Agenda item

Residential development of up to 100 units (outline with all matters reserved apart from access).

The Senior Planning Officer, B Gavillet, 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 and details of the layout and access.

It was explained that the application sought permission for up to 100 dwellings with all matters reserved apart from the access. Indicative details of appearance, scale, landscaping and layout have also been provided which shows a scheme with a density of approximately 17.9 dwellings per hectare comprising dwellings with 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms.

Councillor J Rowlandson, local Member and Chair of Stainton and Streatlam Parish Council noted that the application site was within an area of outstanding natural beauty and should be protected as such. Despite officers comments the proposed location was less than 100 metres from Stainton Grove which was an encroachment into the neighbouring community and he felt strongly that the historic nature of this this area should be protected from the problems associated with a development of this nature.

Councillor R Bell, local Member addressed the committee in objection to the application, noting that he endorsed the comments and concerns of the parish council in relation to the highway and general development of the town. He noted that there was increasing pressure on GP services and other local services and he was shocked to learn that the NHS did not raise these issues when consulted.

He added that there were adequate homes for sales in Barnard Castle and development of this site would result in urban sprawl. He noted that the County Durham Plan did not identify this site for development as it was incursion into the open countryside and Policy 6 of the plan appeared to have disregard for the SLAA.

In response the Senior Planning Officer advised that £45,000 had been requested as a result of a direct responses from the NHS to offset the impact of the new homes by upgrading and expanding the existing surgery.

Regarding comments made relating to the incursion into the countryside, he explained that Landscape Officers felt that the development would improve the settlement edge and would have no detrimental impact upon the countryside.

A Coulthard, addressed the committee to object to the application. He explained that Barnard Castle was a picturesque market town, which should be protected, to avoid loss of tourism through repetitive modernisation development. He noted that he concerned to see that many of the supported to the application were in fact Banks employees and this should be investigated.

He went on to mention that Glaxo Smith Kline the main employer in the area, were reducing operations at this site and it was expected that there would be approximately 400 less jobs here in the future. The short-term jobs offered through the development of the housing site were not sustainable.

The Senior Committee Services Officer at this stage read a statement which had been submitted by Mr G Jupp, local resident who due to some technical difficulties was unable to put forward his views.

‘I am speaking as I feel it important that you heard an alternative perspective to that set out by the applicant and to highlight just some of the disinformation that has been circulated.

I would reiterate that this site has not been allocated under the County Durham Plan.  Yet this application attempts to bypass those restrictions using policy 6. 

However, the land is greenfield and is included in the County Areas of High Landscape Value, This proposal encroaches on that and will negatively impact the locality.  The location is therefore inappropriate.

a.          The Transport assessment just does not tell the full story.  There are regular queues of traffic and attendant delays at the A67/A688 junction

b.          There will be significant adverse impact on journeys - the transport assessment suggests 78% of traffic will turn right towards town.  I suggest that the issue has not been properly scrutinised – A traffic survey conducted last December, during a lockdown with closed schools is hardly a typical scenario.

c.          The site is within walking and cycling distance of the town centre and facilities; however, the reality is that the vast majority of trips would be undertaken by motor vehicle – this is quite clear from observed behaviour at Ashtree Drive

d.          Bus services, are not comprehensive or suitable for regular commuting to outlying workplaces.  The first west bound bus is not until 0926hrs.

e.          There are no dedicated facilities for cyclists, the application does not provide for any and Darlington Road is a trunk road.  I regularly cycle from Castle Vale but only for leisure - the layout and terrain make it impractical for regular commuting or amenity trips.

f.           If walking, bus use or cycling to amenities is not practical then the development does not have good access to sustainable modes of transport. 

g.          An electric car charging point and bike storage do not make a house sustainable, Banks have been asked for more details yet they have declined to provide any on a number of occassions.

I would draw attention to the attempts by the applicant to garner ‘support’ for the application; planning have received 156 supporting comments.  The vast majority of these are in a standard format and had been generated from the applicants website.  More striking is the fact that of these only 28 are from Barnard Castle and at least 52 are from Banks employees. 

Banks group core value is proclaimed as ‘development with care’  - a noble sentiment but sadly lacking in this case – letters in local newspapers and press releases have criticised anyone opposing their plans, even suggesting recently that residents were not being fair; perhaps Banks should consider if they are being fair by trying to impose another 100 houses on top of the 400 already built in the last few years. 

Those voicing concerns clearly feel there will be negative effects by the development – why else would they oppose them?  Trying to silence local opposition – bullying them - is unwarranted, unethical and certainly not developing with care.

