Agenda item

Outline application for up to 320 residential units with all matters reserved except from access.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for up to 320 residential units with all matters reserved except access on land east of 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, 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.

Members were informed that since the report had been circulated an additional letter of objection had been received from a local resident and the matters raised had been addressed in the report. A further letter had also been received from CPRE which reiterated their concerns outlined in the report and stated that the application should be considered against recent case law.

The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to Paragraph 83 in the report and the reference to Policy ENV3 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan, and informed the Committee that although it was correct to consider the policy, the site did not lie within the Area of Landscape Value. Therefore the proposals did not conflict with Policy ENV3 and should be omitted from the Officer’s conclusion at paragraph 142 in the report.

J McGargill, Highway Development Manager addressed the highway concerns as outlined in the report. As with all developments of this type, the developer was required to submit a Transport Assessment which took into account existing and proposed developments in the area. Mitigation was proposed to the Tindale Crescent, Dilkes Street/A688 roundabout and the Watling Road/A688 roundabout where significant delays would be expected. 84% of traffic would travel to the Tindale Crescent junction and the applicant would be required to offer mitigation if the application on land north of Etherley Moor did not come forward. Highways Officers were satisfied that there would be no impact on Cockton Hill Road as the traffic would be diluted as it travelled through the network.

Councillor Yorke, local Member addressed the Committee. The Councillor stated that he also spoke on behalf of local Member Councillor C Wilson against the application. The proposals would have an adverse impact on the operations at Wigden Hall Farm. Local Members already received complaints about odour and noise, and whilst this had been addressed in the report they believed that an increase in the number of residents would generate more. In addition it may impact on the farmer’s business in future. The Wigdan Walls Road was inadequate for the increase in traffic. Objectors had also alluded to congestion at the Four Lane Ends area, yet this had not been addressed in the report. The proposals would also cause further traffic problems at Escomb primary school.   

Local members were aware of other potential applications in the area, and with the approval of the development on the site north of Etherley Moor, questioned the adequacy of the proposed highway improvements and the Traffic Assessment. There was significant strain on the road network travelling east to west and he believed that new housing development should be located to the east of Bishop Auckland where the town’s employment was located. There was the potential for over-development in the west.

He appreciated that the Committee could only give consideration to the application before them but local Members had to take into account how an individual development would impact on the area as a whole in future.

The site to the north of Etherley Moor was more easily integrated into the environment; Wigdan Walls Road was more remote, with no bus links and in terms of ecological impacts the proposals would have an adverse effect on badgers and ground nesting birds.

In response to the local Members’ concerns about the Traffic Assessment, the Highway Development Manager advised that industry standard methodology had been used and the Highways Authority was satisfied with the predicted trip rates. Census data provided information about travel movements in peak times; 84% of traffic would head east, with the remainder travelling west, and very few journeys would be made on Wigdan Walls Road itself. With 33 trips west in peak times the Highways Authority was satisfied that the consultant who had undertaken the assessment had identified the appropriate mitigation in the correct locations.

Mr Kemp of Wigdan Walls Farm addressed the Committee against the application. As a breeder of pedigree cattle Mr Kemp explained that farming procedures produced odours which would be carried over the site of the proposed development. During winter noise and odours were produced as the cattle were housed indoors.  His cattle were an award-winning Hereford breed and people visited the farm because of the importance of the herd. Mr Kemp was concerned about the impact on his business as he wished to erect another livestock building next to the underground slurry store. The cattle were doing very well and he could not change his farming practices. The land was not suitable for arable farming and his only alternative would be to breed pigs.

In addition Mr Kemp advised that the main farm buildings were accessed from a blind bend and an increase in traffic would exacerbate the dangers already experienced.     

Mr Craggs, local resident addressed the Committee against the application. He resided on the boundary of the site and was concerned about the potential development of an additional 500 houses to the area and the impact this would have on the road network which was becoming a ‘racetrack’. In the last 18 months he had observed traffic speeding in excess of 50mph along Wigdan Walls Road. Queuing traffic was also a problem in the locality. In conclusion Mr Craggs stated that the development site had produced a crop every year and there were alternative brownfield sites which could be developed.

Mr J Wyatt, the applicant’s agent stated that he fully supported the report which presented a balanced view of the proposals. Whilst Officers were in agreement that the proposals constituted sustainable development, this site formed part of a wider masterplan for the area.   

The applicant had engaged with the Local Planning Authority both in the pre-application process and since submission, and was satisfied that the proposals represented sustainable development in the context of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Subject to the mitigation measures agreed with the Highways Authority, there would be no adverse impact on the highway network.

It had been determined that any landscape or visual impact would be minimal and the applicant would continue to work with Planning Officers during the reserved matters stage to ensure that a rural feel to the development was created.

The applicant had sought to address residents’ concerns and there had been no odour or noise issues identified by Environmental Health.

In terms of economic and other benefits 720 direct and indirect jobs would be created, a contribution of £892,331 would be made towards primary education and £352,500 to secondary education across the whole catchment area. The proposed development would generate around £36.4m in direct capital receipt from Council Tax and New Homes Bonus.

In conclusion Mr Wyatt stated that the development would deliver 34 affordable homes, offered off-site highway mitigation, and a biodiversity mitigation scheme. The scheme constituted sustainable development, and had demonstrated that there were no adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Councillor Tinsley stated that over 2,000 properties were proposed for Bishop Auckland in the masterplan which would represent a 10% increase in the population. He felt that the approach to considering applications on an individual basis was detrimental to creating a well-thought out integrated plan for the area. Members had been told that the masterplan should not carry significant weight and considered it unreasonable that the applicant could rely on that.

The Member outlined his concerns to the proposals. In terms of connectivity there was only one access point for vehicles and no bus route. There was limited connectivity to the east which mostly edged gardens, and to the north was a site which may or may not come forward. In comparison to the Escomb site this scheme was less connected and less sustainable.

In terms of landscape impact Councillor Tinsley referred to the report and the comments of the Landscape Officers that the effect on the character of the local landscape would be of medium-high magnitude towards the end of the development phase falling to a medium magnitude over time.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF stated that where development plans were absent, silent or relevant policies were out-of-date, permission must be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Councillor Tinsley felt that the landscape and connectivity issues he had referred to demonstrably outweighed the benefits. The scheme on land to the north of Etherley Moor differed in its physical integration in the environment. He considered that the outcome of the County Durham Plan and new methodology from the Government with regard to housing supply should be awaited which may determine that the scale of development proposed in Bishop Auckland was not necessary.

Councillor Shield referred to Part 4 of the NPPF, promoting sustainable transport. The report stated that the transport system needed to be balanced and sustainable transport solutions maximised; this site did not have a bus route. In terms of NPPF Part 11, the local members and Mr Kemp had made the point that development of the existing business may be put at risk from unacceptable levels of air and noise pollution. Councillor Shield moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Bell noted that Mr Craggs had advised that there had been a crop in this field for many years which was of concern as he believed that there would be a demand for arable land in future. He also considered that there was an over-saturation of development in the area and seconded the motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Clare having heard the arguments against acceptance of the application felt that it would be very difficult to argue against building on a site that was identified in the SHLAA which informed the County Durham Plan. In terms of noise and odour it was annoying that people moved next to farms and then immediately complained and he could see that happening at this site, however the report clearly stated that the proposed mitigation was acceptable, similarly for the ecological matters raised.

With regard to the concerns about the impact on the highway network, the mitigation proposed was based on clear statistical information to the satisfaction of Highways Officers, and it would be difficult to argue against. However Councillor Clare sought assurance that the access to the site was safe, given the bend in the road, and asked if there were plans to widen the road to accommodate vehicles turning right into the development. He was also concerned about the potential adverse impact on the farm business, given Mr Kemp’s comments that the proposed development would preclude him from building the barn he needed to expand his business.   

In response to Councillor Clare, D Stewart, Principal DM Engineer explained that vehicle speeds along this road were such that the visibility splay would meet minimum guidance and traffic analysis showed that a protected right turn was not warranted at this location.

In response to comments made about proximity to bus services Members were referred to the report which gave details of the proximity of bus stops, and the existing bus route along Rockingham Drive. A new pedestrian footway which would link to that route was proposed.

Councillor Richardson was concerned at the potential loss of agricultural land and noted the concerns of the farmer about the risk to his business; he understood that anyone within 400m of a proposed new building would be notified. The Member was also concerned about the impact on the highway network and could not support the application.

Councillor Nicholson, having listened to the representations made, was minded to agree with the objectors to the application. He agreed that there was a need for new houses in the area but could not support the proposals.

In response to a question from Councillor Tinsley about odour assessment the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the assessment was based on existing activities at the farm and did not take into account the potential for increased activity, however levels were well below the threshold of what would be considered to have a severe impact. Councillor Tinsley was concerned that the scheme could prevent further development of the farm if the activities had a negative impact on local residents in terms of noise and odour.

Councillor Jewell expressed concern about the scale of the development and the piecemeal way schemes were determined. He also felt that there would be a reliance on travel by car, yet the Committee had heard about the condition of the road and speeding traffic, and that the site access was close to a bend. Problems would be worse at peak times as residents left the estate.

Following a question from Councillor Wilkes about the proposed pedestrian access into Calder Close, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the land was owned by three parties with a small section in the ownership of Durham County Council which could facilitate the link.

Prior to a vote being taken, the Planning and Development Solicitor clarified the reasons for refusal with Councillor Shield and Councillor Bell.   

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

The adverse impacts of the development in terms of its landscape harm, poor connectivity, loss of agricultural land and the potential impact on future operations of neighbouring farming businesses would, in the context of Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, and would conflict with policies GD1, ENV1, and H3 and of the Wear Valley District Local Plan and parts 4, 7, 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.