Agenda item

Erection of 45 houses, including access and infrastructure (re-plan and substitution of house types on 230 plots (Phase 5)).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 45 houses, including access and infrastructure (re-plan and substitution of house types on 230 plots (Phase 5)) (for copy see file of Minutes).

S Pilkington, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, proposed site layout, site photograph from Lotherton Drive, view across the development site and view from Carr Street where a roundabout was proposed.

Councillor Darkes, local Member addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Councillor Darkes opposed the application which sought permission for the re plan and substitution of house types on 185 plots which would result in an additional 45 dwellings up to a total of 230, which was a 25% increase and could lead to problems with residential parking.  The area was saturated with new homes with permission for 1,700 already approved, yet there had been zero provision or investment in infrastructure, for example GP provision, the derelict town centre, congestion and the disappointing number of jobs created at DurhamGate over those which were anticipated.  Additionally, key facilities were not located within walking distance and this was not a sustainable development.  Councillor Darkes asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor K Thompson, local Member addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Councillor Thompson informed the Committee that profit margins had shrunk on the Whitworth Park development because Phase 1 had involved the re-siting of ancient grasslands and land had been banked.  This was explained at Paragraph 95 of the officer’s report.  Policy H4 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan, which set out the housing development in the Whitworth Park area of Spennymoor, stated that this would be granted only as part of a comprehensive planning scheme to include an 18 hole golf course, but this had now disappeared from the development scheme.  Councillor Thompson referred to Paragraph 7 of the report, specifically the review mechanism in the Section 106 agreement for the delivery of offsite affordable housing and informed the Committee that none as yet had been built.

The developers had bought the land at a high price and then land banked it, and were now seeking to squeeze more profit out of the development.  Permission for 1700 houses had been granted in the Spennymoor area which would provide a 10-year supply for the area.  Spennymoor was becoming a commuter town without any improved facilities, and if this application was approved, further Section 106 money should be provided for community facilities.

Sandra Bell addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The application did not embrace sustainability, with no plans for renewable energy and the developer had not been asked to consider any.  The application did not meet the target set in the 2008 Climate Change Act which proposed that 1 in 20 houses would be connected to a heat network by 2020, yet the site was suitable.

Jan Hutchinson asked why the application did not comply with NPPF 10, dealing with climate change and asked where the sustainability was from the developer.  The developer had not proposed other forms of low carbon energy on other parts of the development.  The developer should not expect home owners to retro-fit energy saving measures.

Councillor A Gardener of Spennymoor Town Council referred to work carried out by Dr Adams of the Durham Energy Institute into low carbon energy and the heating of homes from renewable sources.  There were old mine workings beneath these proposed properties and Dr Adams had concluded that a heat network would be perfect for this site.  Councillor Gardener asked that if the application was approved a restriction be added to look at low carbon homes and energy security.  If this restriction was not added, Councillor Gardener requested that the application be deferred so that analysis of 3 years of energy research on the site could take place.

Mr J Ridgeon, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  The developer did adopt a sustainable approach to the development, for example by adopting a fabric first approach which reduced the environmental impact through construction.  A community heat network was not appropriate for the development because construction had commenced and the coal authority was not supportive of it because of contamination issues.  Northumbrian Water was also not supportive, and the NHBC would not provide a 10-year certificate to the development if a community heat network was proposed.  The application was to provide an increased number of smaller, first-time starter homes which addressed a housing need in County Durham.

The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that there was extant permission in place on the site for the developer to construct 185 dwellings.  This application was to remove some of the larger proposed dwellings and construct smaller dwellings instead.

Geothermal heating was encouraged where appropriate, but there were no planning policy targets for this and no local targets in the Local Plan.  The Authority could not insist the developer utilised geothermal energy.

This was an allocated site for housing development in the Local Plan and a committed site as part of a 5 year housing land supply.  The viability of the development was established when planning permission for the site was first granted and this development was not over and above what was envisaged in the original Section 106 agreement.

Councillor Thompson asked, if no additional Section 106 money was requested with this application, whether more could be requested in the future.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that the Section 106 contribution towards affordable housing was dependant on the viability on site, but if this increased then a contribution for offsite affordable housing would be triggered.

In response to a request from Councillor Shield, the Senior Planning Officer indicated the location of the 185 properties which had already been approved.