On the original official closing date for public consultation last December there were 80 objections, the vast majority from residents, compared to a handful of support.  To date there are more than 270 objections.

This application is speculative, cynical and profiteering.  Much is promised but without substance – Banks will not be constructing but will sell the site, move on and not be accountable. It can be argued strongly that the application does not meet the criteria for Policy 6 and should be rejected’.

As a point of order the Solicitor advised that it was inappropriate for speakers to question the integrity of officers and asked that they refrain from doing so.

The Chair then welcomed J Lomax, Bank Group to the meeting who as in attendance to support the application.

J Lomax advised that the development would bring with it positive environmental, social and economic benefits by providing sustainable new homes and creating improved biodiversity. It was also acknowledged that there was a shortage of new and affordable homes in this area. Other positives included the creation of 60 FT jobs for a period of 3 years, 90 jobs indirectly and an additional £190K in Council Tax, plus the added boost that would be felt through retail spending in Barnard Castle.

L Hunter, local resident addressed the committee in support of the application. She advised that as a younger person living in Barnard Castle it was extremely difficult to purchase your own home as many of the properties for sale were too expensive for first time buyers. At present there was only 6no 2/3 bedroom properties for sale under £250k. Many homes in the town were now holiday or retirement homes and she therefore supported the application to ensure that younger generations born and raised in the area would continue to be able to live there.

The Senior Committee Officer then read a letter from P Shepherd, local resident who supported the application but was unable to attend the meeting.

‘As a mother and resident of Barnard Castle, I would like my children to have the opportunity to be able to live in Barnard Castle.  Currently local children usually have to move out of the town to buy or rent their first home. 

New affordable homes are needed so that Barnard Castle does not just become a retirement town.  It needs to be a vibrant town with young families and people.  Members will recall Startforth Primary School closed largely because of a lack of children caused by a lack of homes nearby that families could afford to buy or rent.

This project will create nearly 100 jobs during the construction phase, and on-going work for local trades people – including plumbers; electricians; landscapers; gardeners etc. I have a number of friends who have businesses in the town and know how much they have struggled throughout the last year. It seems nonsensical to me to turn away such private investment at this crucial time’.

Councillor Wilkes in referring to Policy 15 of the County Durham Plan asked whether 60% would be built to M42 standard including provision of bungalows. The Senior Planning Officer advised that Conditions 6 and 9 dealt with this requirement.

Councillor Wilkes further commented that he felt the application fell short of basic sustainability, with no homes proposing to have solar panels, ground heat source pumps and placing reliance upon gas boilers which were to be phased out. In addition, there was a number of empty properties in the near vicinity and therefore he felt that the application was not fit for purpose.

Councillor Richardson agreed with Councillor Wilkes’ comments noting that the site was good agricultural land and not identified for development, leading ultimately to overdevelopment in the area and a negative impact upon highways.

Councillor Tinsley commented that he accepted that Barnard Castle was location that people aspired to live and grow up and for that reason a lot of investment had been seen in this area. The town itself had a lot of facilities that others in County Durham did not and was well served to accommodate what he felt was a logical extension to the existing urban area. In addition, the identified target of 25,000 new homes had to date only allocated 5,400 and this had indeed been highlighted by the Planning Inspector when reviewing the County Durham Plan. He noted that the SLAA was not a primary consideration when determining this application. He therefore MOVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

In response to comments made regarding letters of support the Senior Planning Officer advised that as highlighted in paragraph 79 of the report the vast majority of letters of support were in the form of a standard letter from addresses outside of the Barnard Castle area and therefore weight was given to them appropriately.

In relation to the suitability of the site, he noted that the location was ranked 10^th and Policy 6 of the County Durham Plan dealt with land allocation.

Councillor Clare added that he was disappointed that the parish council were not in attendance, however noted their objection. He went on to reiterate Councillor Tinsley’s comments that the Planning Inspector had highlighted that the SLAA and County Durham Plan were too prescriptive in their allocation of sites and a need for housing was evident.

In relation to the sustainability of the proposed dwellings, he welcomed the inclusion of EV charging points, however felt that more would need to be done to make the homes more sustainable and noted that reserved matters should seek to achieve a reduction in C02 by way of condition. He further requested that Banks seek to procure employment locally.

Councillor Shield added that he had listened to some compelling arguments from both sides, however he did have some concerns regarding the application of Policy 6 and the interpretation of Policy 10 and 39, resulting in the potential coalition of adjoining developments.

Councillor Tinsley MOVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions contained with the report, SECONDED by Councillor Atkinson.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions and a section 106 legal agreement detailed within the report