Agenda item

Erection of 65 residential dwellings and associated access, landscaping and engineering works (revised description 20/12/2017).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 65 residential dwellings and associated access, landscaping and engineering works (revised description 20 December 2017) on land to the north east of Hycroft, Benridge Bank, West Rainton (for copy see file of Minutes).

L Eden, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site photographs, proposed site plan, proposed site sections and CGI’s of the site entrance and northern boundary.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee of the following updates to Conditions since the publication of the Committee report:

·         Condition 2 – a highways plan was to be added to the list of approved plans and documents, to be referenced at Condition 6;

·         Condition 3 – a contaminated land condition was no longer required;

·         Condition 4 – this Condition to be changed to secure implementation of the Construction Management Plan, with a separate Condition required for piling;

·         Condition 6 – this Condition be amended to ‘prior to the occupation of the 30^th dwelling’ and also to reference the additional highways plan at Condition 2;

·         Condition 13 had erroneously been referenced twice and these conditions relating to materials and window and door details were no longer required.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee of receipt of the following representations since the publication of the report:

·         A further letter of objection had been received from the West Rainton Parish Council raising issues of GP capacity in the area, increased traffic through the village, the s106 educational contribution only being for Belmont Community School and not the local primary school and any s106 money should be for the area of West Rainton Parish rather than the Sherburn Electoral Division.

·         A letter from West Rainton Primary School supported the views of the Parish Council.

Councillor B Kellett, local Member addressed the Committee.  Councillor Kellett expressed disappointment at the quality of the photographs shown during the Senior Planning Officers presentation of the application which failed to show the nearby road junction with the A690.  This was a dangerous junction and motorists would not use it to turn right to travel towards Durham but rather would travel through the village of West Rainton to the junction with the A690 at Rainton Gate.  This was also a dangerous junction with a history of accidents and requests had been made to have this junction controlled by traffic lights.

Councillor Kellett expressed concern at the capacity of the GP surgery which needed enlarging.  However the route to the current surgery building was already problematic with parking on Woodland View and highway verges.  Any future plans to enlarge the GP surgery would require planning permission and this could be jeopardised by the current parking problems, should these not be able to be addressed.  These problems could have been shown to Members of the Committee on a site visit, but Councillor Kellett informed the Committee that his request for a site visit had been refused.

Councillor Taylor informed Councillor Kellett that he had been notified of his request for a site visit on Friday and had taken the decision that this was too short notice for such a visit to be arranged and for Members to be available to attend.

Councillor Kellett accepted the explanation about the site visit.  He informed the Committee that there was disappointment that there was no proposal for the local primary school, West Rainton Primary to receive any money from the proposed Section 106 agreement and asked that the Committee recommend this happen should it approve the application.

Councillor A Wallage of West Rainton Parish Council addressed the Committee.  The Parish Council had submitted an objection to the application on October 2017 and only last week was aware of the officer report on application which outlined how some of the Parish Council’s concerns had been addressed and provided details of the proposed s106 agreement.  Councillor Wallage expressed concern that this information had been brought to the attention of the Parish Council at such a late stage.

The head teacher of West Rainton Primary School had not been consulted on the impact of the proposed development on the school, and this was unacceptable when engagement with local communities was being encouraged, together with transparency and consultation.  The GP surgery at West Rainton currently had parking problems and there were parking problems around the chemist and shops, which were next to the junction with the A690.  The Parish Council had an action to develop a car parking plan but needed finance to achieve this, and this application which would generate additional traffic had nothing to address this existing concern.

There were two main routes through West Rainton and these were used as rat runs to avoid congestion.  This had led to concerns about traffic speeding through the village and road safety issues and there should be an opportunity through financial contributions from the development to address these issues.

There was concern that the proposed s106 contribution to improve open space and recreation provision may be spent on communities outside of West Rainton because it was restricted to the Sherburn Electoral Division.  The A690 caused a physical barrier between West Rainton and other areas within the Electoral Division and it was incomprehensible that this money would be spent outside the Parish of West Rainton.

There had been no consultation with the local primary school about the impact of the development, with the main impact being on nursery provision.  No consultation had taken place because nursery provision was not within the remit of the school placement officer.  West Rainton Primary was the school which would be primarily affected by the development.

It was proposed that the management of the site once developed would be carried out by a management company funded by the residents rather than the County Council and there was concern of what might happen should the management company fail.

Councillor Wallage requested that the Committee consider the issues raised when determining the application.

Councillor Taylor, referring to s106 money, informed Councillor Wallage that this would be allocated to the Sherburn Electoral Division which included West Rainton.  Local County Councillors would then provide suggestions for spend of this money.

Mrs Leak, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the development.  Mrs Leak informed the Committee that she had lived on Benridge Bank for some 46 years and lived opposite the proposed development.  There was no footpath on her side of the road and there was a need to cross the road to access a footpath.  Traffic on the road had increased by some 50% since the Arnison Centre had opened and this development would result in a greater amount of traffic on the road.  Vehicles also used the road as a rat run and stepping onto it was dangerous.  Mrs Leak provided the Committee with details of health problems she had and informed the Committee that if she needed to walk any distance she needed to use a walking aid, which made walking near the road both difficult and dangerous.  The proposed development would bring with it extra cars using this road and Mrs Leak could not believe that the Council’s highways officers considered the development to be acceptable.

The applicant had already cleared a way where the proposed entrance to the development was to be and had done some work on site, which led local people to believe planning permission had already been granted. 

Councillor Taylor assured Mrs Leak that no decision on the application had been made and that decision would be made by the Committee.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the issues raised.  Regarding consultation on the application, it had been advertised twice in the press and by site notices and letters to nearby properties.  Both the primary school and Parish Council had the opportunity to comment on the application.  The GP surgery had been unable to extend because of finance and therefore Avant would be contributing £175,000 through a s106 agreement with the possibility of NHS grant funding.  Any proposed extension would be subject to planning permission, at which stage the issue of parking would be addressed.

The School Places Manager had advised that there was only insufficient capacity at Belmont Community School and that nursery education was not a statutory provision and therefore extra funding could not be sought.  West Rainton Primary Primary School had a projected roll of 118 and a capacity of 168.  There was a bus stop at the entrance to the proposed local services development which gave access to local services and a s106 payment of £6,000 was proposed to improve public transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the site.  It was normal practice to ring fence s106 contributions relating to offsite open space to the appropriate Electoral Division.

D Stewart, Principal DM Engineer informed the Committee that the additional traffic to be generated from the development of 65 houses was not significant and at peak times would generate 1 extra vehicle movement every two minutes.  In highways terms this was below the level that junction analysis and modelling was required.  The development was within walking distance of amenities and also benefited from local bus services.  It would not be sustainable at appeal to refuse the application on highways grounds.

Tom Baker of GVA addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  West Rainton was identified by Durham County Council as a local service centre and was well served by public transport to Durham, Houghton le Spring and Sunderland.

There had been an extensive public consultation on the proposed development and consultation had taken place at the Jubilee Village Hall in August 2017 to which residents, County Councillors and the Parish Council had been invited and as result of the consultation the number of dwellings proposed had been reduced from 70 to 65.

The applicant had worked with the local authority and NHS to increase capacity at Belmont School and the GP surgery.  The development was proposing 13 affordable homes, a s106 agreement to the value of almost £¹/₂m and up to 200 new residents for the village to support local businesses and services.

The proposed development had received no objections from statutory consultees and would not have an adverse impact on highway safety, indeed it brought with it an improved road marking scheme.  Concerns regarding GP provision, schools and roads had been addressed and many residents supported the development which would attract families to the village and contribute to the infrastructure.  Mr Baker asked the Committee to support approval of the application.

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that applications such as this were very difficult where there were local objections which could not be considered under planning legislation.  Highways issues had been addressed as had school issues and the concerns of the police that there was a risk of increased crime because the development was near a main road had also been addressed.

Councillor Temple sought comment on the landscape officer views at paragraph 107 that the development would have a transformative and significant adverse impact on the immediate local landscape.  Councillor Temple also asked whether the development site was identified for housing in the County Durham Plan and what its position was in the SHLAA.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the site was not assessed in the SHLAA and was not identified for housing.  The development of any greenfield site would have a transformative impact and although the development would result in some visual harm landscape mitigation was being proposed.  The impact of the development on the landscape was not considered sufficient to recommend refusal of the application.

Councillor Temple informed the Committee he had concerns about the increased number of applications on the edge of settlements.  The Committee was advised for some applications that local Plan policies were out of date and figures were quoted for a housing land supply but if new calculations were used the Council did have a suitable housing land supply.

Councillor Jopling agreed with Councillor Temple that the Committee needed clarification on the housing land supply figure.  Councillor Jopling added that more detail of mitigation plans should be included in the Committee report.

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that he had considered the objections and support for the application and had found no grounds to reject the application which would be defendable at appeal.  Councillor Jewell moved approval of the application.

Seconded by Councillor Clerk, and upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

-       Provision of 20% affordable housing on site equating to 13 units;

-       £130,752 towards education provision and providing additional teaching accommodation at Belmont Community School;

-       £122,460 for improving offsite open space and recreational provision in Sherburn Electoral Division;

-       £50,000 for community schemes and initiatives in West Rainton Parish;

-       £175,000 for improving access to healthcare provision  in West Rainton Parish;

-       £6,000 for improving public transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the site;

and subject to the conditions contained in the report, as amended.