Agenda item

Outline application for erection of 1no dwelling with all matters reserved.

 

The Area Planning Team Leader (Central and East), Sarah Eldridge, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was an outline application for erection of 1no dwelling with all matters reserved (re-consultation following change to ownership details) and was recommended for refusal.

 

The Area Planning Team Leader noted two updates relating to the application and report, with paragraph 2 of the report referring to the nearby site of the Pemberton Arms Public House, this should refer to the former Pemberton Arms Public House, now demolished with four dwellings being constructed on the site.  She added that paragraph 32 of the report referred to five letters of support, a further letter had been received and therefore six letters of support had been received.

 

The Committee were referred to plans and aerial photos and it was noted the site was within the open countryside as defined within the District of Easington Local Plan.  Members were shown photographs of the site and surrounding area for context, noting the settlement of Cold Hesledon with limited services and a small number of dwellings, with the adopted access road to the site being unlit and without footpaths.  The Area Planning Team Leader explained that the application was in outline and referred to an indicative site layout plan also showing the stables and schooling area.  She noted the application stated it was for security purposes following a series of crime incidents, however, at the current juncture there was not a rural business operating from the site.  She referred Members to an aerial photomontage showing where the Seaham Garden Village would be located, that site having outline planning permission and therefore it was an indicative layout and the final detailed design detail had not yet come forward.  She noted the indicative village centre and areas of residential development, however, she explained it was felt to be premature to give weight to any future relationship between the application site and the Garden Village development.

 

The Area Planning Team Leader noted there were no objections from technical consultees subject to conditions, namely Highways, Archaeology Ecology, Environmental Health and the Landscape Section. 

 

She added in terms of public responses there had been six letters of support and a 60 signature petition in support, with signatories from a wide geographical area, and no comments or representations in objection to the application had been received.

 

The Area Planning Team Leader noted that in terms of the principle of development the policies within the Local Plan were out of date and therefore consideration would be via Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), whether the benefits of the application outweighed the impacts of development.  She noted in terms of sustainability, the site was not isolated in that it was surrounded by dwellings, however, it was within the open countryside, very much within the rural setting.  She added that new dwellings within the countryside are generally considered where there is a requirement for a rural worker to be on site to perform their duties and the NPPF required that new developments should be located in area that were sustainable, limiting the need for travel.  It was explained the nearest bus stop was 0.5km away and occupiers would need to walk along the unlit track without a footpath, with services between Sunderland and Hartlepool and Sunderland and Durham running approximately once an hour.

 

It was explained that there was not easy access to amenities from the site, with Murton approximately 2km away and Dalton Park around 1.5km away, although Dalton Park had limited facilities to meet the daily needs of occupants and it was felt residents would be reliant upon use of private vehicles.  She added that if the Garden Village did follow the design as set out within the indicative plan, it would be approximately 850m to the centre of the Garden Village from the application.  In relation to the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the Area Planning Team Leader noted the building was somewhat detached from the existing clusters of buildings and it was considered that it would represent a further incursion into the countryside.  She noted there were no concerns relating to residential amenity or highways issues and it was noted the Applicant was putting forward a case in terms of crime and disorder, noting a number of incidents at the site, however, Officers did not feel these outweighed the impacts of the development in terms of the visual impact and sustainability.

 

The Area Planning Team Leader noted in conclusion that while the application would provide some limited economic benefit in terms of the construction of the site, expenditure by future occupants and potential to reduce future incidents of crime, this was not felt those limited and site specific benefits were sufficient to outweigh the wider ranging adverse impacts of a dwelling in an unsustainable location and the impact upon the character and appearance of the open countryside and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.

 

The Chair thanked the Area Planning Team Leader and noted there were two registered speakers, Councillor L Pounder and Ms Helen Heward, Agent for the Applicant asked if the Senior Committee Services Officer, Ian Croft could read out a statement on behalf of Councillor L Pounder who was not able to attend the meeting.

 

The Senior Committee Services Officer noted the statement from Councillor L Pounder read as follows:

 

“Thank you for reading out my statement, I feel strongly about supporting development which is going to have a positive effect on the economy of our County whilst also resolving an ongoing criminal activity.

 

Five letters of support have been received stating what a positive benefit this property would be to the area.  A petition of support with 60 signatures has also been provided, no objections have been received.  This scheme is supported by our community.

 

The development will add to our housing supply at a time when our economy has been plunged into depression, our area needs jobs and a small scale housing project will use small scale local trades people, whilst the Committee Report references that the development would only make a minor economic uplift, if we added together all small scale development this would not be minor and so we should stop being blinkered and look at supporting our community.

 

There is ongoing problem with crime which have been raised by supporters of the scheme and whilst the owner of the site has put in place security measures such as gate locks and CCTV these have not deterred criminals from targeting the site.

 

The applicant has risked his own personal safety by staying at the site in their vehicle over night to protect their property and animals, this is not right in a time when the safety of a home has never been more necessary during this pandemic.  There have been financial costs, but you can’t put a cost on the mental anguish resulting from concerns for the welfare of the horses kept at the sits.

 

In terms of the location, the Committee Report highlights that the site is not sustainable however the was a recent appeal on a site nearby, at Saddleback Cottage, Cold Hesledon with similar access and connectivity which was allowed as the Inspector concluded that the site was a sustainable location for a dwelling.

 

 

It seems perverse that based on the same planning policies an independent Planning Inspector considered Cold Hesledon sustainable and yet the Committee Report does not - we need consistency in decision making.  This appeal decision was based before Seaham Garden Village was approved and now that development has started this only adds to the site’s sustainability.

 

I implore you all to support this development, the benefits of this application are obvious.

 

1)       It’s in a location which has been established as a sustainable location by an independent inspector, amongst a cluster of other properties and right next to Seaham Garden Village.

 

2)       It will provide the opportunity for local trades to work on a local site, supporting our economy at a time when people are desperate to work.

 

3)       It will provide a home for a member of the community to enable him to look after his horses in a safe environment, deterring the existing criminal activity currently experienced.

 

A safe home is of paramount importance in the current climate, so let’s join our community and support the development.  Thank you”.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Committee Services Officer and asked Ms H Heward to speak on behalf of the Applicant in support of the application.

 

Ms H Heward thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Applicant.  She explained that they had read the Officer’s report and were disappointed that they did not support the application in this instance.  She explained that they understood that national and local policies looked to resist isolated dwellings in the countryside, however, the application would not result in an isolated dwelling.  Ms H Heward noted that proposals were only 35m away from existing dwellings in Cold Hesledon, where policy required a minimum distance of 20m in any case.  She added that the photographs shown within the Officer’s presentation did not show the closest dwelling to the proposals, just to the south of the site, and she would argue that the proposals did not intrude further into the countryside than existing buildings on the site which consisted of a large American style barn with stables inside and a riding arena, therefore the proposed dwelling would not appear isolated and would relate well to the existing built form that surrounded the site.

 

Ms H Heward noted that the approved Seaham Garden Village was also important in terms of consideration of the application in that is was in the next field to that of the proposed dwelling. 

She added that while the details were not yet known, a discharge of condition had been submitted to the Council, inferring that it was reasonable that scheme would come forward and provide various shops and facilities within walking distance to the proposed dwelling regardless of the specific details, with the proposed dwelling being ultimately viewed within the context of that large development.  It was explained that the main reason for the Applicant wishing to provide a dwelling at the site was as a result of the number of incidents of crime, the site having been consistently targeted by criminals resulting in loss and damage to property and associated financial cost.  Ms H Heward added that on a number of occasions the criminals had left the gates open which would allow for the horses to wander out onto the public highway, posing a danger to the animals and road users.  She added this had placed great stress on the Applicant, who himself had taken personal risk, sleeping in his car, to prevent such criminality from occurring.  She informed Members that additional security measures, such as gate locks and CCTV had been installed, however these had not deterred criminals from targeting the site and noted that allowing the dwelling would provide a permanent deterrent to criminals. 

 

Ms H Heward noted that the Officer’s report stated the site was unsustainable and would rely upon private cars for travel, however, allowing a dwelling at the site would reduce trip generation as the Applicant drives to and from the site at least two to three times a day.  In addition, she noted that the Highways Section had raised no objections to the application in respect of the access.  She noted that importantly there had been a recent appeal on a site nearby at Saddleback Cottage, Cold Hesledon with similar access and connectivity which was allowed.  She noted that in that case, the Inspector concluded that even though the occupiers would have to negotiate a narrow country lane, that would be for a relatively short distance and the lane was not heavily trafficked and therefore in allowing the appeal the Inspector considered that the site had access to regular services, bus stops and lit footpaths which linked the development to the existing built form and as such the site was a sustainable location for a dwelling.  She noted it was reasonable to expect a resident of the proposed dwelling to walk to the nearby bus stop or use the convenient, recently opened shop at Dalton Park for their daily needs.

 

Ms H Heward noted local residents were consulted upon the application and six letters of support had been received, alongside a 60 signature petition, and she pointed out the application did provide significant economic benefits, and in the current climate where Government was encouraging people to build it needed to be a priority to support small-scale development where a local workforce is likely to be used, in order to help the economy recover. 

 

 

In summary, Ms H Heward reiterated that the proposals represented a number of social, economic and environmental benefits and the site was a sustainable location for a dwelling, providing much needed security for site without intruding on to the open countryside.  She concluded by respectfully asking the Committee to go against the Officer’s recommendation and approved the proposed dwelling at the site.

