Agenda item

23 no. bungalows for the over 55's.

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter, 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 application was an outline application for 23no. bungalows for the over 55’s and was recommended for refusal.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application had been deferred by Committee at its meeting in July, to allow for more information to be obtained in terms of highways issues, noise and drainage.  It was added that this information had been now been received.

Members noted that no objections had been raised by statutory consultees, and in terms of internal consultees there was an objection from the Landscape Section in respect of development in the greenbelt.  The Senior Planning Officer noted 1 letter of objection and that Brandon and Byshottles Parish Council had indicated that they fully supported the development.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the application was for development in the greenbelt and local and national policy noted that this type of development was not acceptable.  It was added that similar application in 2014 had been refused and an appeal of the decision at the Planning Inspectorate was dismissed.  He noted that nothing material had changed since that decision and therefore it was concluded that the proposed development in the greenbelt was harmful and therefore contrary to Policy E1 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 9 of the NPPF and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

The Chairman noted Local Member, Councillor J Chaplow was unable to attend the Committee to speak; however, the Committee Services Officer would read out a statement on her behalf:

“I am sorry I can’t attend today’s Planning Committee because of a Mayoral engagement.  I should be pleased if you could make the Committee aware of the following.

Myself and residents in Ushaw Moor believe there is a need for bungalows for our elderly residents.  These residents do not want to move away from family and friends whom they have known all their life, and welcome any development which can offer better independent living.

There are often incidences where the elderly are having to live in two and three bedroom houses, and having to pay for stair lifts to try and keep their independence.  The charges for these residents are as follows: Rent for house £82.50 per week; Durham Care £4.50 per week; Stairlift - £6.00 per week.

There are elderly residents that have small pensions, and have to pay full rent.  Without a stair lift they have to use a commode, as they cannot easily access bathroom facilities, and they have unused bedroom space.  If these properties were “freed up” they could be used as family homes.

This land is classed as green belt; it is nothing more than scrub land, a place which is often dumped with rubbish.  The road at the back is a road to Bearpark Club, where a lot of elderly people go to play bingo.  This path will be kept in a better order than it is now.  If we can build houses on St Oswald’s golf course, build houses on Lambton Estate – surely this is also green belt?

The Parish Council approves of this scheme.  I ask that the Committee considers my community’s need for bungalows.  Thank you”.

The Chairman thanked the Committee Services Officer and it was noted that Councillor M Wilson, another Local Member had be in contact to note she too supported the Application.  It was noted that Parish Councillor, and Alderman, P Stoddart wished to speak in support of the application.

Parish Councillor P Stoddart thanked the Chairman and Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted this was not an ordinary planning application, it was about regeneration, and that he was devastated there was a recommendation for refusal.  Parish Councillor P Stoddart noted that Ushaw Moor needed regeneration, with former regeneration, such as the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) funds having previously been used for a flagship housing estate, 147 houses on greenbelt land.

He added that previous development had allowed people to move into, and back to the area, putting the life back into the village.  He noted that since the economic downturn regeneration had slowed, however, Ushaw Moor needed bungalows and not a rubbish tip.  Parish Councillor P Stoddart explained that he welcomed a small, quality application and appealed to the Committee to give the village a lifeline, and support the application to regenerate the village.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor P Stoddart and asked Mr G Hodgson, Agent for the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

Mr G Hodgson thanked the Committee and noted the local planning authority’s recommendation for refusal, with the application site being within the greenbelt.  HE acknowledged that the application was with greenbelt; however, the question was of benefit weighed against the need for such types of bungalows.  He noted that greenbelt had been established to help to prevent urban sprawl and this was not going to be the case with this particular development, with sufficient distance to the neighbouring village of Bearpark.  It was added that the proposal was in-fill at Ushaw Moor, not creep to Bearpark.

Mr G Hodgson explained the application comprised of 22 semi-detached dwellings and 1 single dwelling, with the footprint being such to all allow for full wheelchair access, similar to developments carried out by the Durham Aged Mineworkers’ Homes Association (DAMHA).  It was added there would be plenty of parking in addition, a community garden, landscaping and trees.

Mr G Hodgson noted that the site experienced many incidents of fly-tipping, with approximately 20 tonnes of waste tipped, a burden on the Local Authority.  It was noted that there was use of the site by motorcycle users, with the landowner being unable to stop this and therefore it was felt development was the best solution in order to solve these issues of fly-tipping and anti-social motorcycle use.

Mr G Hodgson noted that the application had the support of the local MP, Parish Council and local Divisional Councillors, with the MP having wrote to the Council’s Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services to look to remove the land from the greenbelt when looking at the County Durham Plan.

Mr G Hodgson noted that he felt an exception could be made in this regard, with the ecology of the site being poor, Highways having no objections, and the local planning authority having noted the site was sustainable in terms of links to local facilities and infrastructure.  Mr G Hodgson concluded by asking that Committee approve the application.

The Chairman thanked M G Hodgson and asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions on the application, noting it was recommended for refusal.

Councillor M Davinson asked if Officers could help Members by fleshing out the issues in terms of “greenbelt” and the Landscape Officer’s objections. 

Councillor D Freeman noted he found this issue quite difficult as he would like to support the application, based on what Parish Councillor P Stoddart had said and the sentiments of local Members, however, the site was within the greenbelt.  He added he had spoken against the refusal mentioned in 2014, and that appeal had subsequently been lost at the Planning Inspectorate.  He noted unfortunately nothing had changed and while he saw the benefits to development, they did not outweigh the harm to the greenbelt and therefore he would propose that the application be refused.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Landscape Officer had assessed the land and the impact in terms of development, with paragraph 47 stated “that the proposals would have some adverse landscape and visual effects”.  He noted this was slightly different to the reasons for the refusal recommendation, with the reasons being the development would be contrary to national and local principles.

Councillor G Bleasdale moved that the application be refused; she was seconded by Councillor K Hawley.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED.