Agenda item

Development of 10 no. 3 Bedroom 5 Person 2 Storey Houses with associated car parking, landscaping and new adopted highway.

The Team Leader - Central and East, Alan Dobie 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 Team Leader - Central and East advised the application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee and that Members of the Committee had visited the site previously and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for development of 10 no. 3 bedroom houses with associated car parking, landscaping and new adopted highway and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and s106 agreements.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East explained that the main concerns raised at the last meeting had related to highways issues, including access to the nearby primary school.  He added that the Highways Section had looked at the road network around the site and noted that there was more than a single access to the school, with the Highway Development Manager to elaborate on this further.

 

The Committee noted housing to two sides of the site, with a former depot to the south of the site.  Members were asked to note the proposed layout and access to the site, with 2 semi-detached properties each side of the access and with 6 semi-detached properties along the south of the site for a total of 10 properties.  Members were shown elevations of the 3 house types proposed, noting all were semi-detached and two storey.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East explained there had been no objections from statutory or internal consultees.  It was noted that 37 letters of objection had been received, objections from Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish Council and objections from the Bowburn and Parkhill Community Partnership.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted the site was in a sustainable location, that it would help contribute to the five year supply of housing land and that all the required separation distances were met.  Members noted that since the last meeting, a further site visit with Officers from Planning and Highways had taken place with Local Members at peak school time, 3.00pm on a Friday.  Councillors noted that further assessment had identified three main routes to the primary school, with one of them going past the application site along Surtees Avenue.  It was noted that the Highways Officer’s professional view was that the application would not be prejudicial to road safety and therefore the application was satisfactory in highway terms. 

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted that Councillor J Blakey had supplied some photographs showing flooding issues at a nearby site and that these would be shown on screen while the Local Member spoke on the application.  It was explained that the recommendation from Officers was for approval on the basis that the site was sustainable, was not allocated as open space in the Local Plan, and Officers felt that there would not be an adverse impact in terms of visual amenity.  The Team Leader - Central and East reiterated that the Highways Manager had made no objections, and was happy in terms of the arrangements for parking and access.  It was added that the Drainage Officer had made no objections and there would be s106 agreements in terms of open space and recreational facilities in the locality; and a financial contribution towards public art in the locality.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East concluded by noting that the application had been considered in terms of the balance test contained in Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Officers felt that the planning permission should be granted as the adverse impacts of the development did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 

 

The Chairman thanked the Team Leader - Central and Eastand noted there were several speakers in relation to this item.  He asked Local Member, Councillor S Dunn to speak in objection to the application.

 

Councillor S Dunn thanked the Chairman and noted that the report stated the application had been considered under Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and that paragraph 53 or the original report started that the adverse impacts of the development did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  He added that he would assert that the application did not meet the test of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, and that the significant concerns did outweigh the benefits, as demonstrated by the 37 letter of objection and many more who had not written in, however, they having made their feelings on the matter known to Local Members.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that the report stated that there would be no adverse impact on amenity, however, he explained that the site was used by young children to play and was one of the few remaining green spaces within the village that had not been built on.  He reiterated that he did not agree with the reports’ assertion as regards Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

 

He thanked Officers from the Planning and Highways Teams for coming out on site again to meet with Local Members.  He added that he felt the traffic was particularly quiet on this day and added that Officers would likely have to agree that the road along Surtees Avenue was indeed narrow.  Councillor S Dunn noted that there were really only two alternatives in terms of access to the primary school, being Lawson Road and Surtees Avenue.  He explained that Surtees Avenue ran up from the main road, and would be the more likely choice for those trying to get to the 240 place school.  He added that from approximately March 2018, there were plans to turn the school to a 540 place school and would be the third largest primary school in County Durham. 

 

 

He noted there was the other route, via Lawson Avenue, however taking into account the Integra 61 development of 240 houses, and a 190 houses for a site at Parkhill, together with another potential 600 properties via permissions, then this could present a problem if accessing the school by car, the school perhaps requiring an alternative access.  Councillor S Dunn noted the application for the school was not being considered yet, however, noted that it would likely be soon.  

 

Councillor S Dunn noted he did not feel that paragraph 74 of the report addressed the issues of highway safety in respect of a lot of children coming down Surtees Avenue, adding that while it would be hoped that any new residents would walk their children to the school, some may choose to drive.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted the s106 contributions were welcomed, however, he hoped that the Developer would look at alternative sites, with some at Croxdale and some at Kelloe, adding that the Developer had stated the former being more expensive and the latter being a less desirable site.  

 

He concluded by noting that it was felt that it was the wrong application for the wrong site and the objections raised were significant in terms of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the Committee should reject the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor S Dunn and asked Councillor J Blakey to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor J Blakey noted she would add more details, further to her comments at the last meeting.  She referred to a copy of the Village Masterplan, prepared by the former City of Durham Council, adding that it still had weight.  It noted that there were grounds for objection in that the Masterplan stated that regeneration should be in terms of sustainable, vibrant communities.  She added that this would include places for small children to play and would not involve having them to walk some distance to the park. 

 

Councillor J Blakey added that, in terms of the economy and the number of new build schemes, there was one particular site where 26 of the 49 properties were empty and added she felt this spoke as regards the issues in terms of property sales.  She added that having a lot of empty properties was not the way to help keep communities together. 

 

In relation to the environment, Councillor J Blakey explained she had been working over the last 9 years in terms of Northumbrian Water and the Highways and Drainage Teams on the issue of flooding.  She referred to photographs showing the extent of recent flooding, the week after the previous Planning Committee.  She explained how water had entered the Youth Club and Community Centre damaging a sprung floor, with potentially thousands of pounds worth of damage.  Councillor J Blakey explained how this was not the first time such flooding had occurred, rather it had occurred 5 times over the last 9 years.  She added that until the issues with the drain were resolved that it would likely reoccur, and any additional water entering the drain would likely add to the problems. 

 

Councillor J Blakey added that the “Daisy Field” site had required the developer to include a “slow down drain” prior to entering the main drain, however, this did not appear to be working.  Councillor J Blakey referred to recent press articles relating to a failure to identify flooding risks.

 

Councillor J Blakey noted that just below this application site, the former Mabey Hire depot, had previously been granted permission for 39 houses, and this brownfield site should be brought forward as residents would be happy to see it developed rather than a greenfield site.  Councillor J Blakey concluded by noting that she would ask the Committee to refuse the application on the basis of the impact upon the whole community.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor J Blakey and asked Councillor M McKeon to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor M McKeon noted that she did have much to add to that already said by Councillors S Dunn and J Blakey other than to note than in addition to the plans for the school to increase to 540 pupils, there were also plans for a nursery, for children starting at age 2 and therefore there would be an associated increase in numbers at the school site, and it was likely that those with very young children would find it easier to drive to the site than walk.  She added that a small development could have the potential to have knock on effects and it would be a detriment if the school development was endangered.

 

Councillor M McKeon added that as a young person she was very keen on the rent-to-buy schemes and new properties aimed to enable people to get a foot on to the housing market.  However, she noted that there was a place for such development and it was not at this site, the wrong site for the local community.  She added that Members had worked with the County Durham Housing Group to look at other sites in Croxdale, Kelloe and Bowburn however were told that those site were not financially viable.  Councillor M McKeon noted her surprise of the inclusion of s106 agreements for financial contributions included within this application, adding that these contributions could have been put to use in making another scheme elsewhere more viable.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor M McKeon and asked Mrs J Carpenter and Ms E Pallister, local residents, to speak in objection to the application, having 5 minutes between them.

 

Mrs J Carpenter noted she objected on highway safety grounds, with Surtees Avenue being very narrow and with cars parked both sides.  She added that the site was close to the Bede Terrace junction and with vans parked the view is obstructed forcing drivers to pull out on the wrong side of the road, with the potential of driving into oncoming traffic, noting she had had a few near misses herself.  Mrs J Carpenter noted a collision on 12 May between the cars of parents of children attending the school, adding she felt Surtees Avenue was the main route to the school, and once the new school was developed there would be a significant increase in the traffic along this road.  She added that even if a new entrance was put in place, locals would still use Surtees Avenue to access the school. 

 

Mrs J Carpenter noted that she and her husband were worried as regards privacy, with their property backing on to the application site.  She explained that while Officers had stated that the application met the minimum separation distances, they felt that the proposed development would be a disruption to their lives. 

 

Mrs J Carpenter noted parking was an issue, especially at weekends, and explained that there could be potential issues as cars currently parked in an area that would be directly opposite the driveways of the proposed properties.  She added that she felt there would be increased noise levels affecting the neighbourhood with 30 or more additional vehicles.

 

Ms E Pallister noted that the loss of open space was contrary to City of Durham Saved Local Plan Policy E5a and would impact upon the character of the estate, with the site in question having been open space for the last 60 years, used by local people, including responsible dog walkers every day.  It was added that if people were not able to use or cross over the area of open space they would need to use a secluded path to the local park, not safe for young children.

 

Ms E Pallister noted that it had been mentioned that on a visit to the site it had not appeared as if the site had been used, however, just 48 hours prior to the visit the site had been used and played on and that if developed then local events and activities for family would not be able to go ahead.  She concluded by noting that Government had stated brownfield sites were preferable to greenfield sites and the former Mabey Hire depot, which had previously been granted permission for 39 houses, would be far more suitable, having a good access from the main road.

 

The Chairman thanked the Local Members and Residents and asked Mr J Brookes Agent for the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr J Brookes explained he was a Director with Indigo Planning, speaking on behalf of the applicant, the County Durham Housing Group.  He noted he had been tasked with reviewing the applicant’s proposals and had visited the site and reviewed the documentation and had spoken with the case officer, the Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter.

 

Mr J Brookes noted that in conclusion he had to agree with case officer’s recommendation for approval, noting the highways aspect had been assessed and the application had been considered in line with the development plan and the NPPF planning balance.  He added that the land did not have a protected status and the application sought to provide much need affordable housing, in a sustainable location surrounded by existing housing.

 

Mr J Brookes noted the open nature of the site would mean that construction vehicles and equipment could utilise the site itself and therefore this would cause significantly less disruption in the construction phase.  He added that s106 contributions of £20,570 would help with improvements to the local Bowburn Recreation ground, and a sum of £11,400 would be provided for public art in the area, with the County Durham Housing Group being happy to hear from residents with their ideas. 

 

Mr J Brookes explained that within the scheme there were 23 parking spaces for 10 properties, with only a loss of around 3 to 4 parking spaces in the area where the bell mouth of the access road would be constructed.

 

He noted that the Highways Section had noted 2 or 3 routes to access the local school, and that all the relevant planning legislation had been met in terms of the application, with neither the NPPF nor Development Plan resisting the application.  Mr J Brookes noted that he felt there were no policies to go against the presumption in favour of development and that the loss of a few parking spaces and a non-protected area of open space was not sufficient for the application to be refused.  He concluded by noting that therefore he felt the application should be approved and that if the application was refused and considered at an appeal he felt that it would be approved by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr J Brookes, however noted that the application was not at an appeal yet and was for consideration by the Committee today on the basis of the report and statements from the speakers.  The Chairman asked the Team Leader - Central and East if he could address the points made by the speakers.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted that while there may have been discussions in terms of other potential site for development, the application received was for this site and set out within the report.  He reiterated that the site did not have any protected status nor was it allocated as open space and accordingly the application had to be assessed on its own merits.  In respect of reference to other developments with empty properties and that in terms of developers submitting planning applications, the developers themselves must feel as if they can market those properties successfully.  In relation to the issue raised in terms of privacy, the Team Leader - Central and East agreed there would be a noticeable different when comparing the proposed development to an open space, however, it was reiterated that all the requisite separation distances had been met and therefore he did not feel there would have been grounds for Officers to recommend refusal on privacy grounds.  In terms of the flooding referred to by Councillor J Blakey, paragraph 79 of the report set out the views of the Drainage Officer, being satisfied with the proposed drainage measures.

 

The Highways Development Manager, J McGargill noted that Officers from the Highways Section had visited the site on a number of occasions and looking at the village of Bowburn in four quadrants, then the largest percentage would access the school via Tunstall Avenue and Edward Avenue and that there would not be a significant volume of traffic along Surtees Avenue as it was the more torturous route.  He added that a route via Prince Charles Avenue and Edward Avenue would be less torturous. 

 

The Highways Development Manager noted that if had been a refusal recommendation on highways grounds, there would need to be evidence to support this.  He noted there had not been traffic accidents at this part of the road, and while referred to as being narrow, the road was approximately 4.2 metres wide, wide enough for emergency vehicles to pass the parked cars. 

 

The Highways Development Manager noted the proposed development of 10 properties would generate 6 trips at peak times, however, the general migration would be towards the A177 and not towards the school.  He added that the number of trips equated to 1 every 10 minutes, imperceptible in terms of impact.

 

The Highways Development Manager explained that the proposed access to the site would not increase road safety issues and that the type of access was of a standard type that pedestrians would need to cross.  He noted the issues as described by local residents in terms of visibility, however, at slow speeds the standards required were achievable and therefore Highways had no objections to the application.  The Highways Development Manager concluded by noting that the parking to be provided on site was 2 per unit, with an additional 3 visitor spaces, which the residents opposite the site would have the opportunity to use, if the application was to be approved.

 

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

 

Councillor P Jopling asked where the photographs of the flooding were taken.  Councillor J Blakey noted that were at a location below the application site.

 

Councillor O Temple noted the original reason for the deferral of the application had been to look at the highways issues that had been raised, in the absence of a representative from the Highways Section at the last Committee.  He noted that 4.2m had been quoted as the width of the road at Surtees Avenue and that as many representations had been made that this was narrow, he asked whether this was the case.  The Highways Development Manager noted it was a standard width for this type of residential street and was not unusually narrow.

 

Councillor O Temple noted that the two main concerns had been highways issues and the loss of open space and asked if the slide with maps of the area could be displayed and the local park pointed out relative to the application site.  The relevant maps were displayed and the locations explained by Councillor J Blakey.

 

Councillor O Temple noted he felt conflicted as the road was narrow, however the development was small at only 10 houses and with a small amount of associated traffic as explained by the Highways Officer.  Accordingly, he felt that while the road was narrow, it was not sufficient to refuse the application and therefore he was moving towards the application being approved.  Councillor D Brown noted he would second the recommendation for approval, as the report had clearly set out answers to the queries raised by the Committee previously and he felt that there had been no material change since the last Committee.

 

Councillor O Temple proposed that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor D Brown. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of Section 106 Legal Agreements and the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.

 

 

Councillors J Clark and R Manchester entered the meeting at 1.45pm