Agenda item

Erection of 84 dwellings including all associated landscaping and infrastructure.

The Senior Planning Officer, Graham Blakey, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site previously and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of 84 dwellings including al associated landscaping and infrastructureand was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the Committee had previously considered an application for this site at meeting held on 12 September, with Members deciding to defer the application.  It was noted that further details had been received and the application was therefore back before Members for their consideration.

 

The Committee was asked to note a revised layout, incorporating 4 affordable homes, 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings.  Members noted no further layout changes.

 

It was explained that there had been no objections from internal or statutory consultees, subject to the conditions as set out.  The Senior Planning Officer explained there were 13 objections to the application, 3 of which had been after the last application, a 137 signature petition against the application, and a letter from the Local MP, Graham Morris raising concerns.  It was added that since the publication of the agenda papers, further representations had been made from some residents noting the development would create a “bottleneck” in terms of traffic along Manor Way and Eastfield.  The Senior Planning Officer noted letter of support had been received from the Head Teacher of Dene Primary School, noting improvements to access being welcomed.

 

Members noted that a noise impact assessment had been submitted by the applicant and Environmental Health were satisfied, subject to the conditions set out within the report.  It was added that in terms of the construction management plan, it was felt that on site crushing was not appropriate and therefore condition 11 would be amended to require further details.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that saved Easington District Plan policy support the application, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 14 test would apply in terms of a presumption in favour of sustainable benefit, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. 

It was added that Officers felt that when looking at the impact against the benefits of development that the application be recommended for approval, subject to amendment to condition 11.

 

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and all involved in updating the report, with the additional information and noted there were several speakers in relation to this item.  He asked Town Councillor, K Duffy from Peterlee Town Council to speak in objection to the application.

 

Town Councillor K Duffy noted that a County Council Overview and Scrutiny review on the issue of Part Time 20mph Speed Limits had identified measures to be implemented at Dene House Primary School, based upon accident statistics.  She added that if the application was granted then this would contradict the Council’s previous work and put lives at risk.

 

Town Councillor K Duffy noted that the NPPF was to be looked at if there was not an up-to-date local plan in place.  She explained that the Easington District Local Plan was the most up-to-date document, with the County Durham Plan (CDP) not being in place, and this was allowing the Council to be rode over roughshod.  Town Councillor K Duffy added that developers were taking advantage and riding over policy, Committees and residents.  She added that local people could see a need for 84 affordable homes.

 

Town Councillor K Duffy asked why would there not be one access from Yoden Way together with measures to reduce traffic, allow for parents going to the Primary school to park, and make Manor Way safer.  She added that also extending the 20mph zone along Manor Way would be beneficial.

 

Town Councillor K Duffy concluded by respectfully asking the Committee to refuse the application, and if Committee was minded to approve the application to then consider some of the alternatives as suggested.

 

The Chairman thanked Town Councillor K Duffy adding that he would make it clear that Durham County Council (DCC) did not put lives at risk and the Committee would not ride over views.  The Chairman asked Town Councillor T Duffy from Peterlee Town Council to speak in objection to the application.

 

Town Councillor T Duffy noted that at the last Committee meeting, Highways representatives had stated only 2 road accidents, however, www.crashmap.co.uk noted 17 in the last 5 years, with one in November 2015 resulting in a wall being demolished, with the damage being visible when Members visited the site prior to the last meeting.  He added that this figure did not include the data for 2017, and noted 2 people had been injured in this area.  Town Councillor T Duffy noted these were not simply statistics, they were facts.  He noted he felt that new traffic would have a severe impact.

 

Town Councillor T Duffy asked why green space bordering Eastfield was included as part of the build site, and noted he was worried that this was an oversight and could lead to the loss of amenity use of this area.

 

Town Councillor T Duffy noted that paragraph 62 of the report noted the developer’s initial proposals had incorporated drop off facilities, though this was rejected on the basis it was not Council policy in terms of the Sustainable Travel Plan, and asked how come there was a significant dropping off facility at Shotton Hall Academy.  

 

Town Councillor T Duffy added that there was reference to Policy P9 of the Easington District Local Plan, noting mixed use and housing allocations, however this application was not for 79 houses and a car park, it was now for 84 houses with no car park.  He added that while paragraph 63 of the report referred to cardiovascular benefits of walking or cycling to school, he felt this was ironic when the houses were to be built upon a sports field. 

 

Town Councillor T Duffy noted the mention of the Authority not being able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, however, with the new “Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places” Housing White Paper consultation document, it was stated that the Authority could demonstrate a supply in excess of 5 years.  He added that he felt that the Easington District Local Plan was not out of date and therefore the saved plan could be afforded weight, especially in terms of Policy P9, and therefore he requested that Members deny the permission.

 

The Chairman thanked Town Councillor T Duffy and asked Ms N Rashid, local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Ms N Rashid noted there were numerous issue in relation to the application site and that the conditions attached were extensive and amendments had been made to the application suggested that the development itself was unsuitable, being adjacent to a main road and therefore she objected in principle to the application.

 

Ms N Rashid noted firstly that the traffic assessment was a statistical analysis and had stated less than 30 vehicles an hour, however she felt the human experience was very different and that the number was a gross underestimate.  She added that the total input of traffic including from the town centre would lead to congestion later and be counter-productive.

 

Ms N Rashid added that NPPF Part 7 noted a safe environment and a sense of place, however the development could benefit from a better route into the school, and she added it was felt this could be achieved.  She added that all the potential benefits were lost, with drop off points for the school being essential.  It was noted that the development would also create a child population of over 100 with a potential adverse impact noting existing issues in terms of egg and stone throwing at vehicles.  Ms N Rashid noted in the past she had been victim of racial abuse and this was very distressing and, while not prejudging the calibre of people that may move to a new development, it could prove to be problematic.

 

Ms N Rashid noted that there was a risk in relation to contaminated land at the site, close to the sustainable drainage measures, and this would need to be addressed.

 

 

Ms N Rashid concluded by noting that the inclusion of a Travel Plan was positive, however, congestion was still likely to occur, and that she felt Members should discard the application on green belt as all other development sites in Peterlee had not been looked.    

 

The Chairman thanked Ms N Rashid and asked Councillor A Laing, Local Member, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that objections were in relation to Part 4 of the NPPF, in terms of sustainable transport, paragraphs 29, 30 and 32, with paragraph 29 noting a need to contribute to wider sustainability and health objectives.  Councillor A Laing noted that this development would reduce the contribution and therefore there needed to be a balance in terms of sustainable transport modes and choice.  She added in terms of paragraph 30, and the need to reduce greenhouses gasses and pollution, Local Authorities should encourage sustainable transport and the report did not indicate how this would be set out in terms of reducing motor car use.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that paragraph 32 set out the need for a transport plan, looking to see if sustainable transport modes had been taken on board.  She added that the NPPF set out that “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”.  Councillor A Laing added that the site was bounded by housing and the school on 2 sides, and a supermarket development would be taking place opposite to the site.  She noted that this would lend itself to being an attractive parking option for people and that the allocation of parking and the amount of through traffic had not been dealt with as there were no plans for transport or access improvement.  She concluded by noting should the development go ahead, it would be the biggest car park in Peterlee.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor A Laing and asked Mr A Willis of Signet Planning, to speak in support to the application.

 

Mr A Willis referred to policy and recent case law and noted that the Officer’s report was a balanced and very well considered document.  He added he agreed with most of the report, though not all, and referred to a recent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate as regards development at Dalton Heights, Dalton-le-Dale and Government’s concerns as regards housing need.  He added that the Inspector had noted limited weight while Government was consulting on housing need.

 

Mr A Willis added that paragraph 92 of the report noted that Easington District Local Plan Policy P9 was not considered up-to-date in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 14, and the issues in terms of parking provision and housing land were set out and the application was consistent with Government policy.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr A Willis, adding the Committee was not considering the Dalton Heights application, rather the one as set out in the agenda papers.  The Chairman asked Mr I Prescott of the Durham Villages Regeneration Company (DVRC) to speak in support of the application.

 

 

Mr I Prescott noted issues that had been raised when the application was previously considered by Committee had included 2 main areas: affordable housing, which he noted the track record of DVRC in this regard, and the inclusion of units within this application; and traffic safety. 

 

Mr I Prescott noted that the emphasis at Keepmoat and DVRC was on health and safety, being an item at all meetings, and that safety was the number one issue.  He gave an example of the extensive training received by staff in relation to this, including mock court cases.  Members were informed that it was in this background of health and safety that the application had been made, with the scheme being through many iterations to design out any potential issues, working with the Council, Planners, Highways and Sustainable Travel to develop the scheme.  It was added that the safety issues had been addressed, and that there were many benefits to the scheme in addition to housing provision, such as employment and training opportunities.  Mr I Prescott noted the issue in terms of a dog walking area, and added that work had been undertaken with the school to help in terms of the health and safety issues they faced. 

 

Mr I Prescott concluded by noting that they had listened to concerns and listened to the school and urge Members to do the same and approve the application.

 

The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked the Senior Planning Officer to address the issues raised.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted Local Plan Policies were used as the County Durham Plan (CDP) was not in place, and the issues in relation to highways, with lengthy debate with the Highways Section, were set out within the report.  In terms of the open space at the south, this would not be fenced off and would remain open space.  In terms of sustainability it was added, as set out within the report, that the area had good transport links, with Peterlee town centre, as well as links through to Sunderland.

 

 

Councillor A Laing left the meeting at 1.35pm

and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

The Chairman asked for Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor J Robinson thanked Officers for information in relation to the Government’s Housing White Paper and for being in attendance at Committee.  Councillor J Robinson noted he did not support the application, having asked for deferment when the application was considered previously.  He noted he attended the site and over the period between 13:15 to 13:55 he noted 197 cars, many of which he considered to be speeding.  He added that he believed noise would be an issue and admission of a need for noise mitigation on a night was to admit there was a need during the day also.

 

Councillor J Robinson noted the issues in terms of 5 year housing supply, and NPPF paragraph 14, and the issues of sustainable transport as raised by the speakers, including Councillor A Laing.  He congratulated the developer in respect of the addition of 4 affordable homes within the scheme.

 

Councillor J Clark noted she concurred with the sentiments of Councillor J Robinson, adding that the Electoral Division she represented, Horden, adjoined the division the application fell within.  She added that there was an abundance of affordable housing within Horden and added that while a dog walking area was nice, it was likely the cemetery area would be used in this regard.  Councillor J Clark noted that Peterlee, similar to other “new towns” in the area, such as Newton Aycliffe had been designed with the open spaces, deliberately left as green areas for residents.  She added that these spaces were being cherry-picked and taken away.

 

The Chairman asked if any Members wished to make a proposal in terms of the application.

 

Councillor K Hawley proposed that the application be rejected, the Chairman asked on what grounds, Councillor K Hawley noted on failing to meet the 10% affordable housing policy.  The Chairman asked if there was a seconder, no Member responded.  Councillor J Robinson noted he would like to support refusal, though would ask for advice from the Solicitor.  The Solicitor - Planning and Development, noted that if Members wished to refuse the application on highways grounds, his advice was the same as it was at the last Committee when considering the application for this site.  He added that his professional opinion was that those would not be sustainable reasons for refusal, however, it was for Members to decide.  The Chairman noted it was for Members to give the reasons to propose a decision.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted the issues that had been raised, many raised at the previous Committee, and while the school had an opinion on the issues, he could see that there was potential for exacerbation of problems, however the Committee did not have a crystal ball.  He added he accepted the opinions of the Highways and Planning Officers, as well as the Solicitor - Planning and Development, and therefore would propose that the application be approved.  Councillor D Freeman seconded the application.  Upon a vote being taken, the motion was lost.

 

The Chairman noted that the matter was back in the hands of Committee to determine.

 

Councillor J Robinson noted he felt, regrettably, that the professional view of Officers had to be respected in this instance.  The Chairman noted he was in favour of Members debating an application and the issue, all having a fair say, however it was for the Committee to come to a decision on an application, making a case for refusal that could be defended if called-in to an appeal.

 

Councillor S Iveson noted she had listened to the debate and while here instincts were to say refuse, she could not see any planning reasons for refusal.

Councillor M Davinson proposed that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor D Freeman.  Councillor D Freeman added that if the Committee were to propose rejecting the application, there was a need to cite policy grounds, and he hoped that the public understood this position.  He noted that it would be a bad position if development was refused and easily overturned at an appeal.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.

 

 

Councillor A Laing entered the meeting at 1.50pm.