Agenda item

Outline application for residential development with all matters reserved except access.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development with all matters reserved except access on land west of 31 to 32 Church Street, Coundon (for copy see file of Minutes).

L Eden, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, photographs of the site and site layout. Members were informed of a proposed additional condition restricting the number of dwellings on the site to a maximum of 30.

Councillor C Kay, local Member addressed the Committee. He acknowledged that the principle of development had already been established and that there had been no material grounds to refuse a previous application for 8 properties on the site. However he could not accept the proposals for a development of the density proposed on a site of this size, nor could he accept that the proposed access was considered to be adequate and that traffic would not be significant so as to have a detrimental effect upon the area. There were three junctions nearby and was concerned with the extra vehicle movements 30 dwellings would generate in a 30mph zone. Although he appreciated that each application had to be considered on its own merits he was aware of an application for a further 37 houses in the area which was yet to be considered. Coundon needed more family homes which would bring vibrancy to the village and he welcomed the S106 contribution but asked Highways Officers to carefully consider access and egress from the site given the number of vehicle movements every day. Councillor Kay asked how visibility splays would be achieved on a development of this scale.

Mrs Taylor, local resident advised that she lived opposite the proposed site and spoke on behalf of local residents against the application. She stated that the water table had risen year on year and surface water poured off the fields through the retaining wall at the bend in the main road, and there was  also a natural spring in one of the fields. The cutting back of land for the proposed access had raised the land 3 feet above the road which would exacerbate the risk of flooding, as would the development of an additional 30 dwellings. The proposed access was completely hidden by a bend in the road and a traffic survey had recorded an average speed of 54mph through the village. The 50mph sign had been moved and a new 30mph sign erected but this had not slowed traffic. Traffic flow had increased through the village which had resulted in stationary vehicles outside 1-6 Church Street at busy times. 

The Coal Authority also carried out annual inspections of the site, with the next inspection due very soon.

In conclusion Mrs Taylor stated that although she accepted that it could have no bearing on the determination of the application, on the same day that notification was received it was discovered that the applicant had already listed the two fields for sale, and was also offering to sell the land adjoining the fields behind Brownside. Mrs Taylor also stated that 1-5 Brownside had not received notification of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the matters raised. The Committee was informed that housing density was within policy requirements for a site of this size. Northumbrian Water had offered no objection to the development subject to a condition relating to foul and surface water drainage, and the Council’s Drainage Section was satisfied with the information submitted to date.

The Local Planning Authority had complied with the requirements for advertising the application and whilst she appreciated that the residents of 1-5 Brownside had not received neighbour notification letters, all occupiers had an opportunity to make representation.

D Stewart, Principal DM Engineer responded to the concerns expressed in relation to highway safety. A development of 30 dwellings was minor in highway terms and the traffic generated could not be regarded as material. The visibility splays were in accordance with the Manual for Streets and were appropriate for 30 dwellings. The position of the junction avoided conflict with the nearby adopted junctions. He acknowledged that the junction was close to a bend but this was not a unique situation, given that the overall amount of traffic was modest and the proposed improvements to visibility splays.

Councillor Richardson shared Councillor Kay’s concerns in relation to density and those of Mrs Taylor in relation to the risk of flooding, however he would listen to the comments of Members and Officers before reaching a decision.

In response to a question from Councillor L Brown in connection with planning policy, the Member was informed that the starting point for the consideration of an application was the Local Plan, however housing supply figures in the WVDLP were out of date and DCC was unable to demonstrate a 5 year land supply. On this basis the application must be assessed in the context of paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

The Member also asked about infrastructure and was informed that the School Organisational Manager had confirmed that there were sufficient primary and secondary school places in the area, and the NHS would not normally be consulted on developments of this size.

In terms of open space provision a Section 106 agreement would secure a financial contribution towards off-site open space and recreational provision.

Councillor Clare noted that Councillor Kay had said that the development would bring vitality to the village and had welcomed the S106 contribution.  Visibility splays helped vehicles safely view the road ahead from a junction and the volume of traffic was not relevant.

In terms of density 30 dwellings on a site of this size was normal in towns. He noted Mrs Taylor’s concerns about flooding but he understood that for new build sites the amount of surface water had to be less than before development, and this should help mitigate against the risk.

The Coal Authority had stated that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken on the site with the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and this should address Mrs Taylor’s concerns.

In conclusion he considered that the development would be of benefit to the community. He was satisfied that the proposals met the planning balance test in paragraph 14 of the NPPF and moved approval of the application.

Councillor Huntington suggested that a roundabout may resolve the concerns with regard to the three junctions in the locality.

Following a request for clarification from Councillor Tinsley, the Senior Planning Officer advised that in 2014 approval had been granted for 8 dwellings on the north of the site, with full approval for 9 dwellings on land immediately to the south. Councillor Tinsley noted therefore that the principle of development had been established but not density, and this was of concern to him. Landscape Officers had been satisfied that the visual impact of 17 dwellings could be mitigated against but were unable to endorse the current proposals, because of the greater impact by the level of development. Coundon was a village and residential density of 30 units was high; both against the national average of 25, and in comparison to the surrounding area.

He appreciated that the access was an issue for objectors but was satisfied that it would be safe. Concerns had been expressed about flooding but there had been no objections from consultees in this regard. 

Therefore having balanced the issues of concern against the benefits of the development, Councillor Tinsley was of the view that the benefits outweighed the negative impacts of the proposals, given that a condition would ensure that no more than 30 houses would be developed on the site. Councillor Tinsley seconded Councillor Clare’s motion to approve the application.

Councillor Patterson expressed concern about sustainability. The site had been available since 2012 and she noted in paragraph 48 in the report that 18 dwellings would be too small for many housebuilders, however she considered that in terms of finding interested developers the difference between a development of 18 properties and 30 was minimal.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to:-

a)    the conditions contained in the report and to an additional condition limiting the number of dwellings on the site to a maximum of 30;

b)    the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the following:-

·         10% affordable housing

·         financial contributions towards off-site open space and recreational provision at a pro-rata rate of £2,244 per residential unit.