Agenda item

Hybrid application, full planning permission for the erection of 122 dwellings and outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for up to 115 dwellings

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding a hybrid application, full planning permission for the erection of 122 dwellings and outline planning permission (all maters reserved) for up to 115 dwellings on land at the north of Woodhouses Farm and south of Etherley Moor, Wigdan Walls Road, Woodhouses (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

S Pilkington, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site photographs along Etherley Lane, Wigdan Walls Road and Rockingham Drive, proposed site layout, indicative street scenes and the proposed highway entrance to the development.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the site and setting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that 11 affordable houses would be included in phase 1 of the development and not 12 as contained in the report.  The total number of affordable houses across the development would be 24 which would meet the requirement for 10% affordable housing.

 

Councillor C Wilson, local Member addressed the Committee to object to the application.

 

Councillor Wilson informed the Committee that she was speaking on behalf of the Kemp brothers who had farmed Wigdan Hall Farm since the 1960’s as well as on behalf of local residents.

 

Wigdan Hall Farm had an award winning herd of Hereford cows which had won both national and local awards, and people visited the farm to see the cows because of the importance of the herd.  The farm generated smells from the cows and noise when calves were taken away from their mothers.  The proposed development would be near to the farm and Councillor Wilson asked how any possible complaints from residents of the proposed new development might be dealt with.  The proposed development would prevent any future expansion of the farm and therefore would stifle the business and livelihood of the farm.

 

Councillor Wilson informed the Committee that this was green, agricultural land and that brownfield sites which were more suitable for development were available in Bishop Auckland.

 

The road towards Escomb was narrow and winding and Councillor Wilson was concerned about the increased traffic which would be generated from the proposed development using this road and she failed to see how the extra traffic would be controlled at the nearby crossroads at Four Lane Ends.  Local schools did not have the capacity to accommodate the extra children which would be generated by the development.

 

Derek Newby, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The proposed development would have an adverse impact on schooling, roads and amenities in the area, with traffic bottlenecks already existing, for example, at Tindale Crescent.  Mr Newby suggested that other sites were more suitable for development, including nearby Witton Park which was designated as a Category D village in the 1960’s.  Indeed, Sajid Javid, MP, had said that the strategy must be to build on brownfield sites at the launch of the Government’s Housing White Paper.  There was already a problem of school paces in the area with pupils being bused to schools outside of the area and this development would exacerbate this problem.

 

Paul Fort, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Mr Fort agreed with the points raised by Mr Newby, adding that this proposed development could not be considered in isolation, with outline applications for sites to the south and north of the application site being considered, which could result in up to 757 homes being built.  Greenfield sites such as this should be sacrosanct and more focus should be placed on the development of brownfield sites.  Mr Fort queried the level of profit the developer would be making from the site and requested that should it be approved, greater contributions be made towards the community.

 

Mr Stickles, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Mr Stickles informed the Committee that he lived in Croftside which bordered onto the site for the proposed development,  The development of up to 237 houses, with an average of two cars per household, would result in an extra 470 to 500 vehicles exiting onto Etherley Moor, as well as traffic generated by visitors and deliveries.  This was a minor B road which could not be widened on places.  Bishop Barrington and St John’s, two nearby schools, already experienced traffic problems.

 

Simon Waugh, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  He informed the Committee that he endorsed the representations of the previous speakers.  Referring specifically to road safety, Mr Waugh informed the Committee that Wigdan Walls Road was narrow and in places it was difficult for two cars to pass.  There had been numerous accidents at the crossroads at Four Lane Ends.  Extra vehicles on this road could result in vehicles taking risks to turn in and out of the proposed development.  Escomb school was already full to capacity.  There was an availability of brownfield sites elsewhere which should be considered for development before greenfield sites such as this.

 

Sandra Manson, director of WYG addressed the Committee in support of the application.  Ms Manson fully supported the officer’s report which represented a balanced and considered view of the application proposals and welcomed the officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

The site, along with land to the south of the Coal Burn, which was subject to a separate outline planning application, formed part of a wider masterplan area that was a proposed strategic housing allocation under Policy H11 (other strategic housing site) of the Durham Local Plan with the site also being subject to a Supplementary Planning Document aimed to guide development on the site.  Whilst it was recognised that the draft allocation to the site within the withdrawn County Durham Plan could carry no weight in the consideration of the application, the fact that the site was considered suitable for allocation in the first instance, which was informed by an evidence base collated by the Council, demonstrated that the Council considered it to be an entirely suitable and appropriate location for residential development.

 

There was a national, regional and local housing shortage that needed to be addressed and, as such, the NPPF identified a clear growth agenda which was focused on the need to significantly boost housing supply.  Ms Manson referred to the White Paper being published today which reinforced there was a housing crisis.  The Council was currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and, as highlighted by the case officer in his report, the application fell to be determined against paragraph 14 of the NPPF, which required that permission be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

 

The applicant had engaged thoroughly with the local planning authority both through the pre-application process and since submission of the application with both the applicant and the Council working pro-actively to address all issues raised.  Additionally, the applicant had also had regard to the various representations submitted by local residents which had been appropriately addressed, wherever possible, in the application proposal.

 

The hybrid masterplan submitted with the application demonstrated how the site would be developed for the proposed quantum of residential development.  The site would deliver a high-quality mix of house types and sizes, over a density of approximately 22 dwellings per hectare, including two, three and four bedroomed houses and including a policy compliant 10% affordable provision, in an attractive landscape setting.  Key design features included:

•        a substantial landscape buffer to Coal Burn, protecting the existing ecology and increasing its diversity through the introduction of new varied habitats, including SuDS ponds, with an additional off-site contribution of £43k towards off site ecological restoration and enhancement

•        a substantial landscape buffer along the western edge of the site in order to soften the built edge adjoining countryside to the west;

•        retained and enhanced pedestrian access points from the existing neighbouring development to the north and east;

•        retained and improved existing public rights of way, with increased planting to complement the existing hedgerow and trees;

•        a proposed pedestrian footbridge across the Coal Burn.

 

As a result of close liaison with officers at Durham Council throughout the consideration of the planning application, all issues had been satisfactorily addressed, as confirmed in the officer’s report, including highways, landscape, visual impact, ecology, flood risk/drainage, design, layout, ground investigation and primary education provision.  Indeed, the proposals would deliver significant economic and other benefits to the residents of Bishop Auckland.  In economic terms, the development would:

•        create approximately 600 full-time direct and indirect jobs, with direct jobs being offered to the local community by way of a training and recruitment plan to be agreed with the Council;

•        contribute £673,000 towards primary education across the whole catchment area; and

•        generate approximately £4.8m in direct capital receipt to the Council from Council Tax and New Homes Bonus over the six years of the New Homes Bonus.

 

In addition, the scheme would deliver further benefits in the form of:

•        the provision of 24 affordable homes;

•        a financial contribution of £43,189 towards the off-site restoration/enhancement of local wildlife sites and/or grassland creation, as part of the Council’s Wild Flowers Project; and

•        a financial contribution of £360,000 towards highways improvements across the wider area.

 

Avant Homes delivered a higher end product with the Woodhouses Farm site looking to meet the housing aspirations of senior people of high quality housing in an alternative landscaped setting.  Avant Homes were firmly committed to delivering homes on this site.  Indeed, in discussions with officers, they had sought to agree as much detail upfront in order to avoid as many pre-commencement conditions as possible which could potentially delay a start on site.  As such, a grant of planning permission would enable the Council to immediately seek to address their current five-year supply deficit.

 

In conclusion the proposed scheme comprised sustainable development in the context of the NPPF and Ms Manson asked the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation for approval and grant the permission for a high quality residential development which, along with the economic and other benefits presented, would be a positive addition to Bishop Auckland.

 

Councillor Davidson sought clarification on the highways issues raised during the representations. 

 

J McGargill, Highway Development Manager, informed the Committee that a transport assessment had been submitted.  The predicted traffic generated from the proposed development was 500 plus vehicles, but not all of these would be on the highway network at the same time and there was a need to consider traffic at peak hours.  It was estimated that there would be up to an extra 150 vehicles during peak hours, 85% of which would travel eastwards towards Bishop Auckland and West Auckland.  The rest of the traffic would travel west to the Four Lane Ends crossroads, which equated to only approximately 24 vehicles.  There would be approximately an additional 8 vehicles during peak traffic flow on Wigdan Walls Road which was not considered to have any material impact on highway operations.  There had been only 3 slight personal injury accidents at the Four Lane Ends crossroads in the last 5 years which represented an accident rate as expected for that part of the network.

 

Referring to the traffic which would travel eastwards, there would be some impact on the Greenfields Road/Tindale Crescent junction, however mitigation was proposed at the signalised together with improvement at the roundabout at Dilks Street/Watling Road.  He reported that the development would generate approximately 50 extra vehicles at the Cockton Hill road junction which could not be mitigated and therefore there would be increased queues and delay at the junction.  As a result traffic may use alternative routes or spread journeys outside the peak hours.

 

Mr Fort questioned the accident figures for Four Lane Ends and informed the Committee that two weeks ago the road had been closed at this location because of a road traffic accident.  The Highway Development Manager replied that all statistics were supplied by the police when they attended a road traffic accident which involved an injury.  The police fed this information into a database which was used by the Council.  Although there may have been a recent incident at this junction which had not yet been fed into the database, this would not place the junction as being an increased risk within the highway network.

 

L Renaudon, Planning and Development Solicitor referred to the element of profit raised by Mr Fort and informed the Committee that the contribution calculation was not based on any profit from the development but was based on infrastructure needs arising from the development and the cost of meeting these needs.  New homes bonus and council tax receipts, referred to by Ms Manson, did not mitigate the development.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the two other planning applications in the area which had been submitted would be considered at a future date and that this application should be considered on its own merits.

 

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that there was a need to accord with the NPPF.  The application for consideration was for the erection of 122 dwellings, with outline permission for up to another 115 dwellings and this needed to form the basis for the Committee’s decision.  The proposed development was, in the opinion of highways officers, acceptable in highway safety terms and mitigation was proposed to address the extra traffic which the development would generate.  Although reference had been made to the development of brownfield sites, the Council could not direct developers where to build.

 

Councillor Dixon referred to the provision of extra school places as detailed at paragraph 41 of the report and asked whether the contribution of £673,720 had been confirmed.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that the applicant had confirmed their acceptance to enter a s106 agreement for this amount.

 

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that he frequently travelled on the roads in this area and informed the Committee of a recent near miss he had experienced on the road from Etherley to Bishop Auckland.  Although the highways officer had informed the Committee that most traffic from the development would travel eastwards, it could also travel westwards and use Wigdan Walls Road as a ‘rat-run’ to get to Bishop Auckland.  The road down Croftside could not be widened and was a bottleneck.

 

Councillor Richardson referred to the noise and odour assessment which had been carried out relating to Wigdan Walls Farm and informed the Committee that noise and odour depended on the time of the year.  He was concerned that the development could lead to future conflict with the farm over noise and odour.  The application should be refused on highways grounds as well as being a loss of 26 acres of agricultural land and the cumulative impact from the development.

 

Councillor Davidson reminded the Committee that it had heard professional advice of the Council’s highways officer that the application was acceptable on highways grounds.

 

Councillor Boyes expressed concern at the cumulative impact of up to 757 dwellings and asked whether this could be a reason for refusal of the application.   The Senior Planning Officer replied that this application should be considered on its own merits and should not be pre-empted by other possible applications.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that the application site was outside of the settlement boundary and was on prime agricultural greenfield land.  There was an abundance of brownfield sites for development and Sajid Javid, MP, had stated that more effort should be made by developers to consider brownfield sites.

 

Councillor Tinsley informed the Committee that the proposed development represented fragmented development dislocated from the main body of the settlement.  The potential economic, social and environmental benefits did not outweigh the negative impacts, particularly if only the element of the development subject to the application for full planning permission were constructed.  The proposal did not represent sustainable development as defined in the NPPF and would have negative landscape impacts.

 

Councillor Conway informed the Committee that he noted the comments of Councillor Tinsley regarding the hybrid nature of the application.  The report acknowledged that the application conflicted with Policies H3 and ENV1 of the saved Wear Valley Local Plan and it was a matter of judgement how these saved Polices should be considered against the NPPF.  Policy T1 of the Wear Valley Local Plan stated that developments which generated additional traffic would be required to fulfil Policy GD1 and provide adequate access to the developments; not exceed the capacity of the local road network; and be capable of access by public transport networks.  This application would generate additional traffic and would exceed the capacity of the local road network.  Councillor Conway informed the Committee that he was minded to move rejection of the application.

 

Councillor Robinson informed the Committee that there was a need for consistency regarding NPPF paragraph 14.  He asked what number of jobs would be created from this application and said that reassurances were needed regarding highways issues, particularly the impact at Woodhouse Close/Cockton Hill junction which could not be mitigated.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that approximately 600 full time jobs would be created.  Highways mitigation included traffic lights at Greenfield Avenue and two roundabouts on the A689.

 

Councillor Moir referred to paragraph 84 of the report.  Policy GDP1 of the Wear Valley Local Plan was considered compliant with the NPPF and therefore full weight could be given to this Policy when making a decision.  Policy GDP1 should be taken into consideration when deciding upon the application as well as the adverse impacts and residual landscape harm.  Councillor Moir was not sure that the proposed planting scheme would mitigate the adverse impact of the development.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that applications had previously been refused because of their proximity to industry and he questioned the wisdom of this development which was near to a working farm.  Traffic from the development would have a negative impact on the Woodhouse Lane/Cockton Hill junction which could not be mitigated and for this reason Councillor Clare would refuse the application.

 

Councillor Tinsley moved refusal of the application, seconded by Councillor Boyes.

 

L Renaudon, Planning and Property Solicitor sought clarification from the Committee on the proposed reasons for refusal of the application.  She reminded the Committee that advice from officers was that the application was acceptable on highways grounds and that its proximity to Wigdan Wall Farm was acceptable on environmental health grounds.  The NPPF encouraged but did not insist on prioritising brownfield sites for development and greenfield sites would need to be developed within County Durham to meet the likely housing requirement.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that he considered the application should be refused because it was on greenfield land outside of the settlement boundary and also an invasion into the countryside.  It would also have an adverse impact on the countryside.

 

Councillor Tinsley informed the Committee that the cumulative impact of the development was not outweighed by the social and economic benefits of it.  The hybrid nature of the application and scope of the proposed development would result in a dislocated and disjointed development which was unsustainable.  There would be a negative landscape impact because it was a finger development.

 

Councillor Davidson informed Councillor Tinsley that this presumed that the second phase of the development would not be built.  Councillor Tinsley replied that there was the possibility that the detailed aspect of the application could be developed and the outline part of it not.  Councillor Davidson reminded the Committee that even if the application was not a hybrid application and was for full development there would still be no guarantee all of the development would be constructed, as with any planning application.

 

Councillor Moir informed the Committee that full weight could be given to Policy GDP1 of Wear Valley Local Plan which sought to protect and enhance the countryside.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be refused on the grounds that the adverse impacts of the development in terms of its landscape harm and impact on the capacity of the highway network would, in the context of Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and would conflict with Policies GD1, ENV1, and H3 and T1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

 

 

Councillors Conway and Tinsley left the meeting.