Agenda item

Erection of 56 dwellings including landscaping and infrastructure - amended scheme proposing omission of affordable housing provision and schools contribution.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the proposed erection of 56 dwellings including some landscaping and infrastructure (amended scheme proposing omission of affordable housing provision and schools contribution (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and plans of the proposed layout. He advised that work had been undertaken regarding additional drainage works and should the application be approved, the condition relating to drainage would need to be updated.

 

He further advised that one objection had been withdrawn prior to the meeting and this was as a result of the developer working with residents.

 

Councillor Carr local Member, addressed the committee to speak in objection to the application. She referred to the previous decision noting that her major concerns related to the ecological impact on the nature reserve and the disturbance of protected species habitats. In addition the site was well used by school children walking to St Patrick’s school and the fringes of the site also had other uses.

 

In conclusion she noted that although she was sad to see the loss of affordable housing she appreciated that it was difficult to refuse the application on the basis that the previous application had been approved.

 

Mr John McGee, local resident addressed the committee to speak in objection to the application. He commented that the photographs shown were out of date and there were some errors presented within the report.

 

Paragraph 2 of the report stated that the land was now unused, however had been used recently as a paddock, with the tenant having been given a 1 month notice to vacate. He further pointed out that paragraph 6 of the report stated that there would be only 54 units when in fact there would be 56.

 

He further commented that the County Durham Plan indicated that there was no demand for housing in this area.

 

Mr Partington, local resident addressed the committee to speak in objection to the application. He advised that in his opinion the benefits of the previous application had now been diminished. The proposed development did not include any open space or play space for children and the increase in cars and traffic would pose a danger to those children and other pedestrians. He also queried where the workforce would park whilst development was ongoing.

 

He further raised concerns relating to the environmental impact of development and the potential for water logging.

 

Mr Prescott, Keepmoat Homes, addressed the committee to support the application. He advised the committee that a lot of discussions had been undertaken with County Ecologists and any issues had been mitigated against. In addition Northumbrian Water Limited had approved the drainage scheme.  It was further reported that the further field drainage and landscaping provided would lead to an 87% reduction in water run-off.

 

He further advised that the scheme was not viable in 2013 due to the large 106 contribution required by the education department.

 

With regard to the 106 agreement, Councillor Wilson asked what basic requirements were being met and what the anticipated ecological impact would be on the habitat. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the development would have an effect on the protected newt species however the 106 monies would allow for mitigation on the lower part of the site.

 

In addition he advised that there would be upgrades to the kick-a-bout with goal posts and footpath upgrades.

 

Regarding the changes to the previously approved application, Councillor Hopgood commented that the housing market hadn’t changed that much since 2013 to justify the addition of two homes, the withdrawal of £300,000 106 monies and the withdrawal of 8 affordable homes. In addition she commented that it was disappointing to hear the local member say that the committee would have to approve the application because of the decision made by this committee in 2013.

 

The Chairman allowed Mr Prescott some more time to clarify the position. Mr Prescott advised that since 2013 which was the back end of the recession, build costs had increased by 28% along with increases in materials and sub-contractors also being seen. These additional costs now meant that the provision of affordable homes and any higher 106 contribution would make the scheme unviable.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding affordable homes and it was noted that the Derwentside Local Plan did not have a policy in place for the provision of affordable housing. Councillor Hopgood commented that she was unhappy with the disparities in local plan policy and added that in her opinion affordable housing provision should be proportionate to the size and scale of development.

 

Councillor Thompson added that on the basis that there would be no provision for affordable housing and that the 106 contribution had been significantly reduced, he could not support the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer in referring to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF noted that given the current state of the County Durham Plan and policies contained within the Derwentside Local Plan being out of date, each scheme must be assessed on its own merits. Decisions should however lean in favour of those sites where deemed acceptable. With regard to expectations of profit, spatial planning had advised that profit within a parameter of 13/15% was acceptable.

At this point the Solicitor provided some advice to the committee regarding the issues raised, noting that members would have to determine whether the lack of provision of affordable homes would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF.

 

Further discussion and debate took place regarding local plan policies and assessment of housing need. Councillor McGaun added that he felt that members could not make an informed decision on the application given that local plan and housing supply policies were so out of date. The Solicitor advised Councillor McGaun that if he felt he was unable to make an informed decision on the application, then he should abstain from the vote. Following further clarification from the Solicitor, Councillor McGaun confirmed he felt able to adequately assess the application

 

Councillor Hopgood subsequently MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds that that the lack of affordable housing provision is an unacceptable adverse impact of the scheme, which significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the proposal contrary to paragraph 14, 47 and 50 of the NPPF.

 

Councillor Shuttleworth SECONDED the proposal.

 

Councillor Wilson asked whether the previous application had placed much weight on the level of 106 contribution to be provided. The Solicitor advised that when the application was determined in 2013, the council were not in a situation where a planning balance test would need to be applied.

 

Following a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved: That the application be refused on the grounds that that the Local Planning Authority considers that the lack of affordable housing provision is an unacceptable adverse impact of the scheme, which significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the proposal contrary to paragraph 14, 47 and 50 of the NPPF.