Agenda item

Erection of 79 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), associated infrastructure and landscaping and demolition of existing agricultural barn

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer with regards to the erection of 79 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), associated infrastructure and landscaping and demolition of existing agricultural barn at Land to the North and South of Spa Road, Gainford (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs of the site and photographs of the site and plans showing the proposed site layout.

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that since the publication of the report 1 further letter of objection had been received, the issues within raised within have predominantly been discussed within the report. One new issue is raised on whether the development is appropriate in the current economic climate and whether the development would be economically viable at a time of potential economic crisis, however, officers consider that this would not be an appropriate reason to refuse the application.

Councillor Rowlandson confirmed that he travelled on the A68 regularly and the entrance into the village is a picture, with the site in front of that view. Concerns were expressed in regards to a blind corner and the impact of the number of vehicles accessing and egressing.  Councillor Rowlandson confirmed that he had many people objecting, but had also people in support of a new development in the village. However, with the loss of agricultural land and impact on the countryside he asked that the Committee refuse the application.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that he couldn’t add anything else to James Rowlandson and he had to object for the people of Gainford, with regret he could not support.

Mr Peake confirmed that in Gainford a lot of local consultation had taken place.  Support for this scheme was greater than it was in Staindrop. In response to the comment about Raby finding other sites Mr Peake confirmed that a review of all existing sites had been undertaken by the estate. However, for a development to be sustainable this means having good access to schools and shops, so though we do own a lot of land most is remote and in extremely rural locations where it would be completely unsustainable to build.

The statement of Dr A Walker was read out by the Senior Committee Services Officer as follows;

•      New housing may be required in County Durham but it was questionable whether 79 houses were needed in a village with no local employment and poor public transport links

•      Significant environmental impacts. This was a beautiful green field with loss of wildlife, risk of flooding and additional cars on the road

•      The entrance to the development was dangerous, being built on a blind corner

•      There was no mention of how ‘green’ this development was. A new development should be as green and environmentally friendly as possible. She asked whether there would be any future energy requirement for houses and vehicles

•      Concerns with regards to safe access to the school as all the roads from the main road to the school were single track and had narrow footpaths or none

•      Insufficient parking on the site and in the village. There did not seem to be enough parking per house. Most households had several cars which would be needed for commuting. The village already had many cars parked on the road and increased traffic would cause more issues when passing

•      Village amenities were lacking. There was no longer a cafe or post office and the local shop was very basic so new residents would have to travel to access services

•      Devolvement on the St Peters site should take priority as this was an eyesore and subject to repeated arson attacks and conerns that if this development succeeds, the St Peters development may not

•      The development would change the feel of the village from a small local community to a commuter village with no centre point

•      The view across the field was a protected view in a conservation area

•      Most people would travel east from the village to the A1, train station, airport, Darlington, Teesside for employment and therefore pass through the narrow main road

Councillor Tinsley confirmed that having listened to the issues raised, the issue of enabling development was not as contentious as the application for Staindrop.

Councillor Tinsley commented on the difficultly for communities in places like Gainford and Staindrop as people wanted to live in desirable places and there was pressure from developers and the government for development.  He read quotes in relation to the need to provide suitable housing developments from Rt Honourable Robert Jenerick and Rt Hounarable Boris Johnson and proposed a recommendation to approve.

Councillor Atkinson seconded the motion to approve as on balance the benefits outweighed any negative impact.

Councillor Wilkes had referred to the Councils Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as this piece of land had not been included as a development site and it was part described as a large uncontained incursion into attractive countryside, beyond well assimilated settlement edge, likely to have significant landscape effects and cause significant adverse harm to the setting of the conservation area, with grade 1 and 2 listed buildings, unlikely to achieve suitable highway access without substantial hedge removal and substandard footpath links, and that was only one side of the road. There was no flood risk and part of the site suggested a yield of 86, yet this was significantly larger with only 79 houses proposed and he was less inclined to vote against despite there being a lot of reasons why it shouldn’t be developed. As stated, it was a balance test of the positives and negatives. Cllr Wilkes concluded that he would like to listen to what any other Members say.

Councillor Richardson stated the application was similar in many ways to Staindrop and the statement from Dr Walker had drawn his attention to St Peters, with over 30 houses to come forward, this would be an additional 110 houses, which was a significant increase. The access was on a very busy road with a school opposite – crossing the road was a great worry.

Councillor Hopgood did not see the need for this application when there was an application at St Peters which had been approved in Gainford which had not commenced. She was staggered that we have waited for years for the County Durham Plan so that we can abide by it and have guidance and yet every application the Committee has gone against its policies.

Resolved:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

·        The urgent repair works to Gainford Hall and the Dovecote, the timescales for doing so, in addition to the management and maintenance regime for the hall and its marketing strategy

·        Heritage works to RCPG prior to the occupation of a specified number of plots

·        The requirement to enter into a S.39 Agreement to secure the long term management and maintenance, including a monitoring strategy of the biodiversity land

·        £67,686 towards improving offsite open space and recreational provision within Barnard Castle East Electoral Division;

·        The dedication of a new Public Right of Way as shown on drg. no. L-102 - Footpath Plan

·        The delivery of 5% affordable housing comprising of 3no. 2-bedroom houses and 1no. 3-bedroom house for affordable home ownership

And subject to the conditions outlined in the report.