Agenda item

Outline planning application (All matters reserved) for an Industrial and Trade Park (Class B1(c)/B2/B8) with ancillary office space, Hotel (Class C1), Pub (Class A4) and Roadside Restaurant and Retail Units (Class A1/A3/A5) with petrol station (sui generis) and associated infrastructure including an electric power station, parking and landscaping.

Prior to consideration of the item Councillor Laing asked whether Councillor Atkinson had declared an interest in the item before he withdrew from the meeting.  The Planning and Development Solicitor replied that Councillor Atkinson had reiterated the points raised by Councillor Clare and it was therefore understood he was declaring the same interest.

 

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an outline planning application (all matters reserved) for an Industrial and Trade Park (Class BI(c)/B2/B8) with ancillary open space, hotel (Class C1), pub (Class A4) and roadside restaurant and retail units (Class A1/A3/A5) with petrol station (sui generis) and associated infrastructure, parking and landscaping on land to the north of Newton Park Services, Newton Park, Coatham Mundeville (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

H Jones, Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site photographs and site layout.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with its location and setting.

 

Mr N Hammond of The Friends of Stockton and Darlington Railway (S&DR) addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The Friends of S&DR was a registered charity whose objectives were the conservation and celebration of the Stockton and Darlington Railway of 1825, which was the birthplace of the modern railway and a heritage asset of national and international significance.  The Heritage of the of the Railway had huge potential for inspiring education, volunteering and community pride along with significant economic regeneration and growth of the tourism industry and would be the focus of international attention in the lead up to the bicentenary in 2025.  The comments of the Friends were summarised in paragraph 84 of the Committee report and while being supportive of the economic benefits of application, the Friends would raise the following in support of their objection.

 

There was inadequate provision for the Railway walking and cycling heritage trail which was intended to run from Witton Park to Stockton as near as possible to the 1825 line.  The Friends had engaged with the design of the scheme some 18 months ago and it was disappointing that little consideration had been given to the Friends concerns in the proposed design to ensure that the heritage trail ran adjacent to the historic track on a landscaped route which visitors and tourist would value rather than being sent through an industrial park.  The Friend believed that paragraph 56 of the Committee report should be updated to allow some weight to be attached to the policies of the emerging local plan which identified the values that the S&DR heritage could bring.  The County Durham Plan had been approved by the Council, submitted to the Secretary of State, an Inspector appointed and a timetable for the examination in public had been announced.  The policies relevant to this application had been well received during consultation and were likely to be included in the adopted Plan.  Some weight should therefore be given to them in conformity with paragraphs 48 and 192 of the NPPF.

 

Whichever polices were applied, the Friends agreed that development should be designed to avoid adverse impact on the non-designated S&DR heritage asset.  This could be achieved by providing a 15 metre wide suitably landscaped corridor with tree belt between the development and the railway.  The corridor could be designed to carry a 3 metre path for the heritage trail, and the path would not adversely affect the viability of the developable area and would not sterilise the intended rail freight interchange.  It would be some years before the developers through site path could be provided and there was no guarantee it would be provided in time for the 2025 celebrations.  The Friends therefore suggested that a temporary path be created in the landscape corridor, to remain until such time that firm proposals were put forward for the rail served use for Unit 6, whichever form that may take.  Only then would it be known where or how the rail link was to be provided and what the implications would be for the path to cross it.  If there were insurmountable problems the path could be redirected to the through site option required by proposed Condition 5.  If the lineside route could be delivered the work to create the through site route would not be abortive as this would be required in any event.

 

Consultants WSP had been appointed by the Rail Heritage Board on which the County Council had representation along with Darlington and Stockton Councils and the Tees Valley Combined Authority to design the heritage trail.  As of last Friday the project team had confirmed that the lineside route was their current preferred option.  With some little thought and design work the County and region could benefit from both this development and the S&DR heritage trail along its preferred lineside route.  This was not an either/or decision.  The Friends requested that final sentence of proposed Condition 5 be amended to read ‘a specific route through or alongside the site for the Stockton and Darlington Railway heritage trail’ and that the reason for this Condition be to comply with policies in the emerging County Durham Plan as well as existing national and local policies.

 

The Friends offered their assistance and expertise in the development of the required landscape masterplan and strategy and trusted they would have an opportunity to be involved.

 

On behalf of the Friends of the S&DR Mr Hammond thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak.

 

Jon Robinson of Barberry and Andy Palmer, Head of Transformation, Durham County Council addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Mr Palmer explained that he was attending the meeting as Chair of Forest Park Ltd.  The application was a 48 hectare development on the southern border of Newton Aycliffe Industrial Estate and would effectively extend the business park to the south to become one of the largest business parks in the region.  The development would offer complimentary employment land adjacent to Hitachi trains and also would benefit from the engineering companies on Aycliffe Industrial Estate.

 

The development would significantly contribute to the employment land requirement of County Durham.  The main site would compromise industrial and trade park uses with ancillary office space and the smaller front plot could be used for trade counter type activity as well as a hotel.  The enabling infrastructure works of gas, drainage, power were already on the site by using a grant from the North East LEP and the grant conditions cemented the planning uses for the site.  The strategic context of the application was that it fully supported the North East LEPs vision of more and better jobs, the County Durham Economic Partnership’s aim of improving the employment rate and the County Council’s aim of creating an altogether wealthier Durham.

 

The development would see significant job creation of high-quality jobs with a high gross value added into the local economy.  The development would create 96 direct and 75 indirect jobs within the construction period and over 3,100 higher quality jobs once the site was fully operational.  The site would also generate significant business rates which would contribute to public services in the County.

 

The proposed development would retain the existing ecological corridor and watercourse through the site and would introduce additional species and biodiversity on the site.  The site was sustainably located with additional bus services proposed to create sustainable travel planning.  There had been significant pre-application engagement with the local business community and the site had been well received.

 

The proposed development contributed to delivering sustainable economic and social benefits for the area and was environmentally sound and was therefore in line with in line with both national and local policy objectives.

Mr J Robinson of Richardson Barberry addressed the Committee.  Mr Robinson thanked the planning officer for supporting the application and recommending it for approval.

 

Working alongside the County Council, Forest Park Ltd and the Local Enterprise Partnership the vision was to provide a business park that provided a wide range of high quality accommodation which attracted inward investment to County Durham from regional, national and international businesses.  This would stimulate economic growth, create over 3,100 high quality jobs for the region, allow businesses to flourish, retain local talent, and build opportunities for future generations.

 

Richardson Barberry were committed to delivering one of the region’s premier business parks that would extend the offering at Aycliffe Business Park and when combined would be the largest business park in the north-east.

 

If the application was approved there would be further discussions with several key occupiers on the basis there was a prominent motorway connected site, fully serviced with planning consent.

 

The Principal Planning Officer replied to the points raised.  The paragraph in the Committee report which referenced the County Durham Plan was considered up to date and the Council was currently not attributing any weight to the County Durham Plan.

 

With reference to the impact of the development on the setting of the railway line, which was a non-designated heritage asset, the Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that Design and Conservation had raised no objections to the impacts of the development on its setting as a heritage asset.  With reference to the actual route for the enjoyment of the non-designated heritage asset and the suggested modification of Condition 5 relating to this, it was highlighted that the application was an outline application and there were still quite a lot of unknowns regarding the layout and potentially at the reserved matters stage as different units came forward then there could be quite a lot of change and there would be ways and means of devising a route through the site for the purposes of the S&DR railway line.  At this stage, because unit 6 had a particular potential future use a precautionary approach had been adopted that, if under this planning application there was a specific designation of an easement of a 15 metre corridor along the route there were concerns that this would potentially sterilise that potential future use from coming forward,  There was a condition that a route would be found which could, in some scenarios, address more of the requirements of the Friends of the S&DR than currently.  There was no need to amend the wording of the condition in the manner requested as the current wording could cater for all eventualities in relation to the route.

 

Councillor Jewell thanked all those who had contributed to the debate.  This was a clear and positive application with many positive aspects and many benefits to the area.  While there were some small issues these had been mitigated by the suggested planning conditions.  While Councillor Jewell moved that the application be approved he hoped that in the future the suggestions made by the Friends of S&DR could be taken on board.

 

Councillor Laing agreed with Councillor Jewell had no hesitation in seconding approval of the application.  The application would enhance the site into an industrial trade park and attract over 3,00 jobs.

 

Councillor Shield considered the report to be well presented and gave credit to those who had been involved in establishing this opportunity which he wished there were more of in his area of County Durham.

 

Councillor Shield expressed caution and referenced paragraph 69 of the report.  There was the potential for Great Crested Newts and the trapping and translocation, not relocation, had to be undertaken at specific times, not when they were hibernating.

 

Cllr Shuttleworth stated that while the 3,000 jobs were welcome he requested clarification.  The two local Members had not been allowed to speak on the application yet nearly all of the directors of Forest Park Ltd were local government officers.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor replied that it was a matter of the rules contained in the Members Code of Conduct because Members were at Committee to make decisions, the officers were not.

 

Councillor Shuttleworth sought clarification on what interest the County Council had in the company because a lot of council officers were involved with it.  The Planning and Development Solicitor replied that although he did not know the answer to this, the applicant could be asked for clarification.  However, he was not sure how this was of direct relevance to the decision which the Committee had to make and requested that the applicant clarify this. 

 

Councillor Robinson reminded the Committee that at the beginning of the meeting both officers and Members had declared an interest.  Councillor Shuttleworth believed that the local Members, even if not allowed to vote, were entitled to speak on behalf of their constituents.  Councillor Robinson replied that he had asked this very point but had been advised by the County Solicitor that the Members could not speak.

 

Mr Palmer informed the Committee that Forest Park Ltd was established with the land owner, the Forest family, as a delivery vehicle to ensure that the site was delivered.  Once the site was delivered the partnership would be dissolved.  A development agreement was being signed with Richardson Barberry today.  The Council’s interest was as a delivery vehicle to ensure the site could be developed out.

 

Councillor Wilkes agreed with the points raised by Councillor Shuttleworth.  He was concerned that officers had been allowed to speak but there was nothing in the report from the local Members to express their view.  Councillor Wilkes was concerned about the impact of the development on the environment and asked that the map showing the proposed layout be shown.  This showed an extremely dense site being built in open countryside with a stream currently running through the site with mature trees on either side.  The density of the proposed development was excessive.  The site would employ hundreds of people and Councillor Wilkes did not consider that there was sufficient open space.  The development would take away good agricultural land and replace this with a high density of buildings.  The policies of the Great Aycliffe Neighbourhood Plan mentioned replanting to encourage biodiversity at policy E4 and with this kind of density this could not be done.  Policy CH1 of the Neighbourhood Plan and policy E15 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan required that the existing hedgerows on site and woodlands should be retained.  Policy E1 of the Sedgefield Plan mentioned landscape protection and enhancement, the density of these proposals made that impossible.

 

NPPF 15 stated that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural environment and Councillor Wilkes asked how this development could do that.

 

The development would remove fields and open land, removing trees, divert and remove a waterway, impact on wild bird sites and impact on a heritage site.  Councillor Wilkes could not see how this development could be contributing to the enhancement of the natural environment.  Policy D1 of the Sedgefield Borough Plan required proper landscaping and a decent relationship to the open space.  Proper landscaping was not possible on this development due to the density of it.

 

The report referred to £¹/₂ bn of benefit to County Durham, but the mitigation proposed was £170,000 worth.  If the application was from a private developer with no interest at all from the County Council Councillor Wilkes would find it impossible to believe that the only mitigation would be £170,000 worth.

 

Councillor Wilkes considered that the Committee should only have been asked to be minded to approve the application because of the level of influence of the Council in Forest Park Ltd.

 

The Principal Planning Officer considered that many of the points raised by Councillor Wilkes drew a different conclusion on the same matters.  It was accepted that there was a degree of landscape harm and that best and most versatile agricultural land was being lost.  It was added that whilst the site was beyond the built up boundary of the settlement the site was bordered by an employment site, motorway and services so the surrounding area was a developed one rather than one of a particularly rural nature.  In regards to the queries raised on the mitigation monies to be obtained by a s106 contribution it was advised that contributions could only be obtained from a development that met the CIL tests.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee that there was nothing to preclude the Council from determining an application in which it has some interest.  This was not a situation where the application needed to be referred to the Secretary of State.

 

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that he had attended the site visit.  He shared Councillor Wilkes concerns and also would have liked to have heard the views of the local Members.

 

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:

-£173,668 towards off site biodiversity mitigation works.

-£100,000 towards providing a temporary bus service from the site.

-The provision of a targeted recruitment and training scheme on a voluntary basis.

 

and subject to the conditions contained in the report.

 

 

Councillors Atkinson and Clare re-joined the meeting.