Outline planning application for up to 50 dwellings (40 shown on indicative plans) with all matters reserved except access
Minutes:
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer with regards to an application for up to 50 dwellings (40 shown on indictive plans) with all matters reserved except access, on land to the East of Greenfields, Salters Lane, Trimdon (for copy see file of minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site plan, aerial photograph, elevations, site layout and photographs of the site.
Dr A Lang, spoke on behalf of the Applicant, and in support of the application. He confirmed that the land was classified as low grade agricultural land. Environmental Consultants had been employed from an early stage to assist in mitigating the impact on the landscape and this had been achieved by the inclusion of a SUDS water feature which also mitigated flood risk. Another addition was significant boundary planting, to include new species of trees and ensure that any impact to the conservation area was well mitigated. There were no issues with regards to the Highway access route and the development would adjoin St Cuthberts Crescent. This would ensure that the edge was defined as the existing plans ended abruptly, but there would still be a substantial 800m gap between the edge of the development and Trimdon Grange.
Dr Lang referred to the Section 106 contributions which could not be discounted and considered the development to be a natural expansion from the St Cuthberts Crescent, the benefits of which outweighed any potential disbenefits.
In response to a question from Councillor Brown, Dr Lang confirmed that the application was for up to 50 dwellings with only 40 planned, because the applicant wanted to maximise the potential of the land at the time of submitting the application. Highways were satisfied with a site of that size, however Ecology were keen to see fewer and it was therefore preferable to reduce the number of dwellings on the indicative plan, but for flexibility, the phrase for up to 50 remained. He confirmed that some of the layout may change as some of the semi-detached homes could change to 3 or 4 terraced properties, but the footprint would remain the same.
The Senior Planning Officer responded that the layout was indicative and would be considered separately, however she pointed out that the development fell away from Trimdon Village and the landscape benefits referred to by Dr Lang would take up to 15 years to mature. She confirmed that there were multiple planning applications pending which considered for approval, which implied that there were more suitable places for development.
Councillor Brookes was a local member and considered the land had been allocated as a potential site for development in the past. He referred to an approval, and asked for confirmation with regards to this and the conservation area site boundary. He commented that the area was in desperate need for housing and although a site had been approved, no work had started and permission had been granted three years ago.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to para. 73 of the report which confirmed that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment had classified the land as amber, concluding that development would have a significant adverse effect on the landscape. There was an application approved a number of years ago, but this maintained the northern edge and although abutted the edge it was still within the boundary of Trimdon. She confirmed that the location of the boundary of the conservation area and confirmed that with regards to applications for approval, she confirmed one at reserved matters for 27 houses, and another which had been referred to County Planning Committee for 138 houses. The Council were satisfied that they could demonstrate and exceed the five year housing land supply.
Councillor Robinson referred to para. 54 of the report which claimed that the local medical practice was operating under capacity – he disputed this and confirmed that as local member for Sedgefield, this practice was unable to meet the demand for appointments. He also referred to a number of affordable properties built recently in Sedgefield and confirmed that they were of such small proportions that they were almost unable to house families therefore less houses of a larger size was more preferable in his opinion.
He asked if the Highways Officer would give some assurances on the safety of the access arrangements as many of the objections received were from elderly residents at St Cuthberts Crescent.
The Principal DM Engineer confirmed that on assessment of the access road, he had observed a white van parked on the side of the road and he did not consider it was wide enough for a large vehicle such as a refuse wagon to get through, therefore a condition which prohibited parking on this part of the highway would need to be accepted.
Councillor Gardner confirmed that he had reservations with regards to building in this area as the development went beyond the defined boundary of the village. He agreed with the Senior Planning Officers recommendation and moved that the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report. It was seconded by Councillor Brown.
Resolved:
That the application be REFUSED subject to the recommendation outlined in the report.
Councillor Clare vacated the Chair and Councillor Robinson assumed his position as Chairman, as previously agreed by the Committee.
Supporting documents: