Agenda item

Hybrid planning application consisting of outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for an extension to the Sniperley Park and Ride and full planning permission for the development of 370 dwellings associated access and works and demolition of former farm buildings

The Committee considered a hybrid planning application consisting of outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for an extension to the Sniperley Park and Ride and full planning permission for the development of 370 dwellings associated access and works and demolition of former farm buildings at Land North and East of Sniperley Farm, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

 

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

 

Councillor G Holland, City of Durham Parish Council, confirmed that the report and conclusion of the Principal Planning Officer was fully endorsed by the Parish Council and he specifically raised concerns regarding the level of renewable energy being delivered.

 

Councillor Wilkes suggested that the bewilderment which had arisen from the previous applications was due to fact that developers were unwilling to pay for infrastructure on both applications.

 

The total houses proposed by both developers equated to 1920, despite the County Durham Plan allocating 1700 on the site.  Of those 370 were being proposed by Bellway and this site was quite clearly over developed.  All of the reasons for declining it were the same as before, including the lack of Section 106 contributions.

 

The County Durham Plan was clear that there must be a significant distance from the new development to Sniperley Hall, which was not the case with this application and existing homeowners adjacent would also be significantly disadvantaged.  A promise had been made to them during consultation on the County Durham Plan and that promise would not be fulfilled if this proposal was approved.

 

Councillor Wilkes advised that a sustainable transport plan was critical and the lack of public transport and inability to get a bus through the site was unacceptable.  There had been failures in demonstrating a functioning surface water drainage system, which he considered was unacceptable given the need to ensure new developments were protected against flooding.  There was insufficient information to ensure ecological compliance, despite the ecological emergency recently declared by the Council.  He did not think that it was possible to see a worse application than the previous one and finally stated that Durham County Council was not under the influence of developers.

 

James Hall spoke on behalf of the Applicant and gave a brief background to his experience with Durham County Council, having achieved mostly positive outcomes.  He had been involved in several other applications which were in the adopted plan.  He had also assisted in securing the allocation of Sniperley and attended the examinations.  He recognised how important the site was and fully understood the issues.

 

Mr Hall confirmed that he had worked constructively with Officers since April 2020 to prepare the application and personally attended over fifty meetings.  The developer had submitted a revised scheme which had been rejected by Officers.  They had gone above and beyond what was normally expected of them, providing ten exemplary dwellings, a wide variety of house types and styles, a Sustainable Urban Drainage System, a substantial linear park and a large area of greenbelt compensation with biodiversity net gain land. 

 

The developer had made numerous changes to the application, reducing the numbers from 450 to 370 units and most recently resubmitted an application for 368 units and most of the minor details had been corrected.  This had not been mentioned in the report, which Mr Hall considered to be a fundamental flaw in the process.

 

This new scheme was under consultation, buildings had been retained where possible and it included a proposed link road with bus services.  The developer had always accepted that they would pay a fair share of Section 106 contributions and had already agreed the transfer of land to the park and ride and to pay an NHS contribution.

 

Mr Hall explained that the developer had sought independent costings for a new primary school to check the accuracy, but had never questioned the need.  There was provision for new footways and they had redesigned links for the park and ride and a link road had been included which was bus capable.  None of this had been presented to Members.

 

Mr Hall considered several of the reasons for refusal did not apply to the scheme and others could be conditioned, so he could not understand why the recommendation was for refusal.  The developer had never refused to deliver on schools, housing or allotments, nor were they avoiding their responsibilities or policy requirements.

 

Mr Hall suggested that this was an allocated site which should not be going to a Public Inquiry, but every time the application was somewhere near to acceptable, there seemed to be more reasons to refuse.  Officers had also indicated to the Planning Inspectorate that there were only a couple of issues to resolve.

 

He urged Members to ask Officers to engage in meaningful negotiations and defer the application to allow constructive engagement before the Inquiry which was not until 2023.  He confirmed that there were two masterplans, one was joint with the other developer.

 

The Chair asked whether the Applicant intended to withdraw the appeal to enable further discussions, but Mr Hall refused.  He advised that the developer had been led to believe there were only a few reasons for refusal yet thirteen were included the final report.  Although the Applicant believed issues could be narrowed down, he suggested Officers were unable to negotiate freely and the Applicant felt that the only way to have the application determined was to go to a Public Inquiry.  This was the first time Mr Hall had appealed against non-determination of an application in his career.

 

In response to a comment from the Chair suggesting that the Applicant wanted the benefit of cooperation from the Council whilst also appealing against non-determination, Mr Hall confirmed that he would prefer that the application for 368 dwellings, was properly considered.  It had been uploaded onto the Councils website and taken down the following day.

 

The Chair considered the appeal was premature and if the Applicant wanted the most recent submission to be considered, he suggested that they withdraw the Appeal and negotiate with Officers.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Jopling regarding the inference that Officers’ were not able to operate freely, Mr Hall advised that he had previous positive experience with the Council and had been able to reach mutually acceptable agreements, however with this application the Officers had continued to remain dissatisfied.  Mr Hall also questioned the accuracy of the presentation and refuted suggestions that the developer was not forthcoming as they had made consistent attempts to alleviate the issues.  There had been no mention of the design code, masterplan or consultation produced by the developer.

 

The Chair asked Mr Hall whether the developer had met the expected requirements of the Council with regards to the County Durham Plan and he confirmed that the application had been presented as over development, but the density was well within accepted numbers and significantly lower than that envisaged by the County Durham Plan examination.  In terms of the Policy requirements they had never hesitated in agreeing to their obligations and tried to work constructively with the Council, never missing a meeting.

 

The Chair reiterated that the appeal for non-determination was premature in his opinion, and he gave the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw the appeal in order to try and reach an agreement with the Council.  The site had been approved for housing and the Planning Officer had explained very well why the application did not meet the required standards.

 

Mr Hall disputed the timing of the Appeal as he had been working on the application since April 2020.  Both developers had done everything they could, but as owners of the site they needed to make progress.  The thirteen reasons for refusal had proven that a consensus could not be reached.

 

Mr Hall advised that the common ground discussions would continue but the developer would prefer the Council considered the recent submission at a future Committee and he suggested that this would not alter the process or timetable.

 

Councillor Hunt asked why Members had not seen the revised plans and A Inch, Strategic Development Manager, confirmed that a further submission had been received, however the Council were subsequently notified that the Applicant intended to Appeal due to non-determination.  The Applicant had opted to continue with the Appeal rather than allow the Planning Officers the proper opportunity to consider the revised scheme and therefore the scheme before Members was for 370 dwellings rather than the revised scheme the Applicant was consulting on, which would be considered as part of the Appeal process.

 

In response to a question from Councillor McKeon with regards to the application Members were being asked to determine, the Chair confirmed Members were considering the content of the report provided.  Councillor McKeon was concerned that any decision made in respect of this report would be invalid when a revised application existed.

 

Councillor Jopling acknowledged that the Applicant had been given the opportunity to withdraw the Appeal to allow Officers to consider the revisions.  She did not consider it should be deferred.

 

The Planning Development Solicitor clarified that it was not unusual to receive amendments to applications that were subject to Appeal and they would be dealt with as part of the Appeal process. 

 

Councillor Marshall confirmed that Members had heard that the Applicant and Officers were at loggerheads and in his opinion, it was unfair to ask the Applicant to withdraw the Appeal.  The Council should be making every attempt to come to an agreement as there were some issues that seemed credible, but others that could be agreed.  He queried whether there was any time to defer the application to allow negotiations to take place prior to the appeal.

 

The Strategic Development Manager confirmed that as part of the appeal process both parties would continue to liaise.

 

Councillor Marshall suggested that political changes were accountable for the issues, which had been alluded to by developers.  Councillor Wilkes objected to this comment and the Chair requested that Councillor Marshall refer only to material planning considerations when speaking on the application.

 

Councillor McKeon confirmed that the application did include legitimate planning grounds for refusal, but it was clear there had been a breakdown in communication.  There would be almost 2000 families moving into the site in the future and Members had to ensure houses and communities were fit for purpose. She was not sure how the application had not been determined after so much time, but would prefer to defer the application as it had been subject to revisions.  She seconded the motion from Councillor Marshall.

 

Councillor Jopling confirmed that the Committee were not against the principle of development, but the Council wanted to ensure houses were sustainable and would not result in problems for buyers to correct.  The Council had to ensure that houses were fit for purpose and provided sensible heating systems.

 

Councillor Martin noted that comments were similar to the previous application, but he reminded Members that despite the accusatory comments, the taxpayer would ultimately pay for the problems if the application was not right.

 

With regards to deferring the decision, Councillor Martin suggested that amendments were normally to account for small changes and he would need to be convinced that problems of this scale could be solved. There were so many discrepancies with the County Durham Plan and he suggested that the developer had the opportunity to defer the Appeal and had chosen not to.  He moved the recommendation to refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Hunt.

 

Councillor McKeon maintained that the option to defer would allow a short period of time for intense negotiations and finding common ground.  With regards to the challenge of Section 106 contributions, Councillor McKeon advised that even when secured in full, there were always associated costs that the Council would have to subsidise.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor reminded Members of the timetable for the Appeal and confirmed that if the application was deferred until October, it would impact on the timescales of the appeal.  In response to a further question from Councillor McKeon, he advised that the Council were able to request a revised timetable, however the outcome of such a request could not be predicted and if refused  would then impact on the Appeal.

 

Councillor Marshall suggested that the application was not far from being agreed, so it would be best to defer the application until October.  He added that regardless of what the Committee determined, both applications would be determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Councillor Bell advised that the Committee were not the decision maker for the application and the Applicant would have to withdraw the Appeal at this stage for the Council to make a determination.

 

The Chair stated that the land had been approved for development in principle and would be developed if parties came to a sensible agreement.

 

Councillor Hunt confirmed that despite giving the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw the Appeal, they had chosen not to and therefore she suggested to move to a vote.

 

The Committee voted against deferral of the application, and it was

 

Resolved

 

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