Councillor Maddison informed the Committee that the application did not comply with standards for water betterment and flow rates.  Over the last year, an older development on the Greenways estate had experienced excessive surface water flowing to it with some drains not being able to handle the capacity of water.  This had resulted in water ingress into gas pipes.

The proposed SUDS arrangement for the development was adjacent to the development and had exposed culverts, which allowed easy access to children yet contained stagnant water.  Public rights of way had been breached by water from the culverts which were protected by a single wire open fence.  Councillor Maddison asked that the scheme be examined as a whole to provide detailed protection.

Councillor Wilkes informed the Committee that this was an application to substitute 185 houses with 230 houses.  There was a need to consider whether the new application was of good design and layout and whether it complied with policies.

The layout of the site showed it to have a main road through it with 30 properties proposed along this road, some of which had long driveways and some of which only had one parking space.  This could lead to the potential for parking to take place on the road, which was a narrow estate road.  This aspect of the layout of the estate did not comply with NPPF Part 7 in that it was not a good design, did not create safe and accessible environments and was not visually attractive.

The development did not meet Policy T1 of the Local Plan because reference had been made to Public Rights of Way being breached.  The development also did not comply with Policies D1, the general principles for the layout and design of new developments, D2, design for people and D5, requiring layout of developments to provide a safe and attractive environment of the Local Plan.  Councillor Wilkes considered the development to be of poor design and layout and not one which he could support.  Councillor Wilkes moved that the application be refused.  Councillor Richardson seconded refusal of the application.

Councillor A Bell referred to the Section 106 agreement offsite contribution of £150,000 and asked whether this would remain regardless of the decision of the Committee.  He also asked whether the significant areas of open space at the development had been compromised.

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that while he had listened to the issues raised by the objectors, this application appeared to reflect approval which was already in place.  Paragraph 56 of the report stated that the principle of development on the site for residential purposes had been accepted previously, this application was a variation of an already approved application.

Councillor Kay agreed that the principle of the development had already been accepted and that this application was to increase the number of dwellings.  Councillor Kay asked whether the square footage of the site met with housing designs and parking met standards.

Councillor Tinsley referred to previous permissions for the site which permitted the development of 506 dwellings and asked what the total number of dwellings would be if this application was approved.  He also asked whether the proposed development met car parking standards.

J McGargill, Highway Development Manager conformed that the proposed development did meet parking standards.  With reference to the access road through the development, this had already received approval.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the drainage scheme achieved greenfield run-off rates and was designed to have standing water.  The condition proposed for drainage for Northumbrian Water related to the layout of pipes on the estate.

The Section 106 agreement was in place and would remain, with a deed of variation to link it to the new permission.  Permission was in place for 506 dwellings across the site, and with this application, 505 would be delivered, with some apartments and semi-detached properties previously being discarded.  The development proposed a density of 40 dwellings per hectare, but there were areas of amenity space which were not factored into this.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he had listened to all arguments put to the Committee.  The question for the Committee to decide was whether there were sufficient grounds to refuse the application.  Parking met the County Council minimum standard.  Referring to viability, this was governed by a government standard and a computer based exercise.  Although Councillor Wilkes considered the proposal to be a poor design, design was a matter of opinion and it was for Members to decide whether to support the views of professionally qualified officers or the opinion of Councillor Wilkes.

With reference to flooding concerns, the existing scheme had been approved and was practical.  Councillor Clare agreed there was a need for greater use of sources of sustainable energy, however the use of ground source heat and solar panels needed to be included into the developing County Durham Plan.

Councillor Tinsley asked Councillor Wilkes to detail his proposed grounds for refusal of the application.  Councillor Wilkes replied that the application should be refused because it did not comply with NPPF Part 7 in that it was not a good design and did not provide a safe environment and did not comply with Policies Ti, D1, D2 and D5 of the saved Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

The Committee voted on the proposal by Councillor Wilkes, seconded by Councillor Richardson, that the application be refused.  This was defeated.

Acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Clare, seconded by Councillor Jewell and upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the completion of a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement to apply the existing obligations relating to affordable housing, off-site highway works, open space and woodland management/maintenance, and community contribution to this new permission in addition to the existing permissions and the Conditions contained in the report.