Agenda item

Hybrid application, comprising full element of 92 dwellings and outline element for up to further 90 dwellings.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding a hybrid application, comprising full element of 92 dwellings and outline element for up to a further 90 dwellings on land adjacent to the east of Clare Lodge and Durham Road, Chilton (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

C Harding, Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee of the following amendments to the report:

·       there was no Condition 6 in the list of recommended Conditions.  This was due to mis-numbering and would be amended;

·       paragraph 48 – the words ‘need to be considered’ to be inserted at the end of the paragraph;

·       paragraph 108 should read 18 dwellings, not 19 dwellings;

·       paragraph 130 – the figure of £93,647 should read £104,400.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee of further representations which had been received but were not included within the report.  Letters of objection had been received from Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Durham Bird Group, whilst the North East Chamber of Commerce had written in support of the development.  He also clarified that Councillor Potts had objected in her role as both a local member, and a local resident, and that the Council’s Landscape Section had not explicitly objected, as stated in the report, but had raised landscape impact as a matter of concern.

 

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site photographs looking east and north, the view from the A689, proposed layout and indicative street scenes.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the site and setting.

 

Councillor C Potts, local Member and resident of Meadow Dale, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Chilton had seen significant over-development in a short period of time, with developments by Avant, Gleeson and the Esh Group either taking place or due to take place which would result in an additional 421 houses to date.  This proposed development would take that number to over 600 new homes in a small village.  Chilton was becoming a doughnut village with developments taking place around its periphery and nothing being developed in the centre.

 

There were brownfield sites available within the centre of Chilton which could be developed to regenerate the centre and at the same time would preserve the green sites around the village.  The roundabout at Thinford already experienced delays at most times of the day and the extra traffic generated from this development would exacerbate this problem.

 

Councillor Potts informed the Committee that she was reflecting the views of residents of Chilton and urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

Julie Cairns, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Ms Cairns informed the Committee that she had lived in Chilton for over 50 years.  Chilton was a town in name with only its population meriting this description; it had none of the amenities of a town.  There was a need to take account of amenities and services in Chilton and the town did not need additional housing.  This development was too soon in the development of Chilton and Ms Cairns asked the Committee to reject the application.

 

Sandra Manson, director at WYG addressed the Committee in support of the application.  WYG were instructed to prepare and submit a planning application for residential development on land east of Durham Road, Chilton and undertake post-submission project management which had involved close consultation with officers at Durham County Council.

 

Ms Manson endorsed the officer’s report to committee, which comprised a balanced assessment of the proposals, and also welcomed the officer’s recommendation for approval.  The applicant had engaged thoroughly with the Local Planning Authority both through the pre-application process and since submission of the application itself.  Indeed, the scheme for consideration was a result of both consideration of comments submitted by residents through the consultation process and also continued discussions with relevant officers in order to ensure that the final scheme complied with their requirements.  This was borne out by an updated Building for Life Assessment which confirmed that all design and layout issues had been addressed, and the proposal would deliver a well-designed, quality scheme.

 

The proposed layout demonstrated how the site could be delivered for the proposed quantum of development, with the scheme delivering a mix of house types including 2, 3 and 4 bed houses, including affordable provision, in an attractive landscaped setting.

 

With regard to the principle of development there was a national, regional and local housing shortage that needed to be addressed and, as such, the National Planning Policy Framework identified a clear growth agenda which was focused on the need to significantly boost housing supply.  The announcement of the Government’s White Paper to address the crisis reaffirmed the critical context for housing delivery.  The Council was currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and, as such, it fell for the application to be determined against paragraph 14 of the NPPF which required that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

 

The applicant and officers had worked proactively and, as a result, the proposal before Members did not create any adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits of granted consent.  All relevant issues had been addressed, including highways, design and layout, net biodiversity enhancement, landscape and visual impact, and flood risk/drainage. Importantly, in working alongside the landscape officer, the quality of the landscaping proposed both on the western and southern edge of the application site ensured that the development very much softened the existing southern edge of Chilton and thereby enhanced the visual quality of the approach to the village from the south.  In addition, pedestrian links to the town centre had been enhanced through the provision of a new footpath link between the site entrance and the existing footpath of the site.

With specific regard to the benefits of the scheme, the proposal presents significant economic and other benefits to Chilton’s residents. The economic benefits of the scheme included:

•          the creation of 460 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 County Council;

•          a contribution £440,160 towards primary education across the whole catchment area; and

•          the generation of approximately £4m in direct capital receipt to the Council from Council Tax and New Homes Bonus over the 6 years of the New Homes Bonus.

 

In addition, the scale of delivering a number of other benefits including:

•          the provision of 18 affordable homes;

•          a financial contribution of £33,165 towards the off-site creation of grassland adjacent to Woodlands and within Woodland Glades, as part of the Council’s Woodland Creation Initiative;

•          a financial contribution of £114,810 towards new/enhance off-site open space provision; and

•          a financial contribution of £104,000 towards the upgrade of Rushyford roundabout junction to enable the delivery of housing in the wider area to meet the Council’s ongoing requirement.

 

Avant Homes offered a high-end product with homes aimed at attracting senior personnel and professional people who aspired to high-quality new housing within a quality landscaped setting.  Together with the benefits of the scheme, both economic and other, the addition of high-quality new housing to the existing offer in Chilton could only be positive for the town itself.  Avant Homes were fully committed to delivering homes on this site.  Indeed, they had sought to agree as much detail as they can upfront in order to avoid as many pre-commencement conditions as possible which could delay a start on site.

 

In conclusion, the 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 planning permission to enable the delivery of much needed housing, in the short-term, to address the current 5 year supply shortage.

 

Councillor Robinson apologised for not being on the site visit the previous day.  He had listened to the representations made by Councillor Potts and considered that the original village of Chilton had been lost.  The Council should have a policy of protecting communities such as Chilton which were no longer communities in which residents were born.  The proposed development would lead to an additional estate exit road which would be near to roads exiting two nearby estates and Councillor Robinson expressed concern about road safety.  Councillor Robinson referred to paragraph 14 of the NPPF and asked when the Council would say enough was enough.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that until a County Durham Plan was adopted, paragraph 14 of the NPPF would apply.  The capacity issues at Thinford roundabout had been acknowledged and a scheme had been designed for the roundabout which took into account both this and other nearby developments.  Referring to access onto Durham Road, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that highways officers had raised no concerns and that the speed limit on the road was to be reduced to 40 m.p.h.

 

Alan Glenwright, Principal HDM Engineer informed the Committee that an approved plan had been submitted for access onto Durham Road with a staggered access arrangement and protected right turn.  Another junction, which was a turning for the primary school on Durham Road, was a distance up the road from this development.  The 40 m.p.h. speed limit reflected current vehicle speeds on Durham Road.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the character of Chilton.  There were a number of approved schemes for development in Chilton but there was no policy about too much development in a single settlement, and it could prove difficult to evidence any adverse impacts.  Each application was considered on its own merit and this application could have a positive effect on local services in Chilton.

 

Councillor Davidson reminded the Committee that the County Durham Plan was currently in a state of hiatus because of the Government’s Housing White Paper.

 

Councillor Conway informed the Committee that it was not ideal to consider applications under paragraph 14 of the NPPF.  While Government Ministers had said that local authorities were in a position to determine 95% of planning applications, they had failed to add the restrictions of the NPPF.  There was no mention in the report of paragraph 8 of the NPPF regarding the maintenance of healthy communities and this development had caused concern to both the local community and local MP regarding the sustainability of a healthy community in Chilton.  Although average house prices nationally were 4 times the average national wage, the houses on this proposed development would be more than 4 times the average wage in County Durham, and Councillor Conway would have liked to see more affordable housing being made available.  He hoped that the developer would be sensitive to community needs.

 

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that he had sympathy with the objectors but added that the problem of large developments without supporting infrastructure was not unique to Chilton.  However, he could find no valid planning reasons for refusal of the application which was not contrary to either the NPPF or the saved Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that he shared the concerns regarding the cumulative impact of so many houses on the existing community.  Existing communities were concerned when there was a large influx of people and 600 houses would result in up to an additional 1800 people in the community of Chilton.  As an authority the Council should protect the character of communities against the cumulative impact of developments and take a stand on cumulative impact.

 

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that he felt the sense of angst within the local community and had sympathy with local residents.  The village of Chilton was experiencing degrading buildings in its centre which were brownfield sites suitable for development, but developers preferred to develop sites in a green setting.  There were no planning policy reasons to refuse this application.  Councillor Holland referred to the s106 monies from the development and asked when these funds would be secured and released.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the s106 agreement would be signed prior to the issue of planning permission and there would be binding commitments for the payment of monies at specific trigger points.

 

Councillor Richardson referred to the loss of agricultural land which was described in the report as not being the best and most versatile, however the land from Rushyford roundabout to Sedgefield was some of the best agricultural land in County Durham.  Councillor Richardson agreed with the views of Councillor Boyes that a stand should be taken against the cumulative impact of this development as well as the loss of agricultural land.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that while it was difficult to speak against members of the community, he supported the recommendation for approval of the application.  Chilton was located in the middle of a triangle of DurhamGate, Aycliffe Business Park and NetPark which were all areas of economic growth and which would bring jobs and income to sustain the area.  Given the location of Chilton in the middle of this triangle it had become a focus for development.

 

The Chilton bypass had transformed the nature of the community and had made it a more desirable area to live in.  The development presented opportunities for those facilities which were struggling to survive and may attract new facilities.

 

Each application needed to be considered on its own merits and the grounds to refuse this application were very thin.  The development was acceptable within the NPPF and Councillor Clare moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Nicholson, while understanding the local objections, considered there were no planning reason to refuse the application and seconded approval of it.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application, with amendments as presented by the Senior Planning Officer, be approved subject to subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

 

• provision of 10% affordable housing units
• a scheme of targeted recruitment and training for the construction phase
• £440,160 towards the provision of additional capacity at Chilton Primary School
• £104,400 towards highways mitigation works at A167/A689 Rushyford Roundabout
• £114,180 towards the provision of improvements to outdoor sport space and allotments within Chilton Electoral Division,
• £33,165 towards biodiversity improvement projects within Chilton Electoral Division,

 

and the conditions contained in the report.