Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of 16no. self-build plots with all matters reserved.

The Principal 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 Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was an outline application for the erection of 16no self-build plots with all matter reserved and was recommended for refusal. 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Members attending the site visit had requested the information as regards the layout for the extant permission relating to the application site and displayed the plan on the projector screens.  The Principal Planning Officer noted concerns from the Landscape Section as regards projection north beyond the current framework of the site which would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area as well as the suburban appearance of the indicative layout and the impact that would have on the character of the village.  He noted the Design and Conservation Section had raised concerns in respect of the suburban appearance of the indicative layout and suggested a simplified design code.  The Committee were asked to note there had been two letters of objection from the public with the main reasons cited including: loss of privacy and amenity; loss of views and light; impact on the character of the village; lack of facilities in the village, with car travel being essential therefore not a sustainable development; poor bus service and unlit footpath; and noise and disturbance from the building site.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Mick Dixon, Applicant to speak in support of his application.

M Dixon explained he was speaking on behalf of himself and his business partner, Mick Bradley in respect of the application before Committee from Castle Eden Developments Limited.  He noted M Bradley was himself the son of a farmer and that the farm in question, Barn High Farm was a disused farm and in a state of disrepair.  He explained that the development would retain some elements, and the modern farm buildings to the rear would be cleared to take advantage of the site.  He noted that in terms of the extant permission, four and nine new was 13 properties, not 12 and with a further two conversions under permitted development amounted to a total of 15 dwellings. 

He added that asking for 16 properties was the only way to make development viable.  M Dixon explained that there had been no interest from buyers for the existing scheme and therefore that was not viable.  He added that the COVID-19 pandemic had created a shift in the market, with a demand for detached properties with space.  He reiterated that most of the existing buildings on the site were in poor condition and were not of heritage interest, with any development being positive in terms of tidying up such dangerous buildings.

M Dixon noted that Planners had not supported the application on the grounds of sustainability, however, he had lived at Hesleden for 15 years and noted over time that there had been fewer and fewer teachers at the local school, with three years groups within one class.  He noted The Ship Inn had unfortunately closed, though it was hoped new owners maybe able to reopen it and the local Post Office was used nearly every day.  He noted that the church and Sunday school had closed and concluded by noting that in talking about sustainability, the proposed development would bring in more people to support the school, church, pub and Post Office.

The Chair thanked M Dixon and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor S Deinali noted that transport had been an issue for a number of years, adding that if there were more people in the area there was more of a chance of investment in transport.

Councillor LA Holmes asked for clarity in relation to the extant permission, and whether it was as set out in the report or as stated by the applicant being nine and four totalling thirteen.  It was noted that the applicant was correct.

Councillor J Elmer noted the linear nature of the village and the size of the proposed development compared to the village.  He noted that if the proposed development did not go ahead, the extant permission seemed more in keeping with the area, however, there were concerns as regards the viability of the previous scheme.  He noted that viability was an assessment, not an opinion and added he had concerns that a viability assessment had not been provided.  Councillor J Elmer noted that another concern was the impact upon the landscape, with there only being three traditional farm buildings, with one to be lost to provide access.  He added that the final point he would make was in relation to sustainability, the development would have dependency on the motor car and added he wanted more public transport.  Councillor J Elmer noted he supported the Officer’s recommendation and moved that the application be refused.

Councillor C Kay explained he had read the report and noted that there were four larger communities within one mile of the village adding that one mile was suitable for sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling.  He asked for information as regards the suitability of the road for such use.  The Principal DM Engineer, David Battensby noted the road was a relatively quiet lane, however, there was no footpath on the carriageway and streetlights had been removed.  He added there was a bridleway at the west of the village and a footpath from Mickle Hill Road to Blackhall Road.  He noted that the roads to the east and west were subject to a 60mph speed limit.  He added that Fillpoke Lane was quite narrow, though only had light traffic, though in the summer there was a number of vehicles with visitors to the nearby animal petting farm.  He concluded by noting there was access for cyclists and there was relatively light traffic.

Councillor S Deinali explained that the bridleway was part of the Haswell to Hart walkway and linked to Hesleden, High Hesleden and Crimdon and pointed out there was the new community hub at Crimdon, attracting a lot of tourists and cycling use. 

Councillor N Jones noted that in terms of the sustainability argument, extra houses did not necessarily mean that bus services would improve, however, there was £100 million in subsidy available, so it was not out of the question either.

Councillor A Surtees noted that there was a school in the area and therefore there must be footpath linking the two and asked why the proposals were deemed so unsustainable, especially given the extant permission.

Councillor C Marshall explained he did not know why the application was at Committee, adding that at first he had thought it had been called-in by Local Members.  He noted that there had been no local objections and added he had issue with how sustainability was designated.  He explained that many of the communities within the county would be classed as unsustainable and without public investment in services the situation would only get worse.  In terms of viability, he noted that clearly a lot had changed since 2018 in terms of rising construction costs, the cost of living crisis and rising inflation.  He noted that sustainability was a double-edged sword, with more people coming into an area making an area more sustainable.  Councillor C Marshall noted that the provision of self-build units would help diversify the housing market and provide a greater choice.  He added that we would never improve some communities unless there was development. 

Councillor C Marshall proposed that the application be approved, with the further details to come via a full application at a later date.  He was seconded by Councillor S Deinali.

Councillor J Elmer noted that given the way bus companies used threshold numbers, it was unlikely that such a threshold would be reached and, if so, it would have been included as part of the application.  In terms of viability, he noted that the Officers had quite rightly pointed out car dependency.  He added he was concerned as regards abandoning policies within the County Durham Plan (CDP), especially Policy 6.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application was before Committee as it constituted a ‘major application’ as set out in the Constitution.  He added that a greater number of residents may have a chance to increase the bus services, however, a Planning Inspector in 2018 within an appeal decision, for three dwellings at High Hesleden that formed part of the application site, had noted the site would not be in a sustainable location.  He added that the previous scheme that had been approved had been very different and had a greater sympathy in terms of the agricultural nature of the site, would retain more buildings and represented a smaller development.

The Chair noted that the application had been moved and seconded for approval by Councillors C Marshall and S Deinali and proposed for refusal by Councillor J Elmer.  Councillor K Robson noted he would second the proposal for refusal.

The Senior Lawyer noted there was a motion for approval, contrary to the Officers recommendation and asked for clarifying reasons and also that the motion to include agreement for delegated authority for Officers, in consultation with the Chair, as regards conditions and obligations, should the motion be carried.  Councillor C Marshall agreed as regards the delegated authority and noted the recommendation for refusal was due to a lack of sustainable location.  He reiterated that a lot had changed since 2018 in terms of access, active travel, the Saints Trail and the Community Hub at Crimdon.  He noted there were hourly bus services and added he could not agree with the recommendation in terms of the sustainability.  The Senior Lawyer asked if he wished to comment in terms of the character and appearance, Councillor C Marshall noted those issues did not need to be agreed at the outline stage, rather they would come back and be tested as the application progressed.  The Senior Lawyer noted Members needed to be certain in terms of approval.  Councillor C Marshall noted that he felt satisfied that requirements could be met via a full application in due course.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that as the units were self-build, they would come back individually and be considered under delegated authority. 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to a suite of conditions and obligations to be agreed under delegated authority by Officers.