Agenda item

162 dwellings with associated highways, external works and new access roads, new car park and road link to HMYOI Deerbolt,

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 162 dwellings with associated highways, external works and new access roads and new car park and road link to HMYOI Deerbolt on land to the east of HMYOI Deerbolt and north of Bowes Road, Startforth (for copy see file  of Minutes).

 

A Inch, Strategic Team Leader, gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, site photographs, proposed layout and street scenes.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Strategic Team Leader informed the Committee that if the application was approved then there were some modifications to be made to the proposed Conditions as follows:

·         Condition 2 - slight updates to the approved plans and documents, and

·         Condition 11 – a change to the timing for the submission of the Travel Plan.

·         S106 agreement – remove the reference to the voluntary scheme of targeted recruitment and training for the construction phases because this was voluntary and not necessary to make the development acceptable.

 

Councillor J Blissett, Town Mayor of Barnard Castle and Chairman of the Town Council addressed the Committee to object to the proposed development.

 

Barnard Castle Town Council objected strongly to the scale, nature and layout of the application with reference to the relevant retained policies of the Teesdale Local Plan, because there was little else in the local development framework to refer to.

 

The application and proposed development was contrary to policy GD1.  The development should not be permitted because it was out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and was without regard and inappropriate to the setting of neighbouring buildings, notably the Castle and Scar Top landscape features and open spaces of the surrounding area, particularly those bordering the River Tees.  Officers had dismissed this.

 

The development would also generate unacceptable levels of traffic on the local road network, particularly Lartington Lane leading to the A67 crossing County Bridge and into Barnard Castle via Bridgegate.  The report acknowledged the significance of this listed structure, but only in visual terms, not in terms of the additional wear and tear it would inevitably suffer and the danger this crossing point posed because of the close proximity of unsegregated vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge.

 

The application and proposed development was contrary to policy BENV3.  The proposed development would cause significant harm to the character, quality and distinctiveness of the landscape, particularly views from the Castle and Scar Top to the south.  The history of Deerbolt, first as a military camp and latterly as a prison and Young Offenders’ Institute, had gifted the town a green and lightly wooded open space which enhanced the setting of the Castle and the river.  This development would take that away.  It would impact directly and visually on the landscape and indirectly through increased vehicle movements.

 

The proposed development was of significant scale and was unsupported by amenities and local services easily accessible on foot and was consequently contrary to policy C1.  Information supporting the proposal was outdated and inaccurate particularly with respect to primary school capacity.  The lack of provision for schools, health centres and community facilities in Startforth and adjacent to the proposed development was key.  The assertions in the report did not offer concrete evidence of the capacity of Barnard Castle to accommodate the additional people and service requirements generated by the development, but the growth was significant and the additional people and journeys would put a significant stress on the existing infrastructure of the town, in particular on its many listed structures and scheduled monuments.

 

Taken together, the consequent pressure on Barnard Castle, and in particular the Barnard Castle Conservation Area, demonstrated that the proposal was contrary to policy BENV4.  The proposal would generate excessive traffic, parking, noise and other environmental problems which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area.  In particular increased vehicle movements on the A67 and demands for additional parking in and around Barnard Castle would adversely affect the setting of a conversation area and therefore should not be permitted.

 

Councillor Blissett referred to Planning Application DM/16/02643/OUT for land to the north and east of Startforth Morritt Memorial School which was refused by the South and West Area Planning Committee on 23 March 2017.  Reasons for refusal included that the development would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and setting of designated heritage assets, as well as to the setting and thereby significance of the Barnard Castle Conservation Area.  The application was contrary to policy GD1, BENV3 and BENV4.  These reasons for refusal were not materially different to this proposed development, which should also be refused.

 

Councillor Blissett asked the Committee to critically test the report’s assertions on the lack of impact, which were not supported by evidence, and to seriously consider the policies of the Teesdale Local Plan which clearly opposed a development of this scale in this location.

 

Councillors R Bell and T Henderson, local Members, had made a representation on the application which the Clerk read out as follows:

 

We do not oppose building on this site in principle, and there are positive elements of this scheme such as the affordable housing, and the retention of mature trees.

 

However we consider 162 units to be an over-development of this site for a village that has no amenities.  In particular we would like to see less development where the site borders the Teesdale Conservation Volunteers site in Deepdale.  TCV is a well-supported and regarded organisation, and carries out green waste collection on behalf of DCC.

 

We note the discussion of noise and odour at paragraphs 121 to 123 but consider that it is reckless of the developer to build houses where occupants are likely to suffer adverse amenity issues from a business that is already there.  Paragraph 123 states it is likely that noise limits will be complied with, but "likely" means there is a reasonable probability they won't be.

 

It would not be responsible to give permission to build houses likely to give rise to dispute between TCV and their new neighbours and an Environmental Monitoring liability to Durham County Council, and for that reason we ask that these plans be rejected and a new scheme brought forward with a lesser number of units allowing a more generous buffer zone between the new houses and TCV, perhaps with additional planting and specific noise reduction design elements.

 

Mr M Bacon of Teesdale Conservation Volunteers (TCV) addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The TCV had been carrying out composting operations as Rotters Community Composting on its site at Deepdale Woods for over 20 years.  The site operated under an environmental permit and any dwelling within 250 metres of their operations site was deemed to be a sensitive receptor.  There were currently only 5 sensitive receptors and this proposed development would result in an additional 150 sensitive receptors.  Mr Bacon referred to monitoring which had taken place on 3 occasions while shredding operations were being carried out but informed the Committee that the shredding operations had not been carried our when this monitoring took place.

 

Mr Bacon informed the Committee that although Paragraph 121 of the report referred to lack of complaints about the site to date, there was currently not 162 houses on the doorstep of the site.  Paragraph 122 of the report referred to the potential for odour from the site on an irregular basis and of limited duration and that this would fall short of being a statutory nuisance, this was on the basis of the number of complaints to date.  However, there was a fear that this number would rise should this development take place and that this could create a statutory nuisance.

 

Mr Bacon informed the Committee that solutions to potential problems had been offered to the Homes and Communities Agency and to Kier Living but neither had shown any interest in these.  Rotters currently had over 2,500 members and this development, if approved, would lead to the closure of the facility.

 

Luke Herring of Johnson Mowat, Planning and Development Consultants addressed the Committee in support of the application. 

 

Mr Herring offered full support to the contents of the Officer’s report and the recommendation.  A lot of time and effort had been put into preparing this scheme, which had been designed in consultation with both the Homes and Communities Agency and Council Officers.  The site had been included within the Council’s SHLAA review for some time now and had long been earmarked as a suitable housing site that related well to the existing built up area.

 

The proposals had been discussed with Startforth Parish Council and, further to a comprehensive public engagement exercise including a local drop in event, there were only a small number of objections to the application.

 

The proposals had been peer reviewed by the North East Design Review Panel and had resulted in a high quality development that would retain a number of existing trees within the site and a strong green buffer along the eastern boundary.  The applicant had undertaken a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which demonstrated that views of the site would be heavily filtered by existing mature trees together with new planting proposed through a detailed Landscape Masterplan.

 

Mr Herring referred to the sustainability of the site and access to local services.  Although the site was located within Startforth, it related well to the wider Barnard Castle area, identified as a Tier 1 settlement with access to a number of local schools, shops and services all within the preferred maximum walking distances suggested by the Institution for Highways and Transportation.

 

The development would provide a quality mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed homes that would appeal to both growing families and first time buyers together with the provision of 24 affordable homes.  The application sought full permission and Kier Living anticipated that subject to a positive decision, the majority of the development could complete over the next five years, and could therefore make a good contribution to the District housing shortfall.

 

This was a high quality scheme that had been designed in conjunction with stakeholders and the local community which was reflected by the time taken in putting together an application.

 

There was a presumption in favour of sustainable development and the proposals had demonstrated no insurmountable technical issues.  The development of the site would align with the Council’s SHLAA and would contribute a range quality design new homes to meet the District’s housing needs.

 

Mr Herring invited Mr Dawson of Wardell Armstrong to address the Committee with details of noise and odour assessments carried out.  Mr Dawson informed the Committee that Wardell Armstrong had considered the issues of odour and bio aerosols as well as a noise assessment.

 

Six sniff tests for odour had been carried out throughout the year and the Environmental Health Officer and Environment Agency were happy with this approach and report produced.  There had been slight or transient odour in 2 of the 6 tests but this odour quickly dissipated.  There were no effects on background levels of bio aerosols.

 

Noise assessments had been carried out on 5 occasions when composting operations had been taking place, including shredding, and the road noise was dominant.

 

Local mitigations were proposed which included mitigations internally to the properties to address any noise levels.

 

The Strategic Team Leader addressed the issues raised as follows:

·         The relationship of the development with Barnard Castle and the Conservation Area was limited because of mature planting and mitigating landscaping.

·         Residents from the development would be reliant on Bernard Castle for services which could be accessed via the footbridge or the County Bridge.  This would result in more people being in the Conservation Area.

·         The school places and admission manager had advised that there were sufficient primary and secondary school places available in the area to accommodate pupils from the development.

·         The relationship of the site to the TCV site – advice had been sought from the Environmental Health Officer who had considered the submitted Wardell Armstrong report, a peer review of that report provided on behalf of TCV, and a further report by Wardell Armstrong addressing the issues raised through the peer review.  Having considered all of the information, the Environmental Health Officer had concluded that while odour and noise would not be eliminated, the effects would be slight and intermittent but not significant.  The topography of the site, mature planting between the sites and proposed Condition 15 to mitigate noise internally within the properties, would address both the odour and noise issues.

 

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that he could not support approval of the application.  The development site was next to an established composting plant and also a Young Offenders Institute which could lead to future complaints from its residents.  Roads in the area were too small to accommodate the extra traffic which would be generated and more traffic would need to cross the County Bridge.  The development was too large for the Conservation Area and a recent nearby application is Startforth had been refused by the South and West Area Planning Committee because of its impact on the Conservation Area.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that he supported approval of the application, which was a well-designed development.  Highways issues had been addressed at paragraphs 135 to 142 in the report and highways officers had offered no objection to the proposal.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee he had attended the site visit the previous day and had walked to the top of the hill above the TCV site.  The TCV site was far down in the valley and prevailing winds would send odours in a direction away from the development site.  The development would bring 15% affordable housing, nearly £41,000 towards outdoor play space provision and would have a voluntary scheme of targeted recruitment and training for the construction phase. Councillor Boyes moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Shield asked the distance between this site and the recently refused application in Startforth and also asked for the distance for receptors nearest to the composting area.

 

The Strategic Team Leader replied that the nearest property would be 75 metres from the composting site, although there was a significant difference in levels between the proposed housing and the composting site.  The site of the recently refused application was shown on an overhead plan.  The application had been refused on the grounds of coalescence between High Startforth and Low Startforth, increased open views with the Conservation Area and proximity to listed buildings.

 

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that the control of smells and odours was subjective and expressed concern that a green recycling licence could be revoked because of a lack of control of odours.  He had concerns about the proximity to the site to the TCV site and asked which direction the prevailing wind was.  The Strategic Team Leader replied that the prevailing wind was south-westerly, away from the site and towards the composting site.

 

Councillor Marshall informed the Committee that if the application was to be refused, valid planning grounds would be needed, and he did not consider these had been provided by either the objectors or the Town Council.  The development would provide much needed housing for families.  The Teesdale Local Plan was outdated and there was a need to follow the NPPF.  The application met all planning requirements and was a well-designed scheme.  Councillor Marshall seconded approval of the application.

 

Councillor Davidson referred to the houses already located near to the TCV site and asked how many complaints had been received regarding noise and odour.  The Strategic Team Leader replied that there were 12 properties approximately 120 metres from the TCV facility and in the 14 years since the facility started operating only one unsubstantiated complaint had been received.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he was on the Committee which recently refused the application in Startforth.  That application would have engulfed High Startforth and would have removed separation between Low and High Startforth.  Although he appreciated there was a nervousness to developing a site between the Young Offenders Institute and the TCV site, there was already a development immediately to the west of the Young Offenders Institute which had been observed on the site visit.  The density of housing proposed was 15 houses per hectare which was way below the development being able to be considered high density.

 

Councillor Moir informed the Committee that he had considered the application and the issues raised at the meeting, particularly Policies BENV4 and BENV11 in the saved Teesdale District Local Plan and NPPF Part 12.  However, on balance, he supported approval of the application, and hoped that the business licence for the TCV site would continue.

 

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that this was a brownfield site as it had previously been developed.  It was a sustainable development which would enhance the economy of Barnard Castle and he supported approval of the application.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

 

• provision of 15% affordable housing units
• a voluntary scheme of targeted recruitment and training for the construction phase,
• a contribution of £40,845 towards improving outdoor play space provision with Barnard Castle and Startforth Parishes.

 

and the conditions contained in the report, subject to amendments to Conditions 2 and 11.

 

 

Councillor Conway left the meeting.

 

Councillor Dixon joined the meeting.