Agenda item

Residential development comprising 175 dwellings

Residential Development Comprising 175 Dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area) which recommended approval of the application.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report, which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Members were advised that paragraph 77 of the report wrongly implied that the delivery of community benefits by the developer was linked to the Community Infrastructure Levy. The Principal Planning Officer explained that this was not yet in place and would form part of the County Durham Plan. The issue was more properly explained in Paragraph 91, where it was identified that various community benefits were necessary to offset the impacts of the proposals on the local community. The developer had agreed to make a number of contributions towards local facilities and community infrastructure by way of a Section 106 Legal Agreement, as outlined in the report.

The Officer also advised of an additional condition which would require details of the roundabout to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, with works to be completed prior to occupation of the first dwellinghouse.

Mrs Stoker, objector, represented the residents of Parklands who faced on to the Greenfield part of the application site. They currently enjoyed an open aspect on the edge of the village, were not overlooked and residents were concerned that this new development would not only have a detrimental impact on their privacy but would also reduce the value of their properties. Residents were also concerned about the increase in traffic which would be generated on the B1280, a road that was already busy at peak periods and at school times. In addition they did not believe that Shotton had adequate facilities for a development of this size, and that local amenities such as schools would not be able to cope with the increased population. 

Mr Rogers, objector, considered that consultation on the proposals had been inadequate. He reiterated the views of Mrs Stoker and stated that the access should be re-located to the northern end of the site with additional traffic calming measures provided for pedestrians. There were a number of elderly and young people living in the location and the road was already very busy to cross.

Mr Struthers, the applicant’s agent stated that there had been full consultation in June 2011 by way of an exhibition for local residents. Loss of views was not a planning consideration and the development had been designed to protect the privacy of both existing and new residents. A full traffic assessment had been carried out, and a new junction with roundabout was proposed which would create natural traffic calming. An access to the north of the site was not feasible. The site was sustainable and the proposals would bring about community benefits for the village through a Section 106 Agreement. Local jobs would be created and local businesses would benefit.

In responding to the comments made Members were advised that loss of views and devaluation of properties were not planning considerations. If approved this development would represent a significant proportion of the proposed housing allocation for Shotton, whilst also maintaining the fabric of the village. Local facilities would be supported and enhanced by the additional population, and with regard to consulting with local residents, the Principal Planning Officer was satisfied that adequate consultation on the application had been carried out by Planning Officers.

A Glenwright, Highways Officer confirmed that the applicant had submitted an in-depth Traffic Assessment and had offered to implement any traffic calming measures deemed necessary. Highways Officers considered that the proposed roundabout would resolve any concerns about vehicle movement and would bring about effective traffic calming. With regard to pedestrian safety, he explained that as pedestrian movements would not significantly increase, the location did not meet the requisite criteria for the installation of pedestrian crossing facilities. 

In deliberating the application Members appreciated the concerns expressed by residents in relation to loss of views and devaluation of their homes, but that these were not planning considerations. The site was currently an eyesore and the proposals would bring about excellent community benefits. Members were assured by the applicant’s agent that in the current financial climate the developer was committed to providing 20% affordable housing.

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement, and to the conditions outlined in the report. Such conditions to include the following:-

‘No development shall commence until full details of the design, layout and specification of the proposed roundabout at the access point of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the roundabout shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and brought into use prior to the occupation of the first dwelling house hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with saved policy 36 of the District of Easington Local Plan.’