraged a mix of property types and also the Planning Authority could not require a developer to engage with a community.  Members noted that as the applicant had invested time and resources in bringing forward the proposals then they must feel there was a market for such properties and the development stood up in planning terms, hence the recommendation for approval.

Councillor P Conway added that he agreed with the comments of Councillor B Moir and J Lethbridge and that while respecting the information given by Planning Officers he felt similar to Councillor B Moir in terms of NPPF Part 8 and that empowering local people was an important core principle of the NPPF.  Councillor P Conway added that looking at the planning history for the site there had been 5 applications for the site, yet no developments had been taken forward and asked whether this was down to speculative applications and whether engagement with the local community would not have helped to take the site forward.  Councillor P Conway asked whether there were reasonable grounds to defer the application until some form of engagement had taken place.

The Solicitor – Planning, Neil Carter noted that the applicant could be asked to engage with the local community, however, could not be required to do so and accordingly, the question would be for Members to ask what merit there would be in deferment.

Councillor B Moir proposed that the application be deferred for the developer to be requested to undertake some quantitative engagement, in the ethos of the NPPF, with the local community in order to be able to satisfy NPPF Part 8.  Councillor P Conway seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED.