Agenda item

Residential development of up to 66 dwellings with details of access (outline).

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 that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for residential development of up to 66 dwellings with details of access (outline) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted there were a lot of objections, including from the Parish Council, who noted issues in terms of the access, highways concerns, the application being outside of the settlement boundary, loss of wildlife and risk of flooding.

 

Members were informed that the Highways Section had no objections in terms of parking provision and access arrangements.  It was explained that the Drainage Section had no objections to the application.  It was noted the Coal Authority had requested a condition relating to a site investigation.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted the Education section indicated there were sufficient school places in the locality and the Public Rights of Way Section had not raised any objections, however, noted the proposed contributions to upgrades to the bridleway and that the footpath running east to west should be formally adopted as a public footpath.

 

The Committee were informed that the Tree Section had not raised any objections, and the Environmental Health section had noted no objections though had indicated that further contamination works be undertaken prior to development commencing.  The Team Leader - Central and East added that the Ecology Section had noted no objections, with the Archaeology Section raising no objections, subject to a condition requiring a written scheme of investigation and subsequent reporting.  It was explained that Spatial Policy had noted no objections to the scheme, noting the contribution towards open space and recreational equipment in the area, in addition to 20% affordable housing on site. 

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted there had been 75 letters of objection, objections from the East Esh Winning Residents Group and a 121 signature petition against the application.  It was noted there had also been objections received from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). 

 

 

 

It was noted that objections had included: the application being outside the settlement boundary; being on a greenfield site, with brownfield sites not being used; being damaging to ecology and harm to the landscape character; the access was unsuitable; drainage issues; there was no need for housing; the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) noting the land was not suitable for development; the land was currently used for amenity; and there were issues associated with coal mining.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted that the main planning considerations were in relation to a 5 year supply of housing land, highway and access issues; Section 106 contributions and impacts on the surrounding area.  He noted that in terms of the 5 year supply, it was felt that paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied, with the City of Durham Local Plan being somewhat out of date.  It was added that in that context it was felt that the site being “outside of the settlement boundary” was also out of date, the site being adjacent to existing development.  It was added the application site was “up to a natural boundary” and would not set a precedent, with a landscape buffer on 2 sides and transplanting of vegetation to the edge of the site.

 

The Committee learned that the access to the site would be via an existing access from the main road, the same access that served the Castlefields Estate, it was reiterated that Highways considered the access acceptable at this location.

 

In terms of impact, it was reiterated that a drainage strategy had been submitted and there had been no objections from the Drainage Section, and there had been no objections from the Environment Agency to the application.  It was added that the Ecology Survey had been considered satisfactory, although residents had objected that it had been carried out too late in the year and had not taken all the ponds in the area into account.  The Team Leader - Central and East explained that Officers had considered ponds within 500m and that the survey as carried out was adequate.

 

In relation to objections to the development as the area was used for amenity/recreational space, it was noted that the site was not specifically allocated as open space in the Local Plan, the land being in private ownership.  It was reiterated that there was agreement within the application in terms of the footpath and Section 106 contributions towards open space.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted a figure was missing from the report relating to bridleways improvements, this figure being £30,000.  It was added that residents had noted paragraph 69 of the report had stated “redevelopment of the site” and this was a typographical error, it should have read “development”.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East summarised noting that; the application site was sustainable, in proximity to the facilities at Esh Winning; the highways arrangement were deemed acceptable; there were no drainage or ecology issues; and that further details relating to the site would be for determination at the reserved matters stage.  It was explained that in terms of NPPF paragraph 14, it was felt the benefits of development outweighed the negative impacts, as set out within the report. 

The Team Leader - Central and East concluded by noting that Government Office had asked to look at the decision, should Members be minded to approve the application and therefore the recommendation was to be minded to approve, subject to referral to Government Office.

 

The Chairman thanked the Team Leader - Central and East and noted that there were a number of speakers and members of the public present, and asked that all views were respected and that speakers could be heard to allow the Committee Members to listen to their comments.

 

The Chairman asked Councillor J Chaplow, a Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor J Chaplow noted a potential problem in terms of health and safety, noting sewerage works nearby and a number of ponds that Members may not have seen from the bus.  She added that there were Irises and Orchids at the site and these were very beautiful, and that the site had not been fertilised or mowed.  Councillor J Chaplow added that the area was a meadow and felt that residents were standing firm, with local people not wanting to lose this meadow and felt very fortunate to have such a meadow in her area.

 

Councillor J Chaplow added that she felt the proposed access was ridiculous, with the proposal of 66 further houses representing many more cars, which could be dangerous.  She added that residents at Castlefields could not open their windows in terms of the smell from the sewerage works, with flies and asked whether this had been taken into account, as there appeared to be no mention within the report.  Councillor J Chaplow noted that there had also been no mention of the 1,000 pigs nearby, behind the woods bounding the site.

 

Councillor J Chaplow noted the Committee had turned down an application for 31 houses on a similar greenfield site.  The Chairman noted the reference was to a site within the greenbelt, not a greenfield site, this application being greenfield.

 

Councillor J Chaplow concluded by urging all Members of the Committee to think twice as regards the application, think of the beautiful Irises and Orchids that were not transplantable, and to think hard before coming to a decision.  

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor J Chaplow and asked Local Member Councillor M Wilson to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor M Wilson noted she spoke in objection to the application and asked was there a need for the development.  She noted that 50 houses had already been approved for Esh Winning on a brownfield site and that application had lapsed, not taken forward as it was not seen as being viable.  Councillor M Wilson noted that the Local Plan and the former draft County Durham Plan (CDP) had not considered the site as a preferred site for development.  She noted the Team Leader - Central and East had noted that these were out of date, however she asked how was this the case.  She noted a recent case in East Staffordshire Borough Council regarding development of 150 dwellings outside of the settlement boundary, adding the precedent had been set. 

Councillor M Wilson noted that an additional 66 dwellings would be a burden on the sewerage system.

 

Councillor M Wilson noted the development would be a disaster in terms of the loss of the wildflower meadow and wildlife, with the Council encouraging wildflower planting, those representing a food source for bees and small mammals.  She added that an increase in traffic would have a detrimental impact and also impact further along the road at the Stonebridge junction.

 

Councillor M Wilson concluded by noting the proposed development represented a dormitory for people who worked out of the area and would not be of benefit in terms of jobs or local people and therefore urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor M Wilson and asked Councillor D Bell to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor D Bell noted that the application was for a greenfield site while other brownfield sites were available and added there was no need for this.  He added that the traffic would come out on to a blind spot, especially in bright sunlight.  Councillor D Bell noted that there would be a loss of amenity and he would ask Members to object to the application.  He added that if Government were to call in the application, this would give residents some comfort in terms of the matter being investigated.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor D Bell and asked Brandon and Byshottles Parish Councillor H Walter to speak in relation to the application.

 

Parish Councillor H Walter noted the Parish Council objected as the development was outside of the settlement boundary and on a greenfield site.  She added that the Residents’ Group will speak later.  She noted that the Officer’s report seemed in conflict with case law and that the development would be in open countryside at the “pretty village entrance”.  Parish Councillor H Walter noted ancient woodland and an area of high landscape value adjacent to the application site.  She added this was a detriment to the Deerness Valley, its use and projects in this regards, for example the Area Action Partnership’s (AAP) Wellness Valley project.

 

Parish Councillor H Walter noted the Parish Council contested the exceptional circumstances in terms of development, noting in the last 6 years there had been a lot of residential development at Esh Winning, without infrastructure development.  She noted the 75 written objections from the public and added that the NPPF noted “market signals”, with a brownfield site in the village with permission for 80 houses not going ahead, the NPPF noting a preference of brownfield sites over greenfield.  Parish Councillor H Walter added that County Durham had double the percentage of empty homes, 4.7% against a national average of 2.4%.

 

Parish Councillor H Walter noted that the Government in January 2018 gave guidance in terms of Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) in terms of housing and County Durham would therefore have greater than a 5 year supply. 

She added that she disagreed in terms of the highways assessment, in terms of traffic and the junction, with the entrance being on the brow of a hill and there being issues of speed along the road.

 

In relation to sustainability, Parish Councillor H Walter noted that while there were regular buses, the Department for Transport noted that 70% of bus journeys were taken by those earning less than £25,000 per annum.  She added that the Durham County Council (DCC) economic update for October 2017 had noted a lack of well paid jobs and accordingly Parish Councillor H Walter felt that the majority of the properties at the proposed development would be for commuter use.  Parish Councillor H Walter asked Members to look at the details of the application and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor H Walter and asked Dr S Goodyer to speak in relation to the application.

 

Dr S Goodyer thanked the Chairman and noted she held a PhD in Ecology, was a member of the CPRE and was speaking on behalf of the East Esh Winning Residents’ Group.  She noted she had lived in the area and known the site since the 1980s, however did not live next to the application site.

 

Dr S Goodyer noted she had submitted 2 letters to the Council offering a critique of the Officer’s report, noting help from the Durham CPRE in this regard.  She noted in summary of these that the application was against Policy E7 of the City of Durham Local Plan, and there had only been fleeting reference to this within the report and felt that it had not been dealt with correctly at paragraph 70, noting appeals and a Supreme Court ruling in 2017 as E7 was not a policy relating to housing supply, and therefore it was not out of date.  She added that she felt paragraph 69 was wrong to say E7 was out of date, and paragraph 70 wrong to say “limited weight” to be afforded.  Dr S Goodyer noted that the saved policy was highly relevant.

 

Dr S Goodyer noted issues in relation to a 5 year supply in terms of housing land, with the Government in its most recent guidance noting 1,368 houses per year for County Durham.  She noted that this would be the figure that would be used unless a new Plan was in place or any changes were made in an update to the NPPF in summer 2019.  Dr S Goodyer noted that this would in effect mean that County Durham had a land supply greater than 5 years.

 

Dr S Goodyer noted that there were also a number of brownfield sites that had not been developed and reiterated that Policy E7 should be afforded a significant amount of weight.  She concluded by noting a housing land supply greater than 5 years, and no material reasons why the development should go ahead and therefore asked Members to refuse the application. 

 

The Chairman thanked Dr S Goodyer and asked Mr D Blake, Agent on behalf of the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

 

 

Mr D Blake noted work had taken place over the last 18 months in terms of this application, for a local family who owned the land.  He added that at the pre-application stage they had been asked to bring forward the application.  He noted that the application was an edge of settlement development, however it would not set a precedent and was in a good sustainable location.

 

Mr D Blake noted that in terms of the NPPF paragraph 14 balance test, development was favoured unless the negative impacts significantly outweighed the benefits of the scheme.  He explained that there had been various consultants involved with the preparation of the application, in relation to ground surveys, ecological assessments, looking for Great Crested Newts for example, flood risk assessments, drainage strategies including ponds and a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS).  He continued noting archaeology reports and proposed planted buffers, with the SuDS also being an area to help benefit the ecology of the area.

 

Mr D Blake noted that DCC Internal consultees had offered no objections to the application and added that in terms of loss of amenity, as the land was in private ownership there was no right of access to the land.  He added the scheme would seek to formalise a footpath along the site and that the indicative layout demonstrated how the development would meet privacy concerns in terms of separation distances, though this would be for determination at a reserved matter application.

 

Mr D Blake concluded by noting that the application was a very good scheme, as result of a lot of work and urged the Committee to agree with the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr D Blake and asked the Council’s Senior Policy Officer, Spatial Policy, Tom Bennett to clarify some of the issues raised.

 

The Senior Policy Officer noted that the figure quoted of 1,368 was set out in Government consultation and moving forward this would be adhered to, the new CDP not being in place.  He added that the Authority would wait until the Government had responded to the feedback to the consultation, as it was expected that this could affect the methodology used.  The Senior Policy Officer noted that against this figure a greater than 5 year supply could be demonstrated, but that only affected the weight to be afforded to the boost to supply in that it would be less than where the Council could not so demonstrate.  That would be relevant to the  the planning balance test.  In relation to settlement boundaries, the Senior Policy Officer noted this was not a policy relating to the supply of housing, however, decisions at a few Planning Inquiries and information from Barristers was that policies can be out of date for other reasons, such as where the evidence base was not up to date.  Here, the settlement boundary policy was informed by figures derived from the old Structure Plan and the Regional Spatial Strategy which were out of date evidence bases.

 

The Chairman asked the Highways Development Manager, John McGargill to respond to comments regarding highways issues relating to the application.

 

The Highways Development Manager noted that the development and the number of units had been looked at, and he had no issues with around 130 vehicles, as they would not all be entering the road network at the same time, an estimate of around 40 vehicles at peak periods.  He noted that this was via an existing access to Castlefields and added that this would represent less than one vehicle per minute, not a significant impact.

 

The Highways Development Manager noted that the access had not been considered dangerous for the Castlefields development, and noted no accident statistics in the last 5 years, the nearest being around 150m away from this access.  He reiterated there was no evidence that the access was unsafe.  In relation to the issue raised in connection with speed along the B6302, the Highways Development Manager noted average speeds of 32.5mph along the 30mph section and average speeds of 42.5mph on the unrestricted section, adding that these demonstrated there was no evidence of issues in terms of excess speed.  The Highways Development Manager noted in relation to volume of traffic, that section of the B6302 had around 5,000 vehicles per day, with around 8,000 east of Broompark, and therefore an additional 500 or so would not have a significant impact and was within the daily variance for traffic at the Stonebridge junction.  The Highways Development Manager concluded by reiterating that he felt there were no highways ground to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter to comment on the points raised.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that applications were to be determined against development plans, unless there were other material considerations.  He noted the relevant development plan was the City of Durham Local Plan and that the NPPF was another material planning consideration.  He explained that Policy E7 of the City of Durham Local Plan related to settlement boundaries and as the evidence base was considered out of date, the policy was also considered out of date and therefore paragraph 14 of the NPPF would apply.  He noted that Policy E7 did not evaporate in these circumstances, however, less weight should be afforded to it, although it was for the Committee to decide how much weight.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted in relation to the 5 year supply of housing land, this was not the issue that had engaged paragraph 14 of the NPPF. As the calculation of housing need was up in the air (further rounds of consultation awaited),therefore the issue boiled down to  how much weight was to be given to the boost to housing land supply.  He noted the report stated limited weight, and if residents were correct in their assertions that there is in fact a demonstrable 5 year housing land supply for the County, then this would be less than limited weight.

 

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

 

 

 

Councillor I Jewell noted the resident’s concerns as regards flooding, and noted from experience that new developments can often help alleviate such flooding.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted a SuDS within the application at the eastern end of the site and the Drainage Section and Environment Agency were satisfied with the application.

 

Councillor D Brown asked for the purpose or definition of a settlement boundary.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted it was the extent of the built development, and was set out within the former District Authorities Local Plans to restrict development. 

He noted that more recently there had been a move away from this, with the NPPF asking for a broader approach in terms of development and sustainability and therefore the  weight to be afforded to such policies was now limited.

 

Councillor J Maitland noted Paragraph 82 of the report referred to the site being not deemed suitable for development by the SHLAA and asked for further clarification.  The Senior Policy Officer noted that area was a larger area, that would total around 130 dwellings, and had been a concern in terms of landscape and ecology.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted he could not accept that the City of Durham Local Plan was out of date and added he felt the application was not in compliance with Policy E7 in terms of the settlement boundary of the village.  He added that if there were exception circumstances he did not see them set out within the report.  Councillor D Freeman noted he knew the site and noted he felt the application was also contrary to NPPF Part 11 and therefore he could not support the application.  

 

Councillor R Manchester noted Local Members had referred to the site as a “meadow” and asked if this had any significance.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted that he was not aware of this having any status above any other land.

 

Councillor M McKeon noted paragraph 82 of the report referred to the SHLAA and landscape impact and a high risk flood zone and asked for further information.  The Senior Policy Officer noted that this was in reference to a larger site and did not apply to the smaller application site.  Councillor M McKeon noted the Agent for the Applicant had stated that the application was encouraged to be brought forward and asked why if the SHLAA applied to a larger site, why did the elements not apply to this site.  She also asked why brownfield sites were not being brought forward.

 

The Chairman noted that the application before Committee was for this particular site and was for determination.  The Senior Policy Officer noted that each site was assessed on its merits.

 

Councillor P Jopling noted that there were issues that seemed to come up time and time again, including a statement relating to the need for housing.  She noted she understood a need for County Durham as a whole, however, asked how this was defined in an area.  She added that in relation to Saved Local Plans, in some cases advice was to afford more weight, in some it was to afford less weight and therefore she felt the need to seek further clarification in terms of this application. 

Councillor P Jopling noted she had an issue in terms of the calculations in terms of vehicle movements adding she felt there had not been any objections to schemes from Highways.

 

The Highways Development Manager noted that figures were based upon surveys carried out in County Durham and on information contained with a national Database of such surveys.  He noted when looking at proposed developments, surveys may be carried out and also the database can be interrogated as regards similar sizes of development. 

 

In terms of seeming as if there were never any objections from the Highways Section, the Highways Development Manager ascribed this to the work undertaken to resolve any issue prior to an application reaching Members at Committee and while there were objections noted from time-to-time, they were mostly resolved before reaching Committee.

   

Councillor O Temple noted the Solicitor – Planning and Development had stated it was for Members to decide upon the weight attached to Policy E7 based upon how out of date it was.  He noted he did not feel it was out of date and that the former iteration of the CDP, that which was not implemented, did not show this site as being suitable for development.  Councillor O Temple noted the SHLAA said the site was not a site for development in relation to drainage issues.  Councillor O Temple added that the consultation “Planning for the right homes in the right places” had set out 1,368 homes per annum going forward and while there may be some tweaks, he felt this removed the one big factor in the balance.  He noted that he felt the application did not meet the balance test, in that the boost in the housing supply did not outweigh the harm in terms of being contrary to Policy E7.  He added that he felt that the application was also contrary to Policy H13, in that there was detriment to the local environment, and also as set out in the previous SHLAA information.  He added he felt that the application was contrary to NPPF paragraph 13 also and on those grounds he moved that the application be refused.  He was seconded by Councillor D Freeman.

 

The Chairman asked if Councillor O Temple meant Paragraph 11 of the NPPF and asked if the Solicitor – Planning and Development could provide some advice to the Committee.  Councillor O Temple noted the Chairman was correct he meant Paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted NPPF Paragraph 11 was the statutory test for planning and noted this was not a sustainable reason for refusal.  He added that it was for the Committee to decide upon the weight they gave to Policy E7.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he had some difficulty in relation to E16 as a reason for refusal, given the ecological surveys carried out and that they had stated there was no significant impact on species or habitat. H13 on the other hand was about character and appearance.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that in terms of the balance test and a boost to housing supply, it would be for Members to decide whether the boost was or was not sufficient to outweigh any harm. 

The Senior Policy Officer noted the comments within the SHLAA referred to a site twice the size of the site being considered and it was not a given that the issues relating to the larger site could be transferred to the smaller site.  He reiterated that the 1,368 figure was from the consultation document, however, it was not certain that this figure would be the final figure once feedback to the consultation had been considered and a final response from Government issued.

 

Councillor M Davinson asked as regards paragraph 78 of the report, specifically the “presence of a European Protected Species”.  The Chairman noted he believed this was reference to species such as the Great Crested Newt or the Dingy Skipper Butterfly.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted this was ecological impact upon protected species including certain bats & newts.  He added the surveys carried out did not find any such species, therefore there was no impact in terms of protected species.

 

The Chairman noted that Councillor O Temple had moved that the application be refused and had been seconded by Councillor D Freeman.  He reminded Members of the legal and ecological advice that had been given in terms of NPPF Paragraph 11, that it was not a sustainable reason, and Saved Local Plan Policies E7 and H13.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

The proposed development would be outside of the settlement boundary and would lead to the loss of amenity space, resulting in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to saved policies E7 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan.  These adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits of the proposed development contrary to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

 

Councillor J Turnbull entered the meeting at 2.23pm