Agenda item

Proposed Construction of 84no. Affordable Dwellings with Associated Car Parking, Landscaping and other Infrastructure including diversion to a Byway and Footpath

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer, with regards to the proposed Construction of 84no. Affordable Dwellings with Associated Car Parking, Landscaping and other Infrastructure including diversion to a Byway and Footpath on Land to the rear of Consett Park Terrace, Moorside (for copy see file of minutes).

S France, Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location, aerial photographs, site photographs, and site plans and elevations.

Mr M Nixon addressed the Committee and confirmed that he was in objection to the proposal. He described Moorside as having access to beautiful, unspoilt, accessible countryside with historic value, near land which had been recognised and protected by its designation as an Area of High Landscape Value in the setting of the Grade II listed Hownsgill Viaduct.  assumed that planners, developers and residents improve Moorside but this could not be achieved by the destruction of its area of high landscape value.

This proposal had not been developed to meet a genuine pressing need for affordable housing and Mr Nixon referred to two versions of the affordable housing statement which had been submitted by developers, one of which included property value data presented from Castleside, the more affluent neighbouring village, rather than Moorside.  The developers had submitted a statement that detached properties within Moorside sold for an average of quarter of a million pounds arguing that Moorside’s house prices were comparable to the rest of Durham.

Fortunately, the Councils Housing Team had requested that the developers used housing data from Moorside and the statement was updated with the relevant confirming that the average price of a house in Moorside was only £99,000, almost £58,000 (or 37%) cheaper than the averages of Castleside, Consett and County Durham as a whole.  In the report, the developers had stated this to be 'slightly less'.  Mr Nixon advised that affordability was the reason that many residents lived in Moorside in the first place.  The fact that developers had inflated prices in the original housing statement was evidence in itself, that the pressing need for affordable housing in an Area of High Landscape value did not exist.

There was a Council owned brown field site Moorside on the former school site which was only 340 meters from the proposed development and although the availability of a more appropriate site was not material grounds for refusal, Mr Nixon thought it relevant because the former school site had been included in Durham County Councils Programme for the development of affordable homes and therefore should the application be refused, affordable housing would still be delivered in the area on an appropriate scale and in a sensitive manner.

If the Committee went against the recommendation and approved the application, Moorside’s Area of High Landscape Value would be destroyed for the provision of housing whilst a brownfield site remained undeveloped and subject to continued anti-social behaviour.

Mr S McCoy, Adderstone Living, addressed the Committee and confirmed that an affordable housing section had been set up to work with registered providers in order to deliver affordable housing in areas that needed it most. 

This site, in his opinion had a finely balanced planning position, and the scheme was what residents were saying that they needed and it included significant economic benefits as well as affordability.  The site was well screened and located in an area of housing need.  The dwellings would have A rated efficiency, which meant lower energy bills for residents.

Mr McCoy advised that affordable housing had been discussed at length of the course of the application and there was an annual need for 836 affordable dwellings in Durham, which was likely to be much worse given the impact of the pandemic.  The report was clear that of the eleven properties which had been available to bid on since January 2022 almost 200 bids had been received and this suggested that for every successful letting there were many left waiting.

Adderstone had a policy of utilising local tradesman and the site would employ up to 70 local tradesman with locally sourced materials. Whilst the balance between affordable housing needs and landscape harm was always going to be finely balanced, the benefits for families to live in energy efficient houses and the effect on the wider prosperity of Moorside outweighed the harm.

Mr J Ridgeon, the Agent addressed the Committee to advise that this was a finely balanced application with significant benefits which had to be weighed against the impact on the landscape.  He referred to the impact on views from the viaduct, looking towards Moorside and to the picture taken by Officers which had been included in the presentation.  Suicide prevention fencing had been installed on the viaduct which obscured views, that were also impacted by the existing industrial units to the left of the site.  The proposed housing would be seen with existing houses of Moorside as a backdrop and would not appear unrelated to the existing built-up area.

Mr Ridgeon referred to Landscape Policy 39 which stated that for a development to be acceptable, the benefits had to outweigh any harm.  In this case the scheme provided affordable housing for local people where there was identified need.  The Applicant had engaged with Officers to understand the housing need in the area and the information provided by the Affordable Housing Officer was up to date and reliable, and it had been used to dictate the housing mix presented.

The Affordable Housing Officer accepted the need for rental properties in the area and as such 74 dwellings had been provided for rent by local people.  Officers had noted concerns relating to the ten shared ownership dwellings however the housing association had carried out an assessment and were confident that there would be strong demand.

Finally, Mr Ridgeon confirmed that the boundary went through the site and part of it was within Castleside.  This was the reason that the Housing Assessment had included information from Castleside.  He reiterated that the application was very finely balanced and dependent on balance under Policy 39.

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that the reasons were clear and balanced for refusal and not finely balanced as suggested.

Councillor Watson, Local Member, confirmed that there was a need for new builds in the area, however the detail for need had not been demonstrated.  He preferred mixed development, rather than all affordable homes and reiterated that the former Moorside School site was crying out for development.  This site was not in the County Durham Plan and he agreed with Officers with the reasons for refusal and moved the recommendation for the reasons outlined in the report.

Councillor Stelling knew the area well and agreed that the former school site was more suitable and queried whether it had been considered as an alternative.  With regards to comments regarding the obscured view from the viaduct, he advised that these measures had been installed as a suicide prevent prevention measure.

Councillor Haney questioned the statement that part of the site was within Castleside as ward boundaries did not determine a settlement.  He queried the process of assessing land for housing and G Smith, Housing Development Manager confirmed that an assessment of local housing need providers had been undertaken which could not be supported.  The reference in the report to Durham Key Options was providing information of people bidding on homes within that area.  Housing providers were provided with the information to support applications, however the information related bids on properties in the Moorside area, but was not restricted to people who were already living in the area and it was likely that there were bids from people living further afield.

The other issue with the data was that bids were relative to the number of homes that were available to bid on so if there was a large housing stock, more bids would be generated and areas without bids may have no housing stock.  The Applicant had been asked for more data specific to Moorside as it was felt this was lacking.  All assessments would need to confirm the local need of residents from the Moorside area.

The Housing Development Manager confirmed that more engagement with community to bring out local needs first hand may have been beneficial.

Councillor Haney confirmed that there were residents in Moorside whose views could have been sought, some that were in need of housing, however the evidence provided was anecdotal and did not meet the high benchmark for building in an Area of High Landscape Value.  He had visited the site, it was a beautiful area and the comments regarding the restricted view due to the installation of suicide fencing was not justification for approval.

From the top of viaduct, long gardens created a buffer and the houses were just visible.  This development would certainly impact the views of the countryside and be significant encroachment.  There may have been some justification for small infill development to the West of the site, but once it went beyond that point it could not be demonstrated that policy was met.  This application was not finely balanced and did not meet policy.  He advised that Council should not contradict policy so soon after implementation and seconded the motion to refuse the application for the reasons outlined in the report.

Councillor M McKeon confirmed that she did not want to reject applications for affordable housing, however planning policy was in place for a reason and she was uncomfortable with anyone who would ask the Council to go against their own plan.  She considered Policy 6 to be controversial as it allowed development on land that was not allocated in the County Durham Plan. This unsettled people and it could be used to circumvent so the Council needed to be careful when using it.

Councillor McKeon addressed the developers, advising that it had taken a long time to ensure the County Durham Plan was right and that it protected communities.  She asked that developers made sure that reasonable steps were taken to ensure that sites were chosen in areas that would not be as controversial.  The Committee wanted to see affordable housing, however did not want to see time and money spent on applications that would have to be rejected on the Councils own adopted policy.

Councillor Shaw asked whether the plans could be amended in order to tip the balance as there were over ten thousand people on the Councils waiting list.  C Cuskin, Senior Lawyer, advised that it was not appropriate to consider alternative plans at this stage, but suggested that the developer liaised with the Senior Planning Officer and Housing Development Manager to try and come up with an acceptable scheme, if one could be arrived at.

Councillor Peeke acknowledged the need for affordable housing but also considered that brownfield sites should be considered prior to building in Areas of High Landscape Value.

Resolved 

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons outlined in the report.