 

The Chair thanked Ms H Heward and asked the Area Planning Team Leader to respond to the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Area Planning Team Leader noted that in respect of the appeal decisions referred to for Saddleback Cottage, that location was further south than the application site and sat within an enclave of existing buildings, and was a conversion scheme, and the appeal took place five years ago and in the context of the Pemberton Arms still being a Public House and the Morrisons store that had been built at Dalton Park, though not yet occupied.  She explained that Officers noted several more recent appeals decisions, that reflected more closely the circumstances of this case, with one such appeal decision referred to within the report, at Castle Eden, where access was along a similarly unlit lane without footpaths and with the Inspector in that instance concluding that a 250m lane would make that site an unsustainable location.  She added that an estimate of the length of the access in respect of the proposal was approximately 400m to where it joined the main road adjacent the site of the former Pemberton Arms Public House.  

 

The Chair thanked the Area Planning Team Leader and asked the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer, David Smith to speak in relation to the issues raised.

 

The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer explained that when looking at new housing development, the Highways Section would look at a publication from the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (CIHT), “Journeys by Public Transport”, which sets out the journeys to public transport by foot.  He added that the application site was over 400m away from the nearest road junction with the B1432 and the publication noted a comfort level for a person waling to public transport.  He noted the access lane had no footpath, was not lit, was very narrow with potential to come into conflict with traffic, and the distance in total to the nearest bus stop was around 500m, which had an hourly service.  He noted those negative aspects, together with low lighting levels especially in the winter months, were not conducive to walking on foot and he would agree with the comments of the Highway Development Manager within the report that the location was not a sustainable location.

 

The Chair reminded Members that should they realise they have a declaration of interest in any item they should make it known.

The Chair asked the Committee for their comments and questions on the application.

 

Councillor J Maitland noted that she was a Member for the adjacent Murton Electoral Division and explained that from listening as regards the proposed development she could only see it as being good.  She added that there had been no one against the application and that all the representations had been in support and that the anti-social behaviour that had been occurring would be deterred if someone was living at the site, noting the Applicant had been sleeping in their car at the site.  She noted that the proposal site was near to the Garden Village, where plans had been approved and it was hoped that scheme would go ahead.  Councillor J Maitland noted the reference to the appeal relating to Saddleback Cottage which was not very far away from the application site and concluded by noting she wished to go against the Officer’s recommendation and proposed that the application be approved.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that he struggled on occasion where a site is referred to as an “unsustainable” location, with his idea of an unsustainable location being 20 or 50 miles away from anywhere else.  He added he agreed with Councillor J Maitland and the Local Members in that he felt the application was of benefit, could create a couple of local jobs and would stop the anti-social behaviour and therefore he would second the approval of the application.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted that in terms of planning regulations he felt the case was fairly cut and dry for the application and he agreed with Officers that it represented an incursion into the countryside, would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and he noted his concerns as regards pedestrians walking in darkness.  He added he gave no credence to the 60 signatures in the petition that came from far and wide, with the application having no impact upon those that had written in.  He noted that when looking at the application on its own merits, bearing in mind representations and Appeals decisions, from the NPPF and Local Plan the application was a “non-starter” and therefore he agreed with the Officer’s recommendation and he would move refusal of the application.

 

Councillor J Robinson referred to paragraph two of the report which referred to planning permission for four houses at the former Pemberton Arms site and asked why permission would be given for that nearby location, and the nearby Garden Village, if the argument for refusal of the current proposal was that it was in an unsustainable location.  The Area Planning Team Leader noted that the former Pemberton Arms site was at the end of the 400m track previously referred to and was adjacent to the bus stop mentioned.

 

The Chair noted Councillor J Maitland had proposed the approval of the application and Councillor J Shuttleworth had seconded the proposal.  She added that Councillor P Taylor had proposed that the application be refused and asked if there was a seconder to his proposal.  Councillor M Davinson noted he would second the proposal for refusal.  The Chair asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development to coordinate the voting, in the order of the proposals, for approval in the first instance.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that the vote would be for approval of the application, subject to appropriate conditions, adding what he had understood from the Members proposing the approval was they believed, in the context of the NPPF Paragraph 11 balancing exercise, that the adverse impacts of the development did not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development.

 

Upon a vote being taken, the application was Approved.

 

The Chair noted that accordingly there was no need to consider the motion for refusal and noted the Area Planning Team Leader wish to clarify a point.  The Area Planning Team Leader noted there would be a need for an appropriately worded suite of conditions as well as a Section 106 Legal Agreement as the site was within the 6km coastal buffer zone, a contribution of £756.61p to mitigate against that impact.  Councillor m Davinson added that as usual the conditions and agreement should be subject to consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to a suite of conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement, the details of which to be delegated to the Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.