Agenda item

Outline all matters reserved except access for construction of 12 no. dwellings including demolition of farm buildings.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application, all matters reserved except access, for the construction of 12 dwellings, including the demolition of farm buildings, at Green View Lodge, Hamsterley (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

T Burnham, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site photographs and indicative site layout plan.  Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that tree preservation orders had been recently served on some trees on the site.

 

Councillor H Smith, local Member, addressed the Committee in support of the application.  The application was to build 12 houses, including 2 affordable homes, on a site that was currently a pig farm.  The siting of a pig farm in the middle of a village, next to the primary school and the village Social Club was a most unsuitable site.  However, it had been there many years, and was under new ownership in the last 2 years.   If it was to continue as a pig farm the buildings and equipment required major expense to update them.

 

The pig farm was not popular with local people.  Local residents complained about the smell from the farm, which they said had adverse effects on their health and lifestyle.  The council’s environmental health department had received complaints about the smell and had investigated.  The smell varied from day to day, and at times had been so strong that the school children were unable to play outside.  Councillor Smith lived in the village and on certain days the smell was very noticeable at her house some 500 yards away.

 

The prospect of the development on the pig farm was popular with local people.  The applicants distributed a leaflet to residents and received almost universally positive responses, with several people asking if they could put their name down to buy one of the proposed properties.  Councillor Smith had not spoken to anyone who was not in favour of it.

 

Rural communities needed new housing, especially affordable housing, to encourage local young people to stay in the village or new families to move there.  Without that they risked atrophy.

 

Part 6 of the NPPF said that “Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, and widen the opportunity for home ownership to create sustainable, mixed, inclusive communities.”  The proposed development would do just that.  It also stated that “housing should be sited where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”.  This would fulfil that too.  Its proximity to an excellent primary school would be attractive to young families.

 

NPPF Part 7 required good design in new building and in Councillor Smith’s view these houses would be sympathetically designed to fit into the village landscape.

 

Part 8 said that “Local Planning Authorities should create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see”. 

Local people wished to see this development built.

 

The Hamsterley Parish Council raised some concerns about the access road and the risk of accidents, but the Highways Officer did not consider the access detrimental to highway safety.  They also raised a concern about parking congestion because of the proximity to the school.  However, the proposed dwellings, which were adjacent to the school, would have designated parking spaces within the development so there would be no need for their cars to be parked outside the school.

 

The other local Parish Council, that of South Bedburn, was in favour of the development and indeed would like more affordable homes.

 

The site was stated to be of low ecological value.

 

The weight being placed on the saved Teesdale Policy ENV1 was an issue for debate.  The report stated that the policy was considered out of date in relation to housing supply.  The traditional settlement boundaries of Hamsterley were a linear village along the main road, but planning permission for several houses had been given for building behind the main line of housing along Saunders Avenue, creating a second row in a few places, so the precedent had been set.

 

If the secondary aim of the saved policy ENV1 was to “protect the value and character of the countryside” then this was a matter of interpretation.  The area in dispute was the part of the field to the west of the pig houses which was currently overgrown and unutilised.  The planning officer felt that the applicant had understated the value of this land in terms of visual amenity, while the applicant’s view was the opposite, and that the value of this piece of land was overstated in the planning report.  Having visited the site this was for Members of the Committee to decide.

 

The creation of an access road into the development would require the loss of a very small portion of village green.  The planning report said that the “effect on a section of the village green would have a materially harmful impact on the character and appearance of the village”.  Having visited the village the Committee would have seen the extensive areas of village green on both sides of the road that would be completely unaffected by this access road and the loss of what amounts to a few square metres of grass.

 

Councillor Smith supported this development, not just as a county councillor, but also as a resident of Hamsterley, and she believed the vast majority of village residents did.   Without new development villages withered.  Without new housing local young people had to move away and local facilities, and especially the school, had an uncertain future.

 

This development was needed, was in the right place, the design was sympathetic to the village location, the effect on the visual amenity of the local, rural landscape was not detrimental, and the obstacles could be overcome.  Councillor Smith asked the Committee to approve the application.

 

Mr Betney, applicant, addressed the Committee.  The current location of the pig farm in the middle of the village was far from ideal.  He and his two sons wanted to continue farming and the money which would be realised from the development would be re-invested in the farm.

 

Mr Lavender, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  Mr Lavender informed the Committee that the report on the application contained inaccuracies.  The report referred to the settlement boundaries of Hamsterley, yet settlement boundaries were now outdated and not valid.  There was no reference in the report to the public consultation exercise which had taken place, the response to which was highly supportive for the proposed development, and the Working Men’s Club which was at the entrance of the development site also raised no objection.

 

Paragraph 70 of the report referred to the access road to the proposed development which it stated would be unlike any other residential access in the village.  However, the access road would be the same as that to Bedburn Road some 100 metres away.

 

The benefits of the proposed development would outweigh any impacts of it, with an offensive pig farm being replaced by housing.

 

Mr Lavender was aghast to learn that a tree preservation order had been served on trees on the proposed development site.  He had no knowledge of this and had not been informed of it some three days ago when discussing the application with planning officers.  Tree preservation orders should not be used as a means of preventing development.

 

Mr Lavender informed the Committee that the applicant had no issue with the provision of two affordable dwellings at a price appropriate to the Local Planning Authority.  The development of only the pig farm area of the site was not financially viable for Mr Betney’s future farm plans and this was the reason for including part of the adjoining field in the application.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked whether the Council was aware of the public consultation exercise, the reason for the serving of tree preservation orders and whether the price of affordable housing was determined by the housing market in the area or a price determined by the planning authority.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that it was accepted the consultation exercise had taken place and this was for Members to consider.  The tree preservation order had recently been served not with the purpose of preventing development but in an attempt to retain some of the existing planting to assist in bedding the development into the landscape.  Hamsterley was an area of relatively high property values and there had been no formal indication that the developer would be willing to meet the County’s maximum affordable price of £96,500 for the 2 affordable units.

 

Councillor Nicholson reminded the Committee that the loss of the village green was outside of the planning application and was not a planning consideration.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that, while the application involved the loss of a small section of village green, this would not be a reason to withhold planning permission and was a matter for the applicant to deal with.

 

Councillor Nicholson sought clarification from the applicant whether the provision of two affordable housing units at £96,500 per unit would allow the development to remain viable.  Mr Lavender replied that the applicant had been advised of the County Council’s calculation used to determine the price of affordable housing, and although the figure used in the viability statement had been higher than £96,500, the development would be viable using this price.  Mr Lavender sought clarity on who the tree preservation order had been served on because his client was unaware of it.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the tree preservation order had been served on the owner of the site, Mr Betney.

 

Councillor Shuttleworth informed the Committee that it had a duty to allow villages to expand.  This development would be good for the village of Hamsterley, had attracted no objections and was supported by the local Member.  Councillor Shuttleworth moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Patterson expressed surprise that the consultation exercise had not been mentioned in the report.  Land ownership was not an issue for the Committee to consider.  There was also no mention of the tree preservation order in the report.  The application would bring with it a s106 contribution of £20,665 as well as affordable housing.  Councillor Patterson did not consider that the negative impact of the development was considered to outweigh the benefits of it and seconded approval of the application.

 

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that he had good local knowledge of the area.  The application was an opportunity for the pig farm, which currently had buildings in a bad state of repair, to move from its current location.  Currently the location of the pig farm necessitated the moving of pig slurry on a daily basis through Hamsterley village using a large vehicle, which gave local people the perception of speed.  The village green had been given its status in the 1950’s/1960’s and all green areas in the village had been thus designated.  This had subsequently caused problems in the village.  The current access to the farm buildings was across tarmac which was designated as village green.  This application was a chance to improve the village and remove smells/flies which had, on occasion, caused pupils at the school to be kept indoors.

 

Councillor Atkinson informed the Committee that he was surprised at the recommendation that he application be refused, more so after visiting the site.  The benefits of the application outweighed the disadvantages, the benefits being the provision of affordable homes and local support for the development.  The development would be a benefit to the whole village.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he considered the officer’s recommendation should be overturned and the application be approved.  In agricultural villages it was not unknown for farms and housing to be near to each other, however, settlements changed and local support could not be ignored.  The current usage of the site seemed to be anti-social.

 

Although the loss of village green would only be of a few square metres, village green was very important and did not need to be grass.  However, this was not a planning consideration.  Councillor Clare expressed concern that the development, which was at right angles to the village, would break the linear pattern of the village.  The application was in outline and Councillor Clare hoped that the applicant would listen carefully to officers regarding access at reserved matters.

 

Councillor Clare considered that when applying the planning balance, the application should be approved rather than refused.  Councillor Clare referred to the following paragraphs in the report as reasons for approval of the application:

·         Paragraphs 65 and 87 – more emphasis should be placed on the benefits of the removal of the pig farm;

·         Paragraph 67 – the description of the field next to the pig farm was overenthusiastic;

·         Paragraph 83 – the land was a low value site;

·         Paragraph 36 – referred to trees on the site being of good value, yet Paragraph 68 reported they were category B and C.

 

C Cuskin, Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee that if it was to approve the application then details of the Conditions and the Section 106 agreement would need to be agreed, and sought authority for this to be undertaken by Planning Officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee.  The reasons for approving the application were that it would boost the supply of homes in the village and would remove the pig farm from the centre of the village.  The benefits were considered to outweigh any detrimental impact.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application be approved and that details of the Conditions and the Section 106 agreement be delegated to Planning Officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee.