Agenda item

Outline planning application for the development of up to 74 dwellings including access, open space, SUDS and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access (amended 1st February 2019)

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for a residential development of 74 dwellings including access with associated infrastructure and landscaping on land to the west of Davis Crescent, Langley Park (for copy see file of Minutes).

Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

G Blakey, Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, indicative site plan and site photographs.

Councillor Coult, local Member, addressed the Committee.  She informed the Committee that the residents of Langley Park were opposed to the application.  There were already two new housing developments proposed for Langley Park and the resulting increase in residents would exacerbate current parking problems and high levels of traffic in the village.  Increased traffic would lead to more pollution.  The proposed development was very close to the cemetery and there were fears that the development would impact on the peace and quietness of the area.  Green space such as this site needed to be protected.  Local residents were already experiencing problems in making GP appointments and more development would make these problems worse.  Although the proposed tree planting scheme was a positive aspect of the application, the trees would take a long time to become established.  Councillor Coult asked the Committee to refuse the application.

G Raggatt, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Ms Raggatt had been a resident of Langley Park all of her life and had lived in Davis Crescent for 43 years.  Langley Park has seen a large number of developments over the years and the right housing was needed in the right places.  This development targeted the countryside for development and would result in the unnecessary loss of countryside.  Davis Crescent was the boundary of the village of Langley Park and it was feared that this development could lead to urban sprawl.  The proposed development would tower over cemetery, which was a place for quiet, peaceful contemplation.  Finally, the proposed development would have an adverse impact on wildlife species in the area with deer, birds of prey, foxes and bats all being observed in the area. Ms Raggatt asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr T Baker, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  This was a finely balanced application on which the Committee could come to a different decision to that recommended by Officers.  The applicant was a north Durham housebuilder and was experienced in delivering local homes for local people.

The application was made in October 2018 and the applicant had worked with officers, ward members and the parish council and over this time the application had received only 9 objections.  There were no objections to the development from highways, housing, drainage, design, ecology and bereavement services.  The only issue of concern raised was landscape which, when the proposed tree planting had matured, would result in a less than significant visual impact.  However, the proposed development would bring significant benefits which included affordable bungalows, £155,000 towards improvements to open space, improvements to local footpaths, an improved drainage connection for the cemetery, 25 construction jobs and 27 jobs spin-off during construction and approximately £1m in retail spending by residents.  Mr Baker asked the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Laing informed the Committee that she had listened to the representations made and considered the officer’s presentation and had taken the opportunity to view the site.  This was a finely balanced application and there was a need to assess the benefits/advantages of it against the landscape harm.  Councillor Laing considered that the landscape harm would only be for a short period of time until the proposed tree planting became established and it was accepted that in the long-term the visual harm would be reduced.  The development proposed 15% affordable housing as well as provision of bungalows which were much needed.  There would be a net gain to biodiversity and improved public transport, and the application had only attracted 9 objections, which was a very small number.  There were no statutory objections to the development.  Councillor Laing considered that the benefits of the development outweighed the short-term landscape harm and moved approval of the application.

Councillor Jewell asked to re-view the presentation slides which showed the proposed tree planting over a period of time.  This was a finely balanced application and was similar to the previous application considered by the Committee for Pelton Fell.  Developments within villages brought facilities into the village with the extra people they brought into the village and Councillor Jewell seconded approval of the application.

Councillor Simpson, local Member informed the Committee that a development which had been approved some 2 years ago had highlighted a lack of schooling for that development but since that time nothing had been done to schools or GP surgeries in the area.

Councillor Smith agreed that this was a finely balanced application.  While villages needed appropriate development, this was an attractive green valley and the development would significantly detract from the green landscape, as well as being a loss of highly productive agricultural land.  The site of the development was a long way from the facilities of the village and most residents would take their cars to access the village.  Councillor Smith supported the officer recommendation that the application should be refused.

Councillor Wilson informed the Committee that the development would result in a net gain to biodiversity and that application was in outline only and the housing could be configured sympathetically to the cemetery at reserved matters stage.  Councillor Wilson agreed with Councillor Laing that the outline application should be approved.

Councillor Wilkes informed the Committee he had attended the site visit and viewed a map of the village, and agreed that over time the proposed development would not be as visible as when first built.  However, Councillor Wilkes had worries about urban sprawl and the village of Langley Park spreading along the valley to the west.  Currently the views across the valley were stunning and this development would lead to the loss of agricultural land.  Policy EN1 of the Local Plan stated that development in the countryside would only be permitted where it benefited the rural economy or helped maintain or enhance landscape character.  This development was therefore contrary to Policy EN1 of the Local Plan and was also contrary of Policy EN2 which referred to the prevention of urban sprawl.  Councillor Wilkes considered that the application should not be approved.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee he had listened to the discussion and representations made on the application.  The NHS had been consulted on the application and had not commented, so any reported problems with local GP provision were not supported by evidence.  Traffic problems in Langley Park had been raised, but there were no highways objections to it.  While it was acknowledged that the cemetery was a very sensitive area, there were many places were cemeteries were surrounded by housing.  The protection of views was not a valid planning consideration and nor was demand for the proposed dwellings to be built.  The main consideration was whether this application was an unacceptable incursion into the countryside.  There were immense similarities between this and the previous application considered in that it would result in the loss of agricultural land, the plot had a similarity of shape and would be a similar expansion of the village, although this development would be more hidden from view over time.  Relevant Local Plan policies were out of date and Councillor Clare agreed with Councillors Laing and Jewell that the application should be approved.

Councillor Kay considered that in the long-term the development would not be an incursion into the countryside and informed the Committee he was minded to support approval.

Councillor Richardson considered the views of the local Members in opposing the development and agreed with their views.  The loss of agricultural land was addressed in the report and was a negative for the proposal.

Councillor Tinsley agreed that the decision on the application was finely balanced.  The NPPF stated that developments should be approved unless the negatives significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.  The introduction of a planting band with this development would result in the relationship of the settlement with the surrounding countryside being an improvement on that which currently exists.  Councillor Tinsley did not consider that the negatives of the development significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

Moved by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Wilkes that the application be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

Upon a vote being taken the motion was lost.

Moved by Councillor Laing, seconded by Councillor Jewell that the application be approved subject to the determination of Conditions and Section 106 legal agreement being delegated to the planning team in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the determination of Conditions and Section 106 legal agreement being delegated to the planning team in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee.