Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of approximately 59 no. residential units.

The Principal Planning Officer 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 application was an outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of approximately 59 no. residential units and was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that permission had already been granted for land adjoining the application site, and that this application was, in effect, to extend that development.  It was explained that plans at this stage indicated an indicative site layout and suggested a mix of two and three bedroom semi-detached properties, linking through to the existing site and with a mini-roundabout at Seaside Lane.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that Easington Village Parish Council had submitted objections with concerns including: a lack of infrastructure; a large number of developments already approved in the area; and development of a greenfield site.

Members noted there had been no objections from Planning Policy, Ecology or Education.  It was added that the Highways Section had no objections, with the access for the previously agreed development being deemed sufficient for this development in addition.

The Principal Planning Officer noted seven letters of objection, with issues including: additional congestion; potential flooding; and the development being outside of the settlement boundary.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that while the application was not in accord with the saved District of Easington Local Plan, as the Authority could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, then NPPF Paragraph 14 was triggered and the saved Local Plan was considered out of date.

The Principal Planning Officer added that it was felt that the application was sustainable, with good access to services, and there was a provision of 10% affordable housing.  It was noted that there would be a Section 106 Legal Agreement in terms of contribution towards protection of coastal footpath and provision of play facilities within the Easington Electoral Division.

Members noted that the Education Department had been contacted and at June 2017, there were 100 places over the next 8 years, taking into account all the developments currently with permission.

The Chairman thanked Principal Planning Officer noted there were three speakers in objection to the application and asked Councillor B Day, a Parish Councillor who was speaking as a member of the public, to explain his objections to the application.

Councillor B Day thanked the Chairman and noted that the application was on a greenfield site and that this would be a loss and also there was a number of brownfield sites that could be used, with there being a large number of developments already approved in the area.  He added that he did not feel that there would be sufficient school places, with 250 properties already in the pipeline nearby and the impact this would have in addition to this proposal. 

Councillor B Day noted that the Highways Section had not objected, he added that they should try driving in Easington Village, it was horrendous. 

He added that he felt it was very presumptuous of the developer to have already created turning heads that could then lead through to a further phase of development, a similar issue to that of another development in the village at Fennel Grove, previously considered by the Committee. 

Councillor B Day noted that the infrastructure was out of date and therefore he would urge the Committee to reject the application.

The Chairman thanked Councillor B Day and asked Mr A Bannister to speak in objection to the application.

Mr A Bannister noted he was opposed to the application and noted the previous approval of around 100 properties in March 2016, which if an average of 1.5 cars per property was used, equated to an extra 150 vehicles in this area.  Mr A Bannister added that the nearby Aged Miners Homes had elderly residents that struggled to cross the busy road, even with the introduction of a mini-roundabout to try and deal with traffic.  He added that around 90% of the traffic turned right to the A19, and drivers used the mini-roundabout to avoid delay at the T-junction between Thorpe Road and Seaside Lane, with the proposed additional mini-roundabout likely to encourage this behaviour even more.  He suggested that in terms of safety, an island at Hopper Street in terms of slowing traffic and to provide a crossing with lights.

In terms of schools, Mr A Bannister noted the Academy could not keep taking more children and Easington Village Church of England Primary School was full to capacity.  He added that the local nurseries were also having to deal with changes in legislation, with the provision of up to 30 hours, up from 15, from September 2017.  In conclusion, Mr A Bannister asked that the application be refused.

The Chairman thanked Mr A Bannister and asked Mr M Gaffney to speak in objection to the application.

Mr M Gaffney noted he objected in terms of the amount of additional traffic that would be associated with all the developments, adding he felt it was silly in respect of a further 150 vehicles and explained that he would not cross the busy road at this point with his grandson.  He added there was not a traffic crossing point for 2.1 miles along the main road.  Mr M Gaffney concluded by noting that there would be 1.8 metre high fencing less than 1 metre from his property and that this would block light at the lower floors.

The Chairman allowed Mr A Bannister to use the remaining time allotted for objectors.  Mr A Bannister added that 20mph schemes would be a good idea in terms of the local schools and that the noise from all of the works, those current and those proposed were, and would be intolerable, especially for elderly residents.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond in terms of the issues raised.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the site was felt to be in a sustainable location, and while was greenfield it was felt to be acceptable in terms of the NPPF, as previously explained.  He added that in terms of school places, the relevant professional Officers from the Education Department had been contacted and they noted there was no requirement for additional places.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that in response to the inclusion of turning heads within a previous scheme being used as access to a further scheme, this was not unusual and also that as this application was at the outline stage, access issues would be looked at on their merits once a further detailed application was submitted.  He noted in terms of traffic issues, the Highways Section had not noted any objections. 

The Principal Planning Officer concluded that while the resident had noted potential impact upon his property, the scheme was in outline, with an indicative layout and there would be a further opportunity to comment on any potential impact on residential amenity at the later reserved matters application stage.

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Laing asked if the Highway Development Manager could comment on the issues raised by the objectors.

The Highway Development Manager noted that the objectors had suggested the number of properties would generate 150 additional cars on the road, however, this would assume all potential vehicles would be on the highway at the same time.  He added that it was noted the development would equate to an additional 36 trips at the peak hour, and this was in the context of around 6,000 trips per day along Seaside Lane.  It was explained that the predicted 36 peak hour trips was within the daily variation for journeys along this road and therefore it was not felt to be an issue.

Councillor A Laing noted the site was in a bit of a state and the County needed more homes and proposed the application be approved.

Councillor J Robinson noted his only concern was that the views of the objectors seemed to be opposite to those stated, with objectors stating the schools were jam-packed, and the Education Department saying there was capacity.  He noted that NPPF Paragraph 14 was triggered and also that Highways had not objected, therefore he felt the Committee must support the recommendation.

The Chairman asked if the objectors had any evidence that the schools did not have capacity, and Mr A Bannister gave some information, however the Chairman noted this was anecdotal, and not evidence that the schools were indeed at capacity.

Councillor A Laing moved that the application be approved; she was seconded by Councillor J Robinson.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee

Councillor A Surtees entered the meeting