Agenda item

Erection of 22 dwellings.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 22 dwellings on land east of Agnew Community Centre and North of Woodham Way, Newton Aycliffe (for copy see file of Minutes).

C Harding, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, photographs and the site layout. Members were informed of amendments to the report. The report made reference to the site being part of a housing allocation in Policy H2 of Sedgefield Borough Local Plan but this was not the case and references to the Policy should be disregarded. The site was not proposed as an allocation within Policy 30 of the County Durham Plan and should also be disregarded.  Contrary to the statement in Paragraph 95 in the report which referred to landscape and visual impact, the site did form part of Policy L5 of SBLP and was afforded some protection. Similar weight should be attached to Policy L5 as was attached to GANP Policy CH3 which sought to protect existing open amenity space. Members were also informed that the reference to GANP Policy CH2 in paragraph 163 of the report should read CH3.

Councillor Clare clarified that the area to the south of the site had been identified for housing for some time and was being developed. The Member provided background to the site which the Town Council was now selling to DCC for residential development. The site did not accord with the GANP and there was substantial wasteland to the north and a park to the east where the Town Council were providing a wildlife meadow to replace that lost with the development of Agnew 5.

His concerns about the development rested with the lack of a Section 106 Agreement; open space was to be lost and there was no affordable housing proposed on the grounds of a viability assessment, and he found this unacceptable. As had been agreed earlier, Livin were providing affordable homes on a development in Coundon, yet Chapter Homes, an arms-length company of Durham County Council had said it was not feasible in what was a thriving affluent area.  Having said this the development was supported by local people and therefore he would not oppose the proposals. Councillor Clare moved approval of the application.

Following a question by Councillor Tinsley, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the size of the garages met policy requirements. Councillor Tinsley noted that there was no open space provision on site but that it was surrounded by woodland and parkland that were open to the public. This also served to mitigate against the loss of the development site which was an area of existing open space.

With regard to the lack of affordable housing and commuted sum for open space provision, a viability assessment had been carried out and considered by Officers, and should be taken at face value. The Member supported the proposals.

Councillor Brown expressed reservations about the lack of affordable housing and sought clarification about the viability assessment. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the lack of affordable housing provision was disappointing, however the figures provided were credible and were based on actual costs using information from the development of Phase 1.

The Senior Planning Officer added that the provision of open space on a site of this size was not normally expected and the impact of the development on the surrounding open space would be relatively small.

Councillor J Atkinson seconded Councillor Clare’s motion to approve the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.