Agenda item

Development of 89 no dwellings including hard and soft landscaping, public open space, highways and associated works.

The Senior Planning Officer, Leigh Dalby, 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 for the development of 89 no dwellings including hard and soft landscaping, public open space, highways and associated works and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted corrections to the report, in connection to highway and pedestrian safety the report stated 105 parking spaces, with the correct number being 124 spaces.  He added that, in reference to landscaping and trees, the report set out the applicant was installing 39 trees, the correct number was 40 trees.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that, on balance, Officers felt the benefits of the scheme outweighed the disbenefits and recommended approval, subject to conditions as set out within the report.  He noted that since the publication of the report, further discussions with the applicant had taken place in relation to comments from the Police in terms of a requirement for two metre fencing and also inner fencing to some of the properties.  He explained those would be secured by an additional condition should Members be minded to approved the application.  The Senior Planning Officer added that Condition 20 would be removed, to be replaced by a Section 106 Agreement to ensure all units were build-to-rent units. 

 

The Chair asked Councillor J Chaplow, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor J Chaplow thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that the bungalows within the proposal were greatly needed in the area, citing examples of residents that could potentially benefit from the development.  She noted oak trees would be retained, added that the houses proposed were brilliant family homes, and noted the scheme would mean the area would be maintained and looked after.  Councillor J Chaplow noted she wanted the 54 bungalows for her area and explained that there was easy access to the village centre and services, with bus services. 

 

 

She concluded by emphasising how important it was to secure bungalows for her local area and that she would not wish the land to be ‘banked’, rather for development to begin as soon as possible and urged the Committee to approve the development.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor J Chaplow and asked Councillor M Wilson, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor M Wilson thanked the Committee and reiterated that bungalows were much needed in the Deerness division.  She added that the 54 bungalows included in the scheme would help free up many family homes within the village and the development of a brownfield site would help clear up the eyesore which had remained since the demolition of the previous housing.  She concluded by noting that the development would help support the local economy and schools, was a fantastic opportunity for Esh Winning, and reiterated her support for the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor M Wilson and asked Mr James Litherland, representing the applicant, and Mr Craig Van Bedaf, Architect for the applicant, to speak in support of the application. 

 

Mr J Litherland thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that the proposals represented around two years work, working with Council Officers and Local Members to produce a scheme which brought forward the largest number of bungalows in a generation.  He noted that Place First, the applicant, was an award winning build-to-rent provider and regeneration specialist with a strong track record of place making and building sustainable communities, managing around 1,400 properties in the UK.  He explained Place First believed those residents relying on the private rented sector in Durham deserved a better deal, with high quality energy efficient homes where they could thrive.  Mr J Litherland noted that the scheme would deliver 54 bungalows and 35 homes on a brownfield site which had been derelict and vacant for over a decade.  He added that other housebuilders had dismissed the site and noted that planning permission granted in 2013 had never been implemented due to the significant physical and viability constraints of the site.  He explained Place First saw the opportunity of the site, with an investment for the long-term of over £12 million for a multi-generational neighbourhood, professional managed and maintained.  He reiterated that Place First created places, not just homes, and explained that their unique approach to public realm, landscape and communal areas allowed their neighbourhoods to address issues of social isolation and loneliness, which had become increasingly prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

 

 

Mr J Litherland noted that Place First would remain ingrained in the Esh Winning community via their dedicated Residential Development Managers who would, on top of day-to-day estate management, would keep residents up-to-date on local events, campaigns and charity fundraisers.  He concluded by noting that, with the support of the Committee, Place First would look forward to starting work in Spring 2022, with final completion aimed for 2024.

 

Mr C Van Bedaf thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak in support of the application.  He noted, as architect and designer of the scheme, he was extremely passionate as regards the scheme in front of Members.  He explained that the scheme was a bespoke design response, led by Place First’s desire to encourage community engagement and interaction within the development, to a diverse range of ages and residents.  Mr C Van Bedaf added that, as an architect with over 20 years’ experience in the area, and with a large proportion of his work being for large housebuilders, it was a ‘breath of fresh air’ to work with a developer who was committed to outstanding community architecture and with a long-term investment in the area.  He explained that he, and Place First, felt there was a lack of high quality bungalows in Durham, with residents demands not being listened to when it came to new developments in the region.  Mr C Van Bedaf added that it was exciting to work on the delivery of such a large number of bungalows, unprecedented in the region.  He explained that there had been a number of technical constraints to overcome and incorporate to be successful and added that all issues in relation to topography, landscape retention and existing services on-site had been incorporated within the scheme.  He noted that by retaining high quality oak trees within the scheme, and working with the site’s existing levels, it had been possible to frame the houses with imaginative landscaped areas that would promote health and wellbeing.  He noted that the inclusion of open space areas not only provided true landscape character, they also provided clear focal points for the development, promoting community interaction for potential future residents of the scheme.  He concluded by noting the lengthy gestation of the application was reflective of the detailed and careful consideration given to every aspect of the development and would respectively request that the scheme before Members be approved.

 

The Chair thanked the speakers and asked the Senior Planning Officer if there were any further points of clarification.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the development would result in three trees, which were requested to remain, being removed from the site.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Members for their questions and comments.

 

Councillor D Brown noted that while report noted no objections from Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL), Paragraph 47 of the Committee Report stated that no drainage or foul water documentation had been submitted.  He noted that issues of sewage being pumped into inland waterways and the sea were national news, noting large fines for such water companies.  He asked if there had been consultation to ensure there was sufficient capacity.  He added that the report did not mention electric vehicle (EV) charging points.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he had a few concerns, though he noted he would caveat those by noting that he was in favour of the principle of development at the location and for bungalows.  He continued by citing the issues as listed by the Senior Planning Officer in terms of the Highways Section having concerns relating to parking and a lack of EV charging points.  He noted that all Members had seen the impact that a lack of sufficient parking could have on an area and stressed that was an element that was important to get right.  He noted Landscape Officer had expressed concern as regards the loss of trees and while the Ecology Officer had stated no concerns, they noted the applicant had not used the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Metric 3 in terms of the policy requirement for net gain in terms of biodiversity, adding he felt that adding bat and bird boxes was not sufficient to support a net gain, with there being currently numerous nesting opportunities.  Councillor J Elmer noted other points raised in the report relating to: the application not complying with M4(2) requirements; no contribution towards the NHS in terms GP capacity; some areas not meeting national interior space standards, failure to protect against crime, as per statements from the Police. 

 

Councillor J Elmer noted that the scheme did not include EV charging points and was not building for life.  He added there was nothing mentioned in relation to containing carbon emissions or in respect of technology such as heat pumps or solar panels.  He noted it was the duty of the Planning Committee to protect the policies within the County Durham Plan (CDP) and the application appeared to breach many of those policies.  Councillor J Elmer noted that Planners had stated that the gains were greater than the issues, however, he felt that the gains were only in terms of the number of properties, adding that he felt that gave the wrong message to developers and that the line should be held in terms of CDP policies.  He explained he felt the application could be refused and, as there were sound reasons for refusal, any subsequent appeal against refusal would also be refused and the applicant may then come back with an amended scheme.  Councillor J Elmer moved that the application be rejected, he was seconded by Councillor E Mavin.

 

 

 

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that both NWL and the Council’s Drainage Section had offered no objections, subject to conditions which would require precise details, noting existing capacity as the area had been previously developed.  In respect of the points raised by Councillor J Elmer, where the application was in conflict with policy it was reflected within the Committee Report, with the reasons why and the suggested weight in terms of the conflict with policy.  In respect to trees, he noted there had been a number of amendments and trees had been retained where possible, though it had not been possible in all cases.  He reiterated the Council and the applicant had worked hard to deliver the scheme and referred to Paragraph 101 of the Committee Report where the Council’s Ecologist noted a net gain in biodiversity.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained there were no proposals for EV changing points, however, Condition 18 referred to parking management strategy, including means of EV charging, to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the properties.  He noted that at the time the issues relating to crime had raised by the Police, however, as provided by way of update, the issue had been addressed via the suggested additional condition.

 

Councillor LA Holmes explained he would like to support the application, however, he had two concerns.  He noted firstly the issues in terms of parking, citing developments in his area where vehicles parked on the side of roads was leaving so small a gap that an ambulance could not fit through.  He noted the second issue related to the developer refusing to agree to an NHS contribution, with GP surgeries struggling with demand in County Durham, an issue he was particularly aware of being a member of the Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  He added that 89 new properties would mean more pressure on such services, and noted in response to the application the NHS had stated ‘an increase to patient numbers may require adjustments to existing premises/access methods… we would be unable to guarantee to provide sustainable health services

in these areas in future, should contributions not be upheld…’.  Councillor LA Holmes noted he personally could not support an application that would worsen the ongoing demand issues with GP surgeries as, in an area that was to have bungalows, there was a need to have certainty that GPs could look after those residents and ambulances could get to residents when required.

 

Councillor C Marshall commended the work of the Local Members and the community in Esh Winning in terms of fighting for new development and bungalows for their areas over a number of years. 

 

 

He thanked the developer, Place First, for their offer, including bungalows, which seemed very different to the majority of the offer in County Durham from the private rented sector, noting the Council was still awaiting the outcome in terms of regulation of the private landlords around the county.  He noted the application allowed for the diversification of that sector.

 

Councillor C Marshall noted he had spent a lot of time in ex-mining communities, Esh Winning being one such community, and added that it was not the centre of Durham City, was not Sedgefield or Lanchester.  He noted Esh Winning was a community struggling to sustain its services and was a community that had lacked investment over generations adding that unfortunately the investment would not come from the public sector.  He noted the proposals represented an investment of £12 million to bring the benefits as described in the report, with a large amount of bungalows within the development and a number of family homes to allow people to stay within the community of Esh Winning.  He noted the development had many benefits and, as with decisions made on other schemes by the Committee and other Committees, there was a fine balance in terms of the viability of such scheme for the majority of communities across the county due to land values.  He noted there was a need to acknowledge that each community was different and asked why Esh Winning should not be entitled to bungalows and a more diverse mix of housing if that was what the community wanted.  Councillor C Marshall noted Place First had worked with the Council over a number of years in terms of the proposals and added that the issue for the Council over the coming months would be in terms of saying whether County Durham was open for business or not.  He noted the Officer’s recommendation was arrived at on balance and was for approval, and that if the application was not approved it could say to potential investors that County Durham was closed for business.  He reiterated that Officers had provided their advice, Local Members had championed the scheme and noted that he felt that an investment of £12 million should not be turned down given the need as described.  He concluded by noting he supported that the application be approved.

 

Councillor P Jopling explained no one was saying that they did not want the site to be developed or for bungalows to be built for the residents of Esh Winning.  She noted she did not understand why such issues became political.  She noted the issue was in terms of quality of life, noting the issues that came with parking problems and the size of the properties.  She explained she lived in a bungalow and that it had taken a long time to find a property with enough room where one could feel comfortable.  Councillor P Jopling added that people deserved a property they could be comfortable in, not be harassed with parking issues, noting all Members would know from their own areas of the problems in respect of parking disputes.  She reiterated that no one was saying not to build, rather saying that it be looked at in a different way.

Councillor K Shaw explained that the application was trying to meet an identified outstanding need, one which was mirrored across County Durham, with there being a deficiency of energy efficient homes that met the needs of the elderly.  He added that there were local people trapped in homes that no longer met their needs.  He noted the scheme would deliver significant investment, supporting the local community and economy, create jobs and reuse a brownfield site.  Councillor K Shaw noted the scheme would provide 54 bungalows that were desperately needed adding he felt there was a need to balance the needs of the ecology and those of the elderly, noting he felt the needs of the elderly must come first.  He added that in County Durham there was a deficit of homes to meet the needs of the elderly, with 3,500 people registered on the social housing register alone.  He noted that while 54 bungalows might be ‘a mere drop in the ocean’, it was a significant amount for the village and noted therefore he must support the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor C Kay noted that Councillor P Jopling had stated that she was not saying the people of Esh Winning could not have their bungalows, however, he felt that was exactly what she was saying.  He noted that the report had come before Members with a recommendation for approval, an excellent application.  He added he recalled the previous application, and approval, for development at the site which had not been taken forward as the scheme did not stack up, with land value not being sufficient to make a return on the investment.  He noted the proposal before Members did stack up and noted he would wish for such investment in his area, Coundon.

 

Councillor C Hood noted there had been reference to the former residential development on the site which had been cleared and asked how many dwellings had previously occupied the site.  The Senior Planning Officer noted there had been 61 dwellings on the site previously.  He referred to the points raised by Councillor LA Holmes and noted that parking was an issue that the Council had been looking at and the level of parking had been agreed following a local demographic survey undertaken by Place First.  He explained that Place First would be managing the full site and require all residents to sign up to a charter which would include parking and the general use of the site.  He noted therefore the Authority was comfortable with the level of parking and that it would not cause an issue.  The Senior Planning Officer noted reference had been made to the applicant refusing to pay an NHS contribution and explained that was incorrect, rather due to the constraints of the site and viability of the site the applicant was unable to make the payment while making the site viable. 

 

The Principal Development Management Engineer, David Smith noted the debate as regards parking and explained that in-curtilage parking was ideally preferred, however, it was a delicate balance given the constraints of the site. 

He noted the previous Highways Development Manager had agreed the applicant could provide a census study which gave information as regards car ownership level, the percentages of households in the area that owned no vehicles, one vehicle, two vehicles and so on.  He added that the parking was not at the standard as set out within the Council’s Parking and Accessibility Standards 2019.  The Principal DM Engineer explained that the overall parking on the scheme was unallocated parking, with a one metre hard strip along Ridding Road, as agreed by the Highways Development Manager, for a ‘half-on half-off’ arrangement alongside the proposed terraced bungalows, which allowed for a 4.8 metre running lane across Ridding Road.  He noted that while not perfect it was not a significant highways risk, given parking was already occurring on Ridding Road.  He reiterated that Highways had no objections to the scheme and noted the Senior Planning Officer had referred to the condition relating to EV charge points, noting the issues when looking to provide EV charging points and the level constraints in connection with the site.

 

Councillor LA Holmes noted he agreed with Councillor C Marshall that the additional strain on the NHS, who had worked hard through the pandemic, was dangerous and added that agreeing to a development, which may result in the NHS being unable to guarantee the healthcare of residents, was also dangerous.  He added that he would wish to see the site developed and would wish for £12 million of investment to go to Esh Winning.  He noted the amount of investment the Administration had received, working with local MPs, Dehenna Davison, Richard Holden and Paul Howell and noted he wished for that to continue.  He reiterated he was not against developing the site, he was not against investment into Esh Winning, however, he was against putting more pressure on to fantastic NHS staff who were already overwhelmed.

 

The Chair reminded Members not to bring in political issues outside of the development in question.  He asked Councillor J Elmer for reasons for refusal in connection with his motion.

 

Councillor J Elmer reiterated there was a list in the report of the areas where the application lacked compliance with policy, including: failure to meet the financial contributions the Council would have expected, including in terms of the NHS; failure to meet space standards; failure to meet external distance standards, a number of highways issues and potential issues and conflict; impact upon trees and landscape, and failure in terms of policies relating to minimising carbon emissions.

 

The Chair noted he would allow the applicant to clarify as regards some of issues raised by Members.

 

Mr J Litherland explained that the constraints of the site were the reason it had remained undeveloped for so long.  He explained as regards mining history in the area and noted that the Brockwell Seam ran under the site, the seam had been worked and following site investigations it was noted there would be significant works required in terms of remediation and retainment on the site, with £1 million required to be ‘put under the ground’.  He added that he hoped that put into context the couple of hundred thousand pounds in Section 106 contributions, with a need to put that money into stabilising the site.  Mr J Litherland added that the previous housing on the site was demolished partly as a result of the stability issues.  He noted Place First saw the long-term potential of investing in the site, building properties for rent, not short-term build-to-sell.  In respect of parking, he noted 124 spaces represented two spaces per three-bed property and one space per bungalow and that the Residential Services Manager on site would monitor issues, alongside the Residents’ Charter.  He reiterated as regards biodiversity net-gain, with an important tree belt on the periphery of the site which would be retained, which also formed part of the Esh Winning settlement boundary.  Mr J Litherland noted issues that had been raised in terms of the calculator within the Environment Act, which was on its third edition, and explained that sites that lay dormant for a long period of time, such as at Esh Winning, built up credits for the fact they have habitat, albeit a habitat not as valuable as that in the proposed scheme.  He noted that the current habitat was poor, with the Ecologist employed by Place First, Dr Rachel Hacking having made submission to the Council in that regard, with the Council’s Ecologist having agreed the biodiversity point on that basis.  He noted in respect of M4(2) non-compliance, it related only to minor points concerning downstairs bathrooms and reduced bedroom circulation space, with all the details set out within the Officer’s report.  Mr J Litherland noted that the changes required, albeit small would impact upon the total number of units and therefore the viability of the scheme.  He noted the work undertaken with the Council in terms of looking at the nationally described space standards, adding the proposals originally were for smaller dwellings and added that larger dwelling would lead to only 78 units, again being unviable.  Mr J Litherland concluded by noting he hoped the opportunity for Esh Winning would not be lost and that he had addressed the points raised by the Committee.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter noted the motion for refusal as proposed by Councillor J Elmer and seconded by Councillor E Mavin.  Councillor J Elmer noted that on the basis of the further information received he would withdraw his motion for refusal.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted Councillor C Marshall proposed the application be approved and was seconded by Councillor K Shaw.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report, with an additional condition in respect of secure fencing and a Section 106 Legal Agreement in relation to build-to-rent units, replacing Condition 20.

 

 

Councillor C Marshall left the meeting at 2.40pm