Agenda item

DM/21/03574/OUT - Land At Sniperley Park, West Of The A167 And North And South Of The B6532, Durham

Demolition of existing buildings adjacent to B6532 and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for a maximum of 1,550 dwellings (Use Class C3), a local Centre (use classes E and F2), public house (use class sui generis) and primary school (use class F1), associated infrastructure and landscaping

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings adjacent to B6532 and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for a maximum of 1,550 dwellings (Use Class C3), a local Centre (use classes E and F2), public house (use class sui generis) and primary school (use class F1), associated infrastructure and landscaping at Land at Sniperley Park, West Of The A167 And North And South Of The B6532, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

 

G Blakey, Principal Planning Officer, addressed the Committee and advised that the proposal was subject to an appeal the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination of the application.  The Committee were being asked to consider the report and make a resolution based upon the decision they would have made if the application was being determined in the usual manner. This resolution would then be carried forward for consideration at Public Inquiry.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, provided a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and site photographs.

 

Councillor G Holland, representing City of Durham Parish Council, confirmed that the report and conclusion of the Principal Planning Officer was fully endorsed by the Parish Council and that the application should be refused on all thirteen specific failures.

 

The Parish Council wanted to focus on the point made in most recent correspondence which had paid particular attention to the failure to demonstrate the ability to feasibly and viably provide a district heating system across the development.

 

Councillor Holland noted that energy security was an ever-increasing threat to all residents, not just in County Durham, but throughout the United Kingdom and all new housing should be built to be as self-sufficient as possible in terms of their energy provision.  The district energy heating system mentioned in the report would not meet that essential provision.

 

The Parish Council had suggested several potential renewable energy opportunities that should be optimised.  If not County Durham would not achieve the level of sustainability required in both the County Durham Plan and the Sniperley Masterplan, of which the vision was for zero-carbon homes.  Councillor Holland added that zero-carbon must be the chosen target, throughout all future homes in County Durham. 

 

Sniperley Park offered the County Council an opportunity to lead the way nationally by building homes that were not only energy protected, but also matched the comfort and welfare needs of future residents.  He reiterated that the Parish Council endorsed the report and fully support its recommendations.

 

Councillor M Wilkes, Local Member, confirmed that despite being a former member of the Planning Committee for many years, he had never seen such an extensive list of reasons for refusal and nor had he experienced a developer refusing to agree to basic Section 106 requirements.

 

Councillor Wilkes advised that the Council could not allow the application to go through which placed such a massive financial risk to the Local Authority.  The combined cost of the Section 106 requirements alone for both applications could exceed £20m and it would be unthinkable for any Local Authority in the Country to pay for this scale of infrastructure.  It was predicted that Section 106 money was over £10m for schools on and off site and this would not be received if the application was to be approved.

 

Councillor Wilkes was appalled at the behaviour of certain developers and stated that the Council were not there to provide this on their behalf and had to protect the integrity of the planning system and the public purse.  He questioned how a developer that was aware of local and national planning policies and of policies within the County Durham Plan, could fail to agree to the extent that this developer had in this application.

 

The County Durham Plan was clear that on developments of this scale, developers must allocate land for recreation such as allotments or contribute money for alternative sites.  This site clearly required many plots and this application was so low on allotment space it would be an insult to the County Durham Plan and the open space needs assessment.  This part of the County had one of the lowest levels of allotment space and the highest waiting lists, which is why the Council were already working on a new site for existing residents.  It was unacceptable to ignore the findings of the open space needs assessment.

 

Councillor Wilkes confirmed that the County Durham Plan was clear that district heating systems should be considered.  The Council were waiting on a report from the Coal Authority as to whether the site would be able to use a mine water heating system that would save residents thousands, however due to the expense the developer would not consider it.

 

With regards to the full masterplan which had not yet been agreed, Councillor Wilkes suggested that these developments were about squeezing in as many houses as possible which was not acceptable financially, environmentally or on planning merits.

 

Finally Councillor Wilkes made reference to the objections and felt it was clear that these applications should not be passed and believed that when the application went to a Public Inquiry, the Council would have the backing of public opinion behind them.

 

The Chair confirmed that Neil Westwick from Lichfields was in attendance on behalf of the Applicant and although he did not wish to speak on the item, he had agreed to answer any questions.

 

Councillor Bell referred to the lengthy process of a Public Inquiry, which was a much longer route to take than having the Council determine the application and he asked why the developer had decided to go down this route.

 

Mr Westwick advised that whilst discussing the application with Planning Officers’ there were a number of outline matters that were not included as part of the application, such as the provision of schools, healthcare and allotments. On this basis the Applicant had taken the only option open, which was to appeal.

 

Councillor Jopling raised an issue regarding the conduct of Councillor Marshall as she had noticed him speaking with the Applicants prior to the Planning Committee and wondered whether this presented an element pre-determination.  Councillor Marshall responded that as the Leader of the Labour Group, he did have relationships with many developers as he had a responsibility to ensure the Council continued to drive the economy forward. Councillor Marshall, commented that he had already assured the Committee that he had an open mind with regards to the application when he declared an interest.

 

Councillor McKeon asked for clarification from the developer with regards to their position on renewable energy. Mr Westwick advised that the paper which had been submitted had been determined to be unviable and undeliverable. He also acknowledged that changes in building regulations in 2025 would ensure that air source heating was standard, so beyond that gas boilers could not be installed.

 

In response to a further question from Councillor McKeon regarding whether the Applicant would reconsider their position on receipt of the report from the Coal Authority, Mr Westwick responded that a report had been submitted to the Council which clearly set out the position of the Applicant.

 

Councillor Marshall queried the timeline from receipt of the application to the date that it should have been determined.  The Sniperley Masterplan had been considered by Cabinet and Councillor Marshall had written three letters to highlight the risk to the Council of non-determination.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the Council’s consultees and other Authorities were not fully satisfied with the position of the Applicant and had therefore sought advice on viability from the Coal Authority.  This was a reason for refusal at this stage.

 

In response to the question regarding the timeline, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application was received in late November 2021 and according to the statutory timescale for determination, it should have been completed by 15 March 2022.

 

Councillor Marshall asked for some clarity on the Sniperley Masterplan and T Bennett, Principal Policy Officer confirmed that during 2021 the Council took the decision to lead on the Masterplan, primarily as the main parties were not working collaboratively at the time and no developer-led masterplan existed. The Council had worked alongside their consultants to produce a masterplan that would guide work on the delivery phase.  It had been consulted on in winter 2021 and adopted a few months prior to the meeting.

 

With regard to further questions from Councillor Marshall regarding the endorsement of the masterplan, the Principal Policy Officer confirmed that it had been to Cabinet for approval and then adopted under delegated powers.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Bell regarding the impact a Public Inquiry would have on the delay and development, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that liaison with the developer would continue and there were dates to agree statements of common ground.  The inquiry would be held in January, giving time to work with the applicant where necessary.

 

Councillor Shaw queried the number of times the Council had been subject to an appeal for non-determination.  The Principal Planning Officer did not have the figure to hand, but the Chair confirmed that the figure was not required to determine the application.

 

Councillor Martin advised that the conclusion within the report made this an easy decision to make, it was a large housing development and he did not see how it could go ahead without money for schools, GP’s and open space.  Planning Officers had concluded that the developer was not willing to pay enough money and, in his opinion, to accept the application would cause harm to the people of Durham City and the tax payer.  He was minded to agree with the recommendation and reject the application.

 

Councillor Jopling agreed that there were so many reasons for the application to be refused.  This was an enormous application on arable land that would result in the loss of rights of way and playing fields.  Objections had been raised by Sports England and Primary Care in the area was already at capacity.  The most important issues in her opinion were climate change and the natural environment and she could not understand why planning applications of this size would include gas boilers when the developer knew that they would be superseded by new building regulations.

 

Councillor Jopling highlighted the concerns raised within the public responses which needed to be taken seriously, such as the need for a western bypass, play areas that were situated in close proximity to pylons and the lack of electric vehicle charging points.  The Council could not keep saying they would deal with these issues on the next application.  She moved refusal of the application for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

Councillor McKeon informed the Committee that she knew the area well and was not against the principle of development, however this was an application which would create a whole new community and this application did not live up to expectations.  One of the main issues she had related to sustainable transport.  The Council were encouraging people to move towards net zero but this had not been addressed sufficiently and there was also no masterplan, despite building next to one of the busiest central roadways in the area.  Councillor McKeon confirmed that if the developer expected to build a whole new community, they had to also expect the responsibility of Section 106 contributions and on that basis, was minded to refuse the application, she seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Roberts confirmed that she had visited the site the previous afternoon only to realise that the original plan had been amended to create additional houses.  The Council wanted to leave a legacy for the County and she fully supported the recommendation to refuse.

 

Councillor Bell also agreed with the recommendation.  The site could be described as the jewel in the crown of the County Durham Plan and although the 13-week statutory deadline had passed, given the size of the scheme, there should have been some leeway to allow officers time to ensure it was correct. It was disappointing that the Applicant had chosen to Appeal and suggested that it would be good if that decision was reviewed in order for the Applicant to liaise with officers.

 

Councillor Marshall was bewildered at the situation between the Council and the Applicant. It had been described as one of the jewels in the crown of the County Durham Plan and was integral to delivering 30000 new jobs and homes.  He had sat through a public examination where similar arguments had been made but the Committee had to accept that the principle development would go ahead.

 

Councillor Marshall confirmed that despite the thirteen reasons for refusal, this application was integral with dealing with the housing crisis and it included provision for schools and medical care.  The Applicant had not refused to provide monetary contributions, yet it seemed there were some issues in reaching an agreement with Council Officers.

 

He referred to the costs that could be associated with non-determination of the application at a time when savings of £24m had to be found. Following further comments from Councillor Marshall the Chair stated that he would not allow the debate to become political.

 

The Planning Development Solicitor referred to the recommendation in the report and confirmed that the reason it was phrased as minded to approve was that it was no longer a decision for the Council, but for the Planning Inspectorate.  All Members could do at this stage was express a view as to how they would have determined the application, which would be used as a basis to guide officers in the defence of the appeal.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be minded to refuse for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

Supporting documents: