Agenda item

Residential Development and Associated Access (Outline Application).

Residential Development and Associated Access (Outline Application)

The Principal Planning Officer (South/West Area), Andrew Inch gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated.  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.

During his presentation the Principal Planning Officer (South/West Area) provided the following updates received since the reports had been prepared and provided responses where necessary:

• There had been no objections from statutory and internal consultees
• Ferryhill Town Council supported the proposals.

The Principal Planning Officer (South/West Area) reiterated the Report in noting that the Council’s Employment Land Review had identified that there was an overprovision of such land by approximately a 12 year level of supply and take up, the current site and premises did not meet the needs of modern businesses and there were not attracting tenants to the site. 

The Principal Planning Officer (South/West Area) concluded by noting that whilst the Application did propose a departure from the allocated use as industrial land, it was felt that the departure was in line with the Regional Spatial Strategy, National Policy and under 2009 Departures Direction, a decision could be made without the need to refer the matter to the Secretary of State therefore the Application was recommended for approval.

The Chair asked the spokesperson for Mainsforth Road Community Group, Mr Scott Miller, to speak in relation to the Application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee. 

Mr Scott Miller thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of both himself personally and the Mainsforth Road Community Group in objection to the Application.  The Committee were informed that residents of the 44 houses west of the railway tracks that run alongside the site were not in objection to development in principle, however, all were overwhelmingly in objection to the scale of the proposal for 258 dwellings and felt that this was extremely disproportionate to the existing settlement.  Mr Scott Miller queried whether it would be sensible to have a large number of houses built on the edge of the settlement when there were potential sites for regeneration within Ferryhill Town Centre, such as the now closed Leisure Centre.  Mr Scott Miller added that residents felt that the proposal would not have sufficient local amenity available and that the Application as it stood did not sufficiently tackle issues of potential congestion or access issues to 3 properties from the proposed roundabout.  The Committee were reminded that the County Durham Development Plan stated 300 new houses for Ferryhill, and that 258 as proposed for the site constituted the bulk of this new provision in just one site.  Mr Scott Miller suggested that this may not be the most appropriate site for that number of properties. 

Mr Scott Miller added that there was a need to complete ecological surveys and concluded by reiterating that local residents were overwhelmingly against the proposal on issues of scale and poor access and amenity.

The Chair thanked Mr Scott Miller for his comments and asked the Agent, Mr Keith Fenwick (acting upon behalf of the Applicant), to speak in relation to the Application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee. 

Mr Keith Fenwick noted the comprehensive Report as set out by the Officer adding that in relation to ecology surveys, these were now completed after a 6 month hiatus in order to carry out the surveys at the appropriate time of year to check for certain species.  The Committee were informed that surveys had shown no evidence of Dingy Skipper, Badger activity or any other issue to prevent the proposals being recommended for approval.  In relation to the issues raised concerning the proposed roundabout and access to properties, Mr Keith Fenwick explained that access would be retained, and would actually benefit from enhanced visibility, with the details of the layout to be completed in consultation with the DCC Highways Department.  Mr Keith Fenwick added that in relation to scale, as the development was for 280 properties, Ferryhill having over 11,500 residents already and Mainsforth being a “Category 2 Settlement”, he felt that the development helped to secure sustainability and growth for the area. 

Members were referred to the Officers Report which set out the many amenities that were located close to the site.  Mr Keith Fenwick concluded by noting that Government guidance was for sustainable development and that if the site was not likely to attract future employment prospects it would be more beneficial to have the land brought back into use to prevent anti-social behaviour on the site and provide value to the site and surrounding community.

The Chair thanked Mr Keith Fenwick for his comments in support of the Application and opened the debate up to Members of the Committee.

Councillor N Martin asked whether there could be mention within any Section 106 Agreement for a requirement for play areas for younger children within the site and hoped that at the detailed application stage, there would be proper incorporation of microgeneration and renewable energy solutions for the proposed properties.

Councillor D Boyes noted his disappointment that a site visit had not been recommended for this application and noted the Police Architectural Liaison Officers concerns regarding access and security of properties at “a standalone site”. 

Councillor G Richardson noted from the indicative plan the close proximity of the railway line and asked whether noise levels would be acceptable for the new properties.

The Principal Planning Officer (South/West Area) noted that there was a recreation ground only 200m from the site and that open space would be incorporated into the site layout.  Members were informed that Condition 16 set out, as much as possible at the outline stage, the requirements for renewable energy for the scheme and that further information would be required at the detailed application stage.  The Principal Planning Officer (South/West Area) noted that the Police Architectural Liaison Officers had commented based upon the indicative layout presented for the outline application and that the detailed scheme that would follow, should the outline scheme be approved, would take into account those comments.  In relation to noise levels, the Principal Planning Officer (South/West Area) noted that the ground height level of the proposed site for development was significantly higher than the railway and this, coupled with retained coniferous planting, would meant that noise levels would be acceptable.  The Committee were reminded of the many local amenities as set out within the Report and noted that additional properties would only likely benefit the sustainability of such amenities.

The Principal Engineer, Highway Development Control, Alan Glenwright, noted that the requirement for the roundabout in the scheme was a consequence of having over 300 properties, however with the scheme having been amended to only 258 properties it was regarded as a very good standard of access. The Principal Engineer added however that the roundabout added improved access to the 3 properties directly affected and that the indicative drawings did not show the roundabout to scale, this would follow in any detailed application. The Committee were informed that a footway would appear to be created, serving the two properties that previously did not have pedestrian access, again with the details to come forward at the appropriate detailed application stage.

The Principal Engineer noted that the Council’s Area Traffic Engineer had commented that the roundabout would assist in improving highway safety, acting as a traffic calming measure complimenting the roundabout on the western side of the railway line.  The Principal Engineer concluded by noting as the roundabout was originally proposed to cope with the demands of over 300 properties, there would not be any issues of congestion with only 258 properties and that the Highway Development Control Section had no comments on the internal layout of the site at this indicative stage, however, the Section would comment as appropriate at any detailed application stage.

Councillor P Taylor noted he was broadly in support of development that provided family homes, however, shared his concern of the lack of affordable housing for this scheme.

Councillor P Taylor noted it was the third meeting of a Planning Committee where he had heard that a Developer was unable to provide affordable housing whilst maintaining a viable scheme and asked why this was now the case when affordable housing provision had been provided in the past. 

Mr Keith Fenwick noted that the site would require remediation in order to make it suitable for housing development and this, in conjunction to the current market conditions, meant that financially it would not be possible to have affordable housing within the scheme.  Members were informed that the viability of the scheme had been assessed on an open-book basis, and that there was a stipulation within the Application for reassessment of the viability of affordable housing at key milestones in the development, for example after 75 properties were completed, 125 properties and so on.  Councillor P Taylor accepted that the economic climate was an important factor; however, he noted that the issue regarding the remediation of the site was perhaps a “red herring”.

Councillor M Dixon moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor N Martin.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.

The Chair agreed that the next item could be considered as urgent business.