Agenda item

DM/17/01322/RM - Land to the South of Eden Drive, Sedgefield

Application for reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 197 dwellings and associated works (pursuant to planning permission DM/15/03808/OUT).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 197 dwellings and associated works pursuant to planning permission DM/15/03808/OUT (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

A Inch, Team Leader, Strategic Team informed the Committee that the reserved matters application related to an outline planning application which gained permission at appeal in October 2016.  The outline application was for the erection of up to 220 dwellings, the reserved matters application was for the erection of 197 dwellings.

 

The Strategic Team Leader gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photographs, site photographs, design code illustration, layout and streetscene images.

 

Councillor Tinsley informed the Committee that neither the Sedgefield Town Council nor the local Members had requested to speak on the application.

 

Ms J Bowles of the Sedgefield Village Action Group addressed the Committee.  Ms Bowls informed the Committee that she was a resident of Sedgefield and that the Action Group represented the views of the majority of the community.

 

Ms Bowles informed the Committee that the Action Group had concerns about the proposed road which would pass through the development which was too narrow for heavy traffic.  There were concerns regarding potential flooding and also about sewerage capacity in the area.

 

There were also concerns regarding the new spur from the roundabout on the A689/A177.  The new road through the development would become an access road into Sedgefield centre and the number of drives which would face onto this road would create a hazard.

 

The loss of open countryside was causing distress to many residents in Sedgefield and Ms Bowles reported that works on site had already commenced, something she hoped the County Council would look at.

 

Mr J Foster, representative of Taylor Wimpey, addressed the Committee.  He informed the Committee that he site had outline planning approval for the erection of dwellings and that he supported the officer recommendations in the report.  Mr Foster informed the Committee that the 10% affordable housing, which equated to 20 dwellings, had been moved following concerns which had been expressed, and these were now in the north-west and south west corners of the site.

 

Mr Foster informed the Committee that he had met with the Sedgefield Village Action Group and they had his contact details if needed.  Mr Foster added that he would also give the Action Group the contact details for the site manager.  Works were programmed to start on site in September, the works which had been taking place on site were architectural investigations.

 

Councillor Tinsley reminded the Committee that access had been approved at the outline application.  The reserved matters application was to consider appearance, layout, landscape and scale.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he had voted against approval of the outline application.  He had listened to the issues raised at the meeting but most of these had already been decided when outline approval was granted.

 

The Strategic Team Leader indicated the position of bus stops on the site and informed the Committee that Condition 16 of the outline planning permission gave details of the water attenuation scheme.  The Council’s drainage officers were satisfied that the development would not lead to an increased risk to off-site flooding.  Northumbrian Water had confirmed there was adequate fowl sewerage capacity in the area.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee he considered the appearance, layout, landscape and scale of the development to be appropriate and moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Wilkes referred to the number of bungalows proposed for the site, which at 7 properties only represented 3% of the dwellings proposed and did not seem to be many.  The Strategic Team Leader replied that there was no policy basis for requiring bungalows and it was fortunate that the developer had offered to provide them.

 

Councillor Shield expressed concern about the road through the development and asked whether this was an estate road or a normal sized road.  He considered that there was a danger of it becoming a rat-run and suggested that the Council should have a policy of 20 m.p.h. speed limits on such roads.

 

The Highway Development Manager replied that the road had been designed to accommodate public transport and that the Council had a policy for 20 m.p.h. zones on all new developments.

 

Councillor Shield seconded approval of the application.

 

Resolved:

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

 

Councillor Robinson rejoined the meeting and resumed the Chair.

 

 

Councillor J Robinson in the Chair

 

 

Supporting documents: