Agenda item

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 60 dwellings (Class C3) with all matters reserved except access (resubmission of DM/18/02937/OUT)

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline planning application for the erection of up to 60 dwellings (Class C3) with all matters reserved except access (resubmission of DM/18/02937/OUT) on land to the south east of Fieldfare Court, Crookgate Bank (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 of the site, indicative proposed layout plan, proposed site access arrangements various views across the site and available walking routes into Burnopfield.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that since the publication of the Committee report one additional letter of support for the application had been received from the Director of a local business.

 

Councillor Jewell, local Member, addressed the Committee.  Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that he considered the application to be finely balanced.  He had been contacted by both local residents and employees in the area in support of the application which was unusual for a planning application.

 

Councillor Jewell thanked the Senior Planning Officer for the report, which represented a significant amount of work, however he did not agree with the recommendation from his experience of living in and walking in the area on a regular basis.

 

Whilst the application had a number of perceived negatives, it also had a large number of positives, which residents of Burnopfield and businesses had brought to his attention.  The late representation referred to in the Senior Planning Officer’s presentation was a letter of support which had been received from a Director of a local company which employed 200 people at the Hobson Industrial Estate, which was in walking distance of the proposed development.

 

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that in the past the main issues raised by residents were speeding traffic along Barcusclose Lane and the lack of footpaths.  This application sought to partly address these issues.  Footpaths would be extended and highways changes would help address the issue of speeding traffic.

 

Referring to sustainability, it was suggested that there was an issue of no buses on the route past the development.  This was a little used route for bus passengers but local bus services were driven by the number of passengers which would be picked up on the route.  Sustainability in planning terms was considered in terms of public transport which implied that if there were bus services these would be used rather than private transport.  Councillor Jewell considered this to be a flawed concept.

 

The report assumed that the walking route to Burnopfield was difficult.  However, from the east side of the proposed development there was a walking route to the A692 which was mostly tarmacked and would be improved.  On the other side of the road the footpath went down a slope, because of the topography of the area, into Burnopfield.  This path was fully tarmacked and had street lighting.  This was a well-used footpath.  The reality was that people did walk down this path.

 

Referring to facilities, Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that these seem to be limited to shops, health services and the community centre. However, Burnopfield had other facilities such as a golf course, which was within walking distance, a football field and next to the football field a cricket field, all within easy walking distance.  The proposed development was within a quite easy walking distance to an industrial estate and to a local pub and restaurants.

 

Councillor Jewell referred to bus services.  It was considered that what was needed was the ability to catch a bus very near to a property to wherever was needed, however this was not the reality.  Residents could walk to catch a No. 6 bus from the main road, could catch an M8 to The Pack Horse and then had the facility to go to the Metrocentre or Newcastle.  There were a number of hubs for buses from which travel to Stanley then on to Chester le Street, Sunderland, Consett and Durham was possible.  From Burnopfield buses to Stanley and Consett could be caught, which were both hubs.  This was how bus services operated.

 

Councillor Jewell, while considering the application to be finely balanced, thought there were many benefits from the proposed development.  If an area did not develop then it died.  Burnopfield had residents who came back into the area and criticism from local residents was that the necessary housing for these people was not available.  This was the same criticism that the Director of the local company had mentioned with employees travelling some distance which would not be necessary if appropriate housing was available to them within easy reach of the company.

 

Councillor Jewell considered this to be an acceptable application and considered that it should be approved.

 

Councillor Jewell left the room.

 

Mr McMillan of IMPEC Real Estate addressed the Committee.  This was a second application for this site.  At the Committee meeting which considered the first application it was acknowledged by Members that while the level of benefits being offered was significant, the main debate centred around the scale of the development which was considered to be too large at that time.  As a result the incursion into the countryside was, on balance, too great to warrant approval.  At the time some Members did comment that it was a finely balanced decision given the impressive scale of benefits which were on offer.

 

The applicant had listened to that debate and this application was substantially reduced in scale and the new homes were fully enclosed on three sides by existing mature tree lines.  Furthermore, the level of benefits had been increased from the first application by including new bus shelters and adding 2.4 hectares of public open space.  These new proposals were as a result of extensive engagement with Council officers, in particular the Council’s Landscape Officer who did not support the first application.  The Landscape Officer’s report for the amended application positively commented that in the wider local landscape the effect on landscape was low and on the immediate local landscape the harm was time limited.  The Landscape Officer was complimentary on the applicants landscape strategy and further commented positively on the proposed open space.  It was clear that the applicant’s interpretation of the Landscape Officer’s report was different to that of the Planning Officer.  The Committee report summary stated that in reference to landscape there was substantial and inappropriate incursion and also stated significant adverse harm to the local landscape.  At no point was this language used in the Landscape Officer’s report on the amended application, although it was used for the first application.

 

The second reason for the recommendation for refusal was that the site had poor access to facilities.  The site was immediately adjacent to two bus stops with further bus stops on the A692 which were only a 9-minute walk from the site.  Between them, these bus stops offered three buses every hour to the edge of Burnopfield High Street, the Pack Horse stop as well as directly to a number of major retail and employment centres and transport interchanges.  From the Pack Horse bus stop within a three-minute walk there was a post office, a convenience store, a number of food outlets and a number of other facilities.  Additionally, Hobson Industrial Estate could be accessed on foot within 20 minutes from the proposed development.

 

The application would provide new, private, affordable and older persons homes ranging from 2 bed bungalows to 4 and 5 bed family homes, was in a location where people wanted and needed to live, with the unprecedented level of written support for the development was testament to this.  The applicant had listened to the points raised by the Committee for the previous application and Mr McMillan asked that the Committee approve the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the Landscape Officer’s response were available online for Members to review and officers considered that these had been accurately summarised within the Committee report.

 

Councillor L Marshall informed the Committee that she had read the report and listened to the points put forward at Committee.  The application was one of planning balance and for this application issues for and against were finely balanced.  There were a number of benefits to the proposal, not least the provision of new housing in a part of County Durham which had experienced relatively little in recent years.  This could only be of benefit in supporting a range of facilities and services in Burnopfield and the surrounding area.  This was an issue which had been raised by those who had written in support of the proposal.  The developer had proposed a strong s106 package which would see further benefits to the community.  The application had been significantly amended in comparison to the previously refused application and the proposed speed reduction measures and areas of open space were to be welcomed.  While the site may not be the ideal location for new housing in terms of landscape impact and accessibility to services Councillor Marshall did not consider that the adverse impacts in these areas would be so harmful to warrant refusal of planning permission.  The key landscape harm would be for a relatively short period after which the site would blend well into its surroundings.  With reference to sustainability Councillor Marshall, while accepting the proximity of the site to facilities and the frequency of bus services may not be ideal, she considered that the option other than using private motor vehicles would be available for future residents, which would limit the harm to the area.  On the whole Councillor Marshall considered this to be a well thought out application whose benefits outweighed the disbenefits and Councillor Marshall supported approval of the application.

 

Councillor Tinsley agreed with the points raised by Councillors Marshall and Jewell.  This was a finely balanced application which was different to that previously considered by the Committee, with fewer dwellings proposed.  Referring to sustainability Councillor Tinsley acknowledged that this was not an ideal site, and some distance from the centre of Burnopfield, taking into consideration all points raised both by the applicant and by Councillor Jewell he did not consider unsustainability of the site was such to warrant refusal of the application.

 

The principle of development on Crookgate Bank in the direction away from the main centre of Burnopfield had been established when the adjacent residential development was developed some 30 years ago.

 

The landscape proposals for tree planting over a period of five to ten years would screen the development to minimise the impact of the development.  The landscape impact was therefore significantly reduced.

 

Other benefits of the development included 2.4 hectares of open space and contributions towards local services.  Councillor Tinsley considered that sustainability issues did not warrant refusal and that landscape issues had been addressed to a significant degree and was minded towards supporting approval of the application.

