Agenda item

DM/17/01950/FPA - Manor Way, Peterlee

Erection of 84 dwellings including all associated landscaping and infrastructure.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer, Graham Blakey regarding the proposed erection of 84 dwellings including all associated landscaping and infrastructure (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. Members had also visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the setting and surroundings.

 

Councillor A Laing, Local Member addressed the Committee to speak against the proposals.  She reported that she had been since 1981, a school governor and local member in this area. During this time there had been increasing problems with car parking in and around the school grounds leading to congestion and delays for road users. There were concerns that should the development be permitted these problems would be exacerbated.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that over the last 3 months she had driven along the road to the T Junction and had waited up to 11 minutes trying to get out.  She added that there was the Eastfields Estate next to the site and she felt that this would be overwhelmed with traffic if the application went ahead.  She noted she agreed with the objections received by the public, page 30, paragraph 52 of the report.  Councillor A Laing added she referred to Easington District Local Plan (EDLP) Policy P9 (iii) which specifically stated that land should be set aside for car parking linked to the school as a drop off pick up point and that if the application was successful there should be a condition that this would be observed as there was no current proposal to do this.

 

Councillor A Laing added that the matter for material consideration is that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF encourages the provision of affordable housing based on evidenced need.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that Local Authorities were required to plan for a mix of housing, where affordable housing is needed a policy for meeting this need is established.  She added that for Peterlee the up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment by the Council has established a requirement of 10% and Councillor A Laing noted that this afternoon colleagues were being asked to agree a development that not only falls short of that level but also includes no affordable housing at all.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that Members all served in areas which are in need of affordable housing.  She added that Members were all acutely aware of the housing needs of those who are less well off in our communities and in this matter the NPPF agrees with us when it is encouraging us to agree to planning applications which include the provision.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that the Committee should reject the application on the basis of Paragraph 50 of the NPPF in as much as the absence of affordable housing weights against this application in the planning balance.  Councillor A Laing noted throughout the whole planning procedure she had constantly opposed this development and she fully supported the views and the objections of the Dene House Ward.

 

 

 

Councillor L Fenwick, Peterlee Town Council addressed the Committee to speak against the proposals. She advised that the application did not have the support of residents. She referred to arrangements for handover of children at school, noting that this was done at the door by parents, which meant that they would need to park up for a period of up to 10 minutes or more during drop off and pick up times. The additional traffic created from 84 dwellings would cause significant issues and result in road users attempting to take short cuts to avoid traffic and thus imposing risk to pedestrians.

 

Councillor T Duffy, Peterlee Town Council addressed the Committee to speak against the proposals. Mr Duffy advised that 2,100 new homes were planned to be built in Peterlee in the near future filling in green spaces and extending the boundaries so that they would eventually meet with neighbouring villages.

Residents had serious concerns as to how the existing infrastructure would stand up to increased usage, noting that the local MP and the Police Crime and Victims Commissioner were all acutely aware of the parking issues in the area. He further explained that as already mentioned by Councillor Laing, EDLP Policy 9 (iii) specifies that a car park should be provided within the curtilage of the site to alleviate on-street parking problems. This had not been mentioned in the planning report.

 

Mrs K Duffy, local resident addressed the committee to speak against the proposals noting concerns relating to increased volumes of traffic, highways safety issues relating to primary school children and the impact it could potentially have on emergency vehicles due to access issues and parked cars.

 

She further commented that there were concerns regarding land contamination and assessment of the suitability of the land for housing development. In conclusion she reiterated the concerns of residents noting that it was also important that the green space was maintained in order to retain the division of Horden settlement.

 

As a point of order and in relation to comments made, the Chairman advised that there would be no bias in this Chamber and Members would judge the application based upon policy and principles outlined in the NPPF only.

 

Councillor A Laing, in declaring her interest at this point left the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

In relation to comments made the Senior Planning Officer advised that the issue of affordable homes came down to the viability of the proposals and the resultant value obtained for the land. On that basis, the developer has demonstrated that they cannot construct any affordable housing on the site. Regarding comments made relating to safety around the school area, he noted that there had been no objections received from the schools.

 

Further to concerns raised regarding high safety issues, including accessibility for emergency vehicles, the Highways Development Manager advised that during peak times it was expected that the 84 dwellings would create approximately 55 trips. The numbers quoted by objectors were non-typical for a housing development of this size. He further provided clarification regarding flow of traffic towards Eastfields.

With regard to highway safety, he reported that traffic and accident statistics showed that there was no real problem in this area, with very low levels of collisions for the network. In conclusion he advised that parking proposals were designed to council standards and the proposed road widths were also suitable in size for emergency services vehicles.

 

Mr Prescott, Keepmoat Homesaddressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. He advised that a lot of consultation with residents had been undertaken locally highlighting overriding concerns of highway safety. He advised that proposals would eliminate existing issues relating to school buses and would not create further issues than which already existed at school pick up and drop off times. In addition, proposals had the support of the fire brigade, local schools and highway engineers.

 

With regard to the issue of lack of affordable housing he reiterated that should a 106 condition be imposed, the scheme would be unviable.

 

Councillor J Robinson raised concerns regarding housing supply and issues regarding outdated policies contained within the Easington Local Plan. With regard to highway issues he added that the Aldi development would cause further impact on this stretch of highway and noted that although the level of recorded traffic incidents was low, this did not include accidents where police had not been called. He also told of his concerns regarding noise levels from increased traffic and the impact this would have on residents. He further added that further explanation regarding 106 monies was required.

 

He further pointed out that should the A19 be closed this stretch of highway was the only route into Peterlee.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided clarification regarding the proposed conditions relating to contaminated land, remediation and the councils 5-year housing land supply. With regard to issues raised relating to lack of s106 monies, he noted that this linked to the viability of the scheme, advising that Durham Villages Regeneration Company had satisfactorily demonstrated to the Council that affordable housing could not be secured in this case.

 

Lengthy discussion ensued regarding proposals made by Members to refuse the application based on EDLP Policies 37, 50 and 90 and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The Solicitor advised Members that it would be difficult for the Committee to justify refusal on the basis of highway safety given that this was completely at odds with advice given from highway professionals. Equally, government guidance was clear that the Council should not be asking for affordable housing obligations where this would make the development unviable.  Therefore, refusal on these grounds would be likely to expose the Council to a risk of costs on appeal.

 

On the basis of advice provided Councillor J Robinson moved that the application be deferred for further consideration. Councillor J Clark seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be DEFERRED.

 

Supporting documents: