Agenda item

Outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of up to 100 new homes (Use Class C3) and associated works.

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy 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 Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of up to 100 new homes (Use Class C3) and associated works and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application was for enabling development and that indicative drawings had indicated a potential site layout with 93 properties, retaining woodland to the north and south of the site.  Members noted the proposed access was via Chester Low Road and there was proposed for an addition condition in terms of trees not being able to be removed without formal agreement by the Authority.  It was added that a Section 106 Legal Agreement was proposed to secure funding towards green infrastructure, public art, education, and upgrades to highway footpaths and street lighting in the local area. The Senior Planning Officer also noted that there was an additional requirement in the Section 106 agreement which will require the developer to fund consultation on speed restrictions on Low Chester Road and to pay for any subsequent works if required.  Members noted the application site was all within the Durham City Greenbelt and the rail line ran near to the site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and internal consultees had only asked for additional information and this had been dealt with by conditions.  Members noted there had been 5 objections from the City of Durham Trust, the Campaign for Rural England, Friends of the Durham Green Belt and local residents as set out within the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer added that it was acknowledge that development would be harmful to the openness of the greenbelt, and pointed out that paragraph 84 of his report, was more about the visual impact.  It was added that within local and national policy where “very special circumstances” existed then development could be justifiable, and in this case it was noted in terms of the viability and relocation of the Finchale College Charity.  It was noted as there were existing buildings on the site, it was considered brownfield and also the site was close to some facilities, namely the Arnison Centre.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the Highways Section was satisfied and there was no impact in terms of protected species.  Members noted the sections within the report set out the position in terms of 5 year land supply.  However, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the greenbelt policy test was the primary consideration.  The Senior Planning Officer concluded by noting Officers felt that the social and economic benefits of development outweighed the harm and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Councillor M Wilkes, a Local Member, to speak in relation to the Application.

 

Councillor M Wilkes thanked the Chairman and noted he would be willing to allow the City of Durham Trust to speak first.  The Chairman noted he would prefer to stick to the usual protocol for Local Members to speak first.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted that he originally was minded to object to the application; however given some of the additional information and conditions as set out by the Officer he was now minded to support the application at this stage. 

 

 

He noted that it had been difficult to obtain information from both the developer and the Authority in terms of traffic issues at the site and was therefore pleased as regards the condition now included regarding the issue.  Councillor M Wilkes asked whether the contribution in terms of public art and education was separate to that for footpaths.

 

He added that Policy E10 (Area of High Landscape Value) of the saved Local Plan noted that “the Council will protect the landscape value in respect of development by resisting development which would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon landscape quality or appearance...” 

 

Councillor M Wilkes also referred to Policies E14 and E15 noting the protection of trees and hedgerows and noted a risk of an open plan site and asked for protection and “beefing-up” along the boundaries.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted this was the second application within the greenbelt within his Electoral Division, the first being the Fire Station at Sniperley, and he noted the landscaping improvements that were in place at that site did not resemble those as described to the Planning Committee and therefore he was concerned as regards what was being promised for this site and what would be delivered.  Councillor M Wilkes added that he hoped at the final application stage that Officers would work to ensure good screening for the site, incorporating some evergreens to shield the site and that also at that stage Local Members can see what was agreed in terms of a landscaping scheme.  Councillor M Wilkes added that he also thought that 93 properties at the site may be slightly too high, and that provision of the affordable units off-site may be preferable, perhaps something to bear in mind at the full application stage.

 

The Chairman noted that planning applications do not just appear and that Local Members were important in being able to put across the views of residents and work with Officers and developers.  The Chairman added that the Fire Station application had been considered by the County Planning Committee.

 

Councillor M Wilkes clarified, explaining that he had met with developers in respect of this application, rather the information as regards the changes was not known until the last moment.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the site was adjacent to an area of high landscape value, important within the greenbelt and discussions at the pre-application stage had focused upon the impact on the surroundings.  Members were reminded that the indicative scheme for 93 dwellings was to give an indication of what may be possible, however the application was for outline permission and the final number would be determined at reserved matters stage.  However, it was added that the woodland would be retained, as would many trees on the western boundary of the site, and while some trees may need to go in terms of access and sight lines, the landscaping would be determined at the reserved matters stage, with a condition set out in the recommendations to this effect.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor M Wilkes and the Senior Planning Officer and asked Mr J Ashby representing the Friends of Durham Green Belt and the City of Durham Trust to speak in relation to the application.

 

Mr J Ashby thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to speak to the Committee on behalf of the City of Durham trust and the Friends of Durham Green Belt. 

 

Mr J Ashby noted that very special circumstances were claimed on the grounds that Finchale was in financial peril because of a loss of Government funding.  He added that therefore the Committee was being asked to consider planning issues and funding issues.

 

Mr J Ashby explained that taking planning first, unfortunately the current application should be refused on the grounds:  First the whole of the site was within the green belt, it was inappropriate development in the green belt and, by definition, harmful to the green belt as set out in NPPF paragraph 87 and saved Policy E1 of the City of Durham Local Plan; secondly, the County Council’s Highways Manager had stated that the proposed site failed to meet acceptable levels of sustainable travel mode accessibility; thirdly, the scale of development was excessive, getting on for three time as much development as exists, and diminishing the openness of the locality; and fourthly, it represented development outside the existing built-up area of Durham City, but was not for agriculture or other appropriate countryside uses.

 

Mr J Ashby noted that on those grounds, Members should refuse the current application.

 

Mr J Ashby added that saved Policy E2 of the City of Durham Local Plan recognises Finchale as brownfield land and allows development on the site even though it was in the Durham Green Belt.  He added that NPPF paragraph 89 specifically allows limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites providing that it does not have a greater impact on openness or the green belt purposes.  Mr J Ashby noted that if Members were minded to approve some development, then the issue was how many new dwellings without diminishing openness.  He added that the current proposal stated that 38 homes would not be sufficient to solve the financial problems, and therefore 93 dwellings were proposed.  Mr J Ashby explained that the Officer’s report noted that the income from selling a planning permission for that many new dwellings may exceed the requirements of the charity; therefore fewer than 93 could be enough.

 

Mr J Ashby explained that this then brought in the money issue.  He noted that the business case stated “the future of Finchale is critically dependent on the realisation of a significant capital return on the sale of the site.”  Mr J Ashby noted that this appeared to be totally contradictory to the position in the Charity’s Annual Report approved by Trustees on 19 December 2016 and deposited on the Charity Commission’s website.  Mr J Ashby noted that this must represent the true position of the Board of Trustees as of 19 December 2016 and explained that upon finding the document last week he had immediately forwarded it to the Planning Department, pointing out the flat-out contradiction with the planning application documents.

 

Mr J Ashby noted to Planners that under the section “the Plans for the Future” the Charity’s Annual Report had made no mention of dealing with the financial situation by seeking to sell of the site; instead, it explicitly states “It is the Board’s planned aim to promote its availability and maximise its use as a commercial hub of business for diverse interacting clients thus generating and income through leasing, letting and hiring”.

 

Mr J Ashby added that the Annual Report had also said that it would “generate income from Government contracts, European contracts ESF, BDO, SES, YEI.  Finchale is aligned with the prime contractors for the new DWP Work and Health programme which will replace the Work Choice and the Work Programme in late 2017.”

 

Mr J Ashby noted this gave a view that was very positive and rosy and that this in his view threw into sharp question the claims made in the business Case for the planning application.  He noted that if the financial position was so much better than claimed, and the scale of housing development need was so much less and indeed the site “is to be promoted to maximise its use as a commercial hub of business”, then Committee needed clarification of what was going on.

 

Mr J Ashby noted that above all, he challenged the assertion that needing the money was a very exceptional circumstance, all developers need the money.  He added that if the bar was lowered by introducing considerations of how much the applicant needs money then planning is having its leg cut from beneath it.  Mr J Ashby noted that virtually all refusals upset the hopes and dreams of applicants; however this was the heavy duty for the Committee to carry.

 

Mr J Ashby concluded by stating that redeveloping Finchale’s brownfield site was ok in principle through saved Policy E2 and NPPF paragraph 89 and asked that the Committee did not augment that legitimate justification by endorsing that “needing the money” somehow represents very special circumstance, as it does not.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr J Ashby and asked Mr P Jones of Lichfields, representing the applicant, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Mr P Jones noted the balanced report of the Officers and that it recommended approval of the application.  He added that there had been 12 months of work in terms of working for a low density development, of up to 100 homes.  Noting consultation last year between July and December, involving Local Members, there had been no overwhelming objections, and in July over 50% of residents had said develop the site.  It was added that there was an opportunity for affordable housing, in line with policy, and that the outline application had been given a clean bill of health by Officers. 

 

Mr P Jones thanked Councillor M Wilkes for his comments as regards highways issues as a lot of work had been carried out in this regard.  He added that in terms of the public art, this could be on-site or, if off-site, pooled according to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations.

 

Mr P Jones briefly noted the 70 year history of the Finchale Charity, the way in which it received income via contracts, such as that with the DWP, and concerns for the future.  It was added that as the current site was too large, this allowed scope for the Charity to move to a new site.

 

Mr P Jones concluded by noting that the NPPF allowed for building on existing brownfield sites, however, he felt as set out in the Officer’s report that special circumstance had been demonstrated and therefore the application should be approved.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in response to Councillor M Wilkes’ question in terms of financial contributions, those for green space, public art and education were all separate.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr P Jones and the Senior Panning Officer and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

 

Councillor A Bell noted that the operation at Finchale was a very well respected and needed service, however the report did not state where they proposed to move to and that if the application was approved would there be on-site play equipment as the site was relatively remote.  He also queried how the relocation would be controlled and what measures would put in place to ensure that they did not disappear with the money.

 

Councillor P Conway noted that the Officer’s report hinged upon paragraphs 79 – 83 within the report setting out the social and economic benefits to those living in County Durham.  He added that Mr J Ashby had noted the tension between the residual land value and financial viability.  Councillor P Conway noted that the late Dickie Annand VC, a war hero intimately linked to Finchale was desperate for its continuing sustainability; however the comments from Mr J Ashby had raised concerns and questions in terms of the protection needed to ensure the continuation of the charity.  Councillor P Conway wondered if there was anyone from the Charity that would be able to provide some clarity; else he could almost see grounds for a deferral of the application.

 

The Chairman agreed that there was a need for more information, and asked the agent for the applicant if there could be any further comment on the matters raised.  Mr P Jones noted that Mr W McGawley OBE, Chair of the Board of Directors of Finchale College was in attendance and may be able to answer some of the points raised.  In addition, Mr P Jones noted that 3 potential sites for relocation were being considered, all 3 within County Durham and in terms of play facilities on-site, the plans shown were indicative and he would be happy to include details of play equipment at the reserved matters stage.  Mr P Jones added that as he understood it, the sale would 100% be used to help ensure the continuation of the Charity.

 

Mr W McGawley explained that the reality was that income had reduced from £4 million 4 years ago to around £1 million and that the College was living on reserves and this was not sustainable in the long term.  Mr W McGawley noted he signed the Annual Report 2016 and noted that it was a vision of a much reduced charity, starting with a zero base, though with a good residual business.

Councillor P Conway noted this information was helpful and asked whether 93 dwellings were required, or could it be fewer as this could help to reduce the impact on the green belt, while still satisfying the charity’s financial position.  The Chairman noted that the Committee was looking in terms of safeguard regarding funds. 

 

Councillor M Wilkes thanked the Chairman for the further opportunity to speak and noted from meetings with the developer and charity that it had been made clear that the was a requirement for all 100 properties, now 93, and asked if it was the case that not all of the site be developed, and that whether working with the developer and charity could it be possible to understand why 93 properties was what was needed in terms of the charity’s financial position.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that paragraph 80 set out the information as regards the business case provided by the applicant, and highlighted that this had been fully assessed by the Council’s Policy and Assets Team. 

It was noted one scenarios looked at was 38 dwellings, and this would not provide the funds for the charity to relocate, and another looked at 93 properties that would enable to fund a relocation but also be utilised to: implement a new IT system and marketing; clearance of pension fund deficits and the restoration of reserves to input into future training and employment programmes.

 

The Chairman noted that the case set out that the Charity needed 93 dwellings.

 

Councillor B Moir reminded Members that the application was in outline, with details to come through at the reserved matters stage and therefore he proposed that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined within the report.

 

Councillor B Moir moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor P Conway.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Committee was MINDED TO APPROVE the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, subject to the amendments and additional condition as described by the Senior Planning Officer.

 

 

Councillor G Bleasdale noted that a relation was carrying out a similar activity to that set out in the next application and sought advice from the Solicitor in terms of declaring an interest in the next item.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter asked whether the development was in the area and did the Member feel affected.  Councillor G Bleasdale noted she did not feel affected, the Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he did not feel that there was a need to declare an interest.