Agenda item

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 260 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access.  All matters reserved except for means of access.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline planning application for the erection of up to 260 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access, all matters reserved except for means of access on land to the south of 2 Beamish View, Hill Top, East Stanley (for copy see file of Minutes).

L Eden, Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, development framework plan, photographs showing current and proposed access and photographs across the proposed development site.  Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with its location and setting.

Councillor L Timbey of Stanley Town Council addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The proposed development between Beamish Rise, East Stanley and No Place fell within the area of Stanley Town Council.

When details of the proposed development came in to the public domain the Town Council received enquiries from concerned local residents.  To hear these concerns the Town Council arranged a public meeting.  A large number of residents attended the public meeting and raised the same concerns that Members of the Town Council had about the development.

The development would add more pressure to the A693 which was already a very congested road with traffic travelling at high speeds.  This would make the A693 more dangerous for residents to cross to access local woods and amenities.  The development would create a significant incursion into the countryside, would not be in keeping with existing pattern of development across the area and would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the local landscape.  It would result in No Place ceasing to be a separate settlement from Stanley.  The development would lead to increased car usage in Stanley because of the poor walking routes to the town centre and long distances to bus stops from the development.

Stanley Town Council had unanimously resolved that it strongly opposed the development and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor C Marshall, local Member, submitted the following representation:

Housing development is important to the future economic growth of the County and to Stanley.  However it is important that we make sure the development is of the right type in the right place so we retain our communities and so that any proposals are safe and retain our communities.

Since this application was made I have spoken to and received correspondence from a raft of anxious members of the public.  The developer has made no attempt to properly engage our community, leaving members of the public with little opportunity, other than through the formal planning process to discuss their concerns.

The application before committee today is wrong on so many counts, the development is in the wrong place, places undue strain on our busy highway network, where unfortunately there has been a number of incidents on the main road adjacent to the proposed site and this development places further risks associated with this road.

The development also joins the town of Stanley with the rural village of No Place, sprawling out across the countryside.

I have also noted several other planning issues through the public meetings, petitions and communication.

This application has caused a lot of unrest.  The approach taken by Gladman has been very amateur and in my opinion has not considered either the Councils existing or emerging planning policy.

On the grounds above I would urge the committee to reject this application.

Councillor Wilson expressed concern that the development would join Stanley and No Place and also expressed concern at the impact of the development on highways.  The A693 was a fast moving and busy road and nothing had been provided to indicate how safe it would be for the additional traffic generated by the development to use the road.  In the officer’s opinion there had been an insufficient assessment.  Councillor Wilson informed the Committee that he was fully supportive of the reasons for refusal and moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that while development was important, it was most important to have correct development type in the correct location.  This was quite a large development for this to be the right location and the highways issues raised were of concern.  The A693 was a very busy road and Councillor Jewell expressed concern at traffic turning in to the ‘B’ road even though there was a relief lane.  Councillor Jewell agreed with all that had been said and seconded refusal of the application.

Councillor Tinsley fully agreed with the officer’s recommendations and comments made by local Members and members of the community.  This was clearly an application which did not pass the Paragraph 11 test, there were adverse impacts associated with it which were significant and demonstrable, and Councillor Tinsley supported the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Clare requested that the Ordnance Survey map of the area be displayed in the Chamber.  Councillor Clare agreed with all comments that had already been made.  The development was on a site with a spur which had a raised portion of land.  The site was raised ground and because it was a spur the development would be visible from three sides and would be a very visible incursion into the countryside.

Councillor Shield concurred with all that had been said.  The A693 was one of the busiest routes between Chester le Street and Stanley with a lot of backlog of traffic getting in to and out of Stanley.  Councillor Shield was not happy with the incursion into the countryside.  There had been both statutory and internal objections and Councillor Shield supported the officer’s recommendation.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons stated in the report.