Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of up to 430 dwellings (all matters reserved except access) and landscaping and engineering works,

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for the erection of up to 430 dwellings (all matters reserved except access) and landscaping and engineering works on land adjoining Woodham Bridge, Cobblers Hall Road, Newton Aycliffe (for copy see file of Minutes).

S Pilkington, Senior Planning Officer, gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, views of the site from the eastern and northern boundaries, view from the A167, indicative masterplan and indicative layout.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the site and setting.

S Blakey, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  She informed the Committee that she had been a resident of Woodham for 30 years and had considered the application with a balanced view, considering issues of flooding, safety, housing need and social impact.

The Woodham Burn area was one which frequently flooded and photographs had been submitted to show the extent of the flooding.  The area proposed for development in this application was in a Zone 2 and 3 flooding area.  Ms Blakey informed the Committee that she was previously a governor of Woodham Comprehensive School and at that time the pressure of the water table had caused damage to tiling in the school swimming pool.

Ms Blakey referred to highways safety.  There was only one point of access proposed for the proposed development of 420 dwellings and Ms Blakey questioned emergency vehicle access to the site should this access become blocked.

The proposed development would have a social impact because local residents would be unable to find places in local schools.  The proposed development would be insular.

Referring to housing need, Ms Blakey informed the Committee that a Chapter Homes development which was within 600 to 700 yards of this site had planning permission for 150 dwellings.  Phases 1a and 1b of the development, which was a mixed housing stock, had been released and only 7 properties had been sold up to Christmas 2016.

The development would also impact on the abundance of wildlife in the area which included foxes, pigeons, jays and squirrels.

Mr Neil Morton, Director of Planning at GVA addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.

From the outset it was recognised that that the planning application raised a number of planning policy issues.  In line with Council advice, the applicant therefore entered into a formal pre-application process in order to establish the Council’s position on the principle of development before a formal application was submitted.

A number of meetings were held with the Council during which it was explained that Officers were in agreement on the principle of development concerning a proposal for around 500 houses at the site.  Indeed the Council’s formal pre-application advice letter dated 20 January 2016 stated

“I would suggest that Option B resulting in a comprehensive development of the site would be the most preferable development proposal (with a single access on the A167.”

In terms of landscape, the Council’s pre-application advice was that a 15 metre landscaping belt at the site’s eastern boundary should be incorporated and this was duly included in the application.

In line with the Council’s pre-application advice, the applicant progressed to the preparation and submission of a planning application at significance expense.  It was not until 8 weeks into the determination period that the applicant was advised for the first time that Officers had reconsidered their position on the application and no longer supported the principle of development due to a new landscape objection.  After following all advice given by the Council and significant expenditure, this came as a complete shock and disappointment to the applicant.

The planning application was recommended for refusal for one single reason, namely that the Council’s landscape officer considers the site to represent a valued landscape.

In considering valued landscape, it was important to recognise that case law had established that the term “valued” meant that the site must display and demonstrate special physical landscape attributes.  It did not mean that it was popular with by those who may look upon it or use the site.  The applicant had taken the independent views of two landscape consultants, both of whom strongly advised that the application site did not display the attributes required for it to constitute a valued landscape against the relevant guidance.  This was also the view of the Council’s own landscape officer during the pre-application process.  In short this site should not be taken as a “valued landscape” for the purposes of making a decision.

The Committee report confirmed a number of factors weighing in favour of the application:

1.    That the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and therefore the clear presumption in favour of granting planning permission set by the NPPF applied;

2.    Against this, the planning application proposed up to 430 homes which would provide a valuable contribution to helping to meet the current housing shortfall, including in the next 5 years;

3.    The application would provide a 10% affordable housing contribution or 43 affordable homes against an identified need for more affordable housing in the area;

4.    The application would provide a range of direct and indirect economic benefits within the locality and wider area;

5.    The scheme proposed could deliver a high quality and visually attractive development.

It should also be noted that other than the landscape officer objection, there were no objections to the planning application by any internal or external consultee and this included the School Places and Admissions Manager, Archaeology, Ecology, Environmental Health, Air Quality, Highways Authority, the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water.  All consultees other than the landscape officer considered that the application was acceptable, subject to planning conditions.

In conclusion, Mr Morton reiterated that the applicant had sought to go about the application in the right way and had followed Council advice at all stages.  In submitting the application, the applicant followed express pre-application advice that the principle of development was acceptable.  Under the terms of the NPPF there was a clear presumption in favour of the planning application being granted and the further additional benefits that the application would deliver had been highlighted.  Other than the landscape officer, there were no technical objections to the application which demonstrated the acceptability of the scheme.

Mr Morton requested that the Committee allow the application and grant planning permission.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he supported the officer recommendation for refusal of the application.  The proposed development would have a negative landscape impact and would also impact on wildlife on the site.  Newton Aycliffe was built as a garden town based on green areas around which housing was clustered.  Some weighting should be given to Great Aycliife Neighbourhood Plan which, although not mentioning this site specifically, did emphasise the importance of internal green spaces.  The development site was an essential green area for the town, part of a network of green, valued landscape and essential to the nature of the town.

There was only one point of access proposed for the development and this was taken from the A167.  Vehicles wishing to access Newton Aycliffe town centre from the development would need to make a long, circuitous route to achieve this.

Having listened to the applicant’s agent it appeared that the only benefit from the development would be the contribution to the Council’s 5 year housing supply and this did not outweigh the impact of the proposed development.   Councillor Clare moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that he supported Councillor Clare’s views.  Flooding in this area was an issue and while the Council had undertaken works to ameliorate this, the problem could return should this development take place.  Councillor Dixon seconded refusal of the application.

Councillor Boyes sought clarification on the issue raised by the agent for the developer that Council officers initially were supportive of the application and then changed their view,

The Senor Planning Officer replied that the applicant received positive pre-application advice which changed following scrutiny of the full application.

Councillor Holland referred to the problems at the swimming pool mentioned by Ms Blakey and informed the Committee that this could have been due to perched water tables in the area.  If perched water tables were disturbed or interfered with, this could lead to flooding problems for the surrounding area.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons stated in the report.