Agenda item

9 no. dwellings and alterations to existing access road.

The Senior Planning Officer, Steve France (SF) 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 application was for 9 no. dwellings and alterations to existing access road and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement as set out in the report.

Councillor M Wilkes left the meeting at 10.35am

The Senior Planning Officer (SF) noted support from internal consultees and added that objections had been received from the City of Durham Parish Council, the City of Durham Trust, Local Member, Mount Oswald Residents’ Association and individual residents.  He noted many comparisons were drawn between the scheme within the application and a previous scheme for the site which would have been for five passive houses.  He noted that the application before Members should be considered on its own merits and not in comparison to any previous scheme.

Councillor M Wilkes entered the meeting at 10.40am

The Senior Planning Officer (SF) noted there had also been a number of letters in support of the application and reiterated that the application was in line with policy and that the principle of development itself was already accepted, with the previously accepted scheme.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (SF) and asked Parish Councillor Susan Walker to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council.

Parish Councillor S Walker thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak in relation to the application.  She explained that the City of Durham Parish Council strongly objected to the application as it failed to meet the primary and stated object for this small section of the Mount Oswald estate; namely to create properties whose energy needs were primarily met using their own renewable energy and do not rely on external supplies, primarily imported from hydrocarbon sources.  She noted the application site currently benefited from planning permission for the development of five dwellings, which was granted by the Local Planning Authority in March 2018, with the original scheme having set itself apart from a sustainability perspective.  She noted that therefore it was highly disappointing that the original proposal had been replaced with an alternative scheme which, for reasons unknown, increased the proposed number of dwellings from five units to nine and entirely abandoned the original sustainability concept of this development.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that CDP Policy 29 stated:

“All development proposals will be required to achieve well designed buildings and places having regard to supplementary planning documents and other local guidance documents where relevant, and: contribute positively to an area’s character, identity, heritage significance, townscape and landscape features, helping to create and reinforce locally distinctive and sustainable communities; create buildings and spaces that are adaptable to changing social, technological, economic and environmental conditions and include appropriate and proportionate measures to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security; minimise greenhouse gas emissions, by seeking to achieve zero carbon buildings and providing renewable and low carbon energy generation, and include connections to an existing or approved district energy scheme where viable opportunities exist. Where connection to the gas network is not viable, development should utilise renewable and low carbon technologies as the main heating source”;

Councillor C Hood entered the meeting at 10.55am

Parish Councillor S Walker noted it was that all new development should seek to minimise the use of resources, including energy, and should apply both during construction and the lifetime of the completed development.  She added that it also meant that renewable energy technologies would be encouraged on-site, and where opportunities for viable installations had been identified, it was expected that such installations would go forward as part of the development.  She explained that major developments would also be required to connect to an existing or approved district energy scheme where viable opportunities existed.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that whilst the Parish Council welcomed the inclusion of photo-voltaic (PV) solar panels on each dwelling, the Sustainability Checklist did not include any detail, pertaining to how sustainability would be embedded into the design of the development.  She noted that no other renewable energy technologies, such as district heating, had been considered by the applicant.  She added that, given the forthcoming Future Homes Standard in 2025, the Parish Council was disappointed that no consideration had been given to district heating or indeed other low carbon technologies, such as air-source heat pumps, ground-source heat pumps or Passivhaus, and as such the application did not comply with Policy 29(c) of the CDP.

Parish Councillor S Walker reminded the Committee that Durham County Council (DCC) declared a Climate Emergency in 2019 and it was incumbent on any developer to play a role in seeking to reduce carbon emissions and respond to this to reduce emissions and help deliver a forward looking and future proof development.  She added that this was a critical opportunity for Banks, as a sponsor of the County Council’s Environmental awards, to produce a flagship carbon neutral development as an exemplar for the County.  She noted that Banks should both welcome and grasp the opportunity, as should the County Council.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that Neighbourhood Plan Policies D4 and S1 were equally clear in that they demand new development proposals to fully minimise energy consumption and carbon emissions through the use of appropriate materials and design, with this proposal being clearly contrary to those policies.  She noted there appears to be no justification for the over massing of the site, nor the abandonment of the clear environmental aims of the previously proposed development for five passive homes.  She concluded by noting that the Parish Council humbly requests that the application be refused today.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked Lewis Stokes, from the applicant, Banks, to speak in support of the application.

L Stokes thanked the Chair and Committee and explained he was Community Relations Manager with Banks and had spent the last 12 years working with local communities in the area as regards the Mount Oswald development.  He explained that Banks was a family ran business, operating for 40 years and having 230 employees, many from within County Durham.

L Stokes explained that Banks welcomed the Senior Planning Officer’s report and recommendation.  He noted the overall development was a high level site, with outline permission having been granted in 2013, and with a number of reserved matters applications to build out the site.  He noted that in 2018 there had been proposals for this particular site, for an innovative scheme using prefabricated dwellings from Sweden, however, due to economic and provider issues that scheme was not implemented.  L Stokes explained that the current proposal for nine properties, which were felt would better integrate into the wider Mount Oswald site and with existing properties.  He noted the properties were of generous proportions and were of bespoke design.  He noted there were numerous benefits of the scheme in terms of contributions of £418,095 for new affordable housing in the city, additional areas of bio-diversity net gain at Mount Oswald, £15,651 for public open space provision in the local area. 

L Stokes noted that Banks had listened to the Parish Council and Local Member, L Brown and there was to be inclusion of PV solar panels on the roofs to generate renewable energy as well as electric charging points in each home.  He noted that Banks were keen to begin development and that there would be separate application in respect of the gatehouse.  He added that the construction road would be reinstated as parkland once the development was completed.  He concluded by noting retail development to the north of the overall site, that feedback had been listened to, and that he would ask the Committee to support the recommendation of its Officer’s report.

The Chair thanked L Stokes and asked the Senior Planning Officer (SF) to address the points raised by the speakers.

The Senior Planning Officer (SF) noted that planning policies within the CDP and Neighbourhood Plan (NP) were widely aspirational in terms of sustainability, however, it was felt the application met current standards at an acceptable level and that enhanced Building Control regulations would overachieve compared to DCC planning policy.  