 

Councillor Shield, while acknowledging that the applicant had made significant amendments to the previous application, could not support the application when it was in breach of certain policies.  There was a definite incursion into the countryside.  Derwentside had the second highest housing development in County Durham with Stanley and the Tanfield Industrial Estate having some 300 houses planned, and this was less than two miles from this site.  Consett was 5 miles by road, Stanley was 3 miles, Tanfield less than this.

 

Referring to the topography of the land Councillor Shield considered that access would be difficult for people with mobility issues.  While acknowledging the comments made by the local Member Councillor Shield was not minded to approve the application and moved the recommendation in the report that the application be refused on the grounds it was in breach of Policies EN1 and EN2 of the Derwentside Local Plan and Parts 12 and 15 of the NPPF.

 

Councillor Clare, whilst acknowledging the strength of the officers presentation, was not sure that he agreed with the strength of the case.  Landscape and sustainability were issues on which Members could have an opinion.  There was no doubt that this development was to be built on a slope and that the houses would be visible for a number of years.  It was also clearly an incursion into the countryside.  The degree and how harmful the incursion would be, given that on either side were clumps of woodland and that the development would be shielded in five to ten years, was not what Councillor Clare considered to be significant.

 

With reference to sustainability, a bus service ran alongside the proposed development with a bus stop, and Councillor Clare questioned how strong this argument would be at appeal.  The development brought with it a range of benefits and financial contributions, there was a significant weight of opinion for the need for housing at this location and the local Member considered that there was a need for the development to support the local area.

 

The application was not significantly and demonstrably damaging and Councillor Clare agreed with Councillors Marshall and Shield.

 

Councillor Wilkes agreed with Councillors Marshall, Tinsley and Clare.  This was not high quality farmland and the development would be barely visible across the wider landscape within 5 to 10 years.  Councillor Wilkes considered that the applicant had proposed mitigation to address the issues raised and could see no reason to refuse the application.  However, Councillor Wilkes asked that appropriate landscaping conditions be included in any permission.

 

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee he had considered all points raised and would support approval of the application.

 

Councillor A Bell informed the Committee that he had considered the issues raised by the local Member and would support approval of the application.

 

Councillor Robinson informed the Committee it appeared that it was minded to approval the application and if that was so Conditions and s106 agreement would needed to be attached to any permission. Councillor Robinson sought the Committee’s approval that any such Conditions and s106 agreement be delegated to officers with the approval of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.

 

Councillor Wilkes asked that Members of the Committee be circulated with any proposed Conditions before they were approved.

 

Moved by Councillor L Marshall, Seconded by Councillor Atkinson

 

N Carter, Planning and Development Solicitor sought clarity on the basis of the proposed decision on the application.  The key consideration was Paragraph 11 of the NPPF which was a balancing exercise.  The two key adverse impacts of the landscape and visual impact and the lack of sustainability credentials at the site had to be weighed up against the benefits, starting from a presumption in favour of granting planning permission.  If the application was approved the Committee would be determining that the adverse impacts did not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  There would be a need for planning conditions and it was proposed that the wording of these be delegated to the planning officer, taking on board Councillor Wilkes suggestion of circulating these to Members.  There would also be a need for a Section 106 obligation to secure a number of planning obligations and the Planning and Development Solicitor sought confirmation from the Planning Officer of what the heads of these obligations would be.  The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that these would be:

·        15% affordable housing

·        10% older person provision

·        £264,654 towards providing additional primary teaching accommodation at Burnopfield Primary School

·        £101,400 towards sustainable improvements to the M8 bus service

·        £27,631 towards public rights of way

·        £50,226 for improving offsite open space and recreational provision within Burnopfield and Dipton Electoral Division.

 

Resolved:

 

(i)           That the application be approved.

(ii)          That Conditions and s106 agreement be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee and circulated to Members.

 

Councillor Jewell rejoined the meeting, Councillor Tinsley left the meeting.