Agenda item

Erection of 28 dwellings for over 55s

The Senior Planning Officer, SF 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 Senior Planning Officer, SF advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of 28 dwellings for the over 55s and was recommended for refusal, the reasons set out within the report.

The Senior Planning Officer, SF referred Members to site photographs and noted the proposals would bring the existing road surface and drains up to an adoptable standard for the benefit of new and existing residents.  Members were referred to the property types and noted the proposed entrance between 2 existing properties, with the proposed houses being moved back on the site in comparison to original submissions in order give better potential residential amenity.  The Senior Planning Officer, SF noted the landscape of the site was open, semi-improved grassland, effectively countryside.  It was explained that the application was a resubmission, having been submitted in May, with the original application having been withdrawn 17 months ago.  Members noted that since the publication of the agenda papers, 2 further layouts and a flood risk assessment had been received.  It was explained that the revisions to the plans had not allowed sufficient time for adequate consultation with the public or consultees.

The Senior Planning Officer, SF noted the principle issue was that of intrusion into the countryside.  He added that the house types did not correlate with plans and there was a lack of surety in terms of the relationships proposed.

In terms of statutory and internal consultees, it was explained that the parking scheme had been redesigned following input from Highways Engineers, however, further amendments would be required in order for the scheme to be at an adoptable standard.  The Senior Planning Officer, SF added that Officers had concerns in terms of foul water, though Northumbrian Water did not object, subject to a condition in terms of approval requiring the development to be implemented in line with the latest submitted drainage scheme.  Members noted the Coal Authority required a standard condition in relation to site investigations prior to commencement of the development. 

The Committee noted Spatial Policy responses in relation to space requirements and in terms of relevant OSNA policies as set out within the report.

The Senior Planning Officer, SF set out that the Drainage Team had noted some overlap in terms of highways adoption and suggested a SuDS could deal with surface water issues. The Landscape Team objected to the intrusion into the Countryside.  Members noted no objections from Ecology, Education or in terms of footpaths or archaeology.

The Committee noted there had been 14 letters of objection from the nearby properties and a neutral representation from Burnhope Parish Council.  It was explained Residents’ main points of objection related to interrelated drainage/surface water and highways layout, noting there would be an increase in the volume of traffic in an area where children played.

The Senior Planning Officer, SF reiterated that the main planning issue related to Policies EN1 and EN2, encroachment into the countryside.  He added that there was, in general, a healthy housing supply within the County, however, the Applicant had noted the properties would be for those aged over 55 years old.  The Senior Planning Officer, SF noted that this restriction would be outside of the control in the form proposed of the Local Planning Authority and that proposals in terms of a Management Committee were at best nebulous.  Members noted that in terms of neighbouring amenity, separation distances on the southern boundary of the site were below standard subject to which plan was assessed.  It was noted the proposal included a Warden to live on-site within the development, though it was not clear what their role would be and whether there was a need for them to be on-site, and why they should occupy an affordable unit..

In summary, the Senior Planning Officer, SF noted that the application was recommended for refusal noting: the application represented encroachment into the Countryside, contrary to saved Local Plan Policies EN1 and EN2; and the highways and drainage scheme had not given sufficient surety, contrary to saved Local Policies GDP1(I) and TR2 and Part 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  In relation to the second refusal reason as set out within the report, the Senior Planning Officer, SF explained that as there was a lack of clarity in terms of separation distances due to changing plans that it was proposed the wording be amended to explain this and that therefore the application would be contrary to saved Local Plan Policy GDP1.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer, SF and asked Mr J Kerr to speak in objection to the application on behalf of local residents.

Mr J Kerr explained he was representing the residents of St. John’s Mews and noted the objections they had made as set out within the Officer’s report and presentation.  He explained that the proposed access was via an unadopted and unsuitable road that had not been brought up to standard by the Developer in 18 years.  It was added that drainage issues at the site had not been addressed by the Developer over the last 18 years, and with no details within the application.  Mr J Kerr noted that normally drainage conditions were very stringent, in terms of the separation of foul and surface water, this not currently the case at the site.

Mr J Kerr noted the Officer’s report had stated the application represented encroachment into the countryside and added there were a number of alternative sites for development within the Burnhope area.  He added that the application was for a landlocked site, with issues in terms of access and safety, with an adverse camber on the road, a 90 degree corner and if residents were to be over 55, there was potential for increased visitors for there to be an increased risk of an accident.

Mr J Kerr noted there was incomplete information on several issues, including in terms of proposed sewage plant, noise levels and in terms of any mine workings.  He noted the Council could demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing and that Members should note the “drip feed” of information that had been given in terms of the application, giving the Council, partners and Residents no time to respond.  Mr J Kerr noted other issues included: land ownership, lack of clarity in terms of parking; and that part of the proposal would overlook existing properties.

Mr J Kerr concluded that the Residents of St. John’s Mews would ask the Committee to follow the recommendation of the Officer to refuse the application, noting they felt it was unnecessary development, unsafe, taking on board the developer’s track record, and to preserve this area of the countryside for the future.

The Chairman thanked Mr J Kerr and asked Mr G McGill, Agent for the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

Mr G McGill noted that the process of the application had begun over 5 years ago and that a strong impression was given at that time that the scheme would be acceptable, notwithstanding the principle of development in the countryside.  He explained that the scheme had always been a specialist scheme, looking to provide housing for the over 55s and that these type of “departure” applications represented one of the only ways to enable these types of bungalows to be built.

Mr G McGill noted a number of technical difficulties in terms of the drainage at the site and the proposals offered a solution, with no cost to existing residents.  He added that in terms of the meeting privacy and amenity concerns, these had been rectified within the revised drawings.  He noted paragraph 50 of the report stated Environmental Health Officers accepted the findings of submitted reports.

Mr G McGill explained that the bespoke design provide a good standard of accommodation, providing lifetime homes, grouped around a village green, with 6 affordable units, greater than the minimum requirement of 15%.  He added that a Site Warden would benefit the scheme, though was not critical.  Mr G McGill added that Housing Officers had confirmed that there would be a strong interest from Registered Social Landlords (RSL) in terms of those properties.  He noted that the proposed management of the site was achievable, and had been successful in other areas of the country.  Mr G McGill added that there would also be New Homes Bonus for the Council in terms of the proposed development, as well as benefits to existing residents in terms of drainage and highways improvements.

Mr G McGill noted that it was felt: the application would provide much needed bungalows for the over 55s, catering to an aging population; issues in terms of layout could be amended, as demonstrated by the latest revision of plans; and the application would break the deadlock in terms of drainage and highways issues.  He concluded by noted it was felt in terms of planning balance that the application should be approved.

The Chairman thanked Mr G McGill and asked the Senior Planning Officer, SF to respond to the points raised by the speakers.

The Senior Planning Officer, SF agreed that application site had been discussed over a number of years, however, there had been changes in legislation demand and land supply in the intervening period.  He added that what was originally proposed and what was being proposed now represented very different offers.  It was explained that usually many issues and information could be left to be addressed by way of conditions, however, in this case Officers felt that too much was being left for later agreement and therefore the recommendation was for refusal, subject to the amended reason previously mentioned.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer, SF and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor A Shield noted he had not attended the site visit, however, he explained that he knew the site well.  He noted he was saddened as the application sought to address social need, however, from the information from the Officers and the history of the situation at the site, he did not feel the application met planning requirements.  He noted several belated changes and he felt there were still too many outstanding issues and a lack of information and therefore he supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillor C Martin noted the arguments in terms of highways and drainage, though reiterated the point raised by Planners in terms of the main issue being encroachment into the countryside.  He agreed in terms of the need for more bungalows, however, in terms of proposed development he agreed with Officers and moved the application be refused, subject to the amendment as stated by the Senior Planning Officer, SF.

Councillor A Hopgood noted she had not attended the site visit, though explained she had visited family in the area for over 35 years.  She agreed in terms of a shortage of bungalows across County Durham, however, did not agree there was a shortage of bungalows in the Burnhope area specifically, and therefore questioned this in terms of “housing need”.  She noted the objections from those living in a 9 house cul-de-sac that would be turned into a through-road, and that the issues raised by Residents had not been addressed over the last 18 years.  She noted she too supported the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor D Boyes noted the Senior Planning Officer, SF had used the term “nebulous” in respect of information relating to the proposed Management Committee and the ongoing situation in terms of highways and drainage as described by the Officer and the speaker of behalf of existing Residents. 

He agreed that the Management Committee did not seem likely to be able to provide the control required and noted it did not seem correct that there was not already a RSL in place.  He noted he would be unable to support the application and agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor M McKeon noted she had similar concerns to those raised by other Committee Members and also those of the Officers, including the late changes in terms of drawings and inadequate time for Residents to respond.  She seconded the proposal for refusal as recommended by the Officer.

Councillor M Davinson noted the proposal was for refusal, subject to an amendment to the second refusal reason, as described by the Senior Planning Officer, SF, wording to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Assets.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons contained within the report, subject to an amended reason No.2:

2.         The lack of consistency between site layout and elevation plans  compromises assessment of required separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings at the southern boundary, which falls below that which would ensure reasonable expectations of residential privacy and amenity contrary to Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan 1997 (saved Policies).

Councillor L Boyd entered the meeting at 1.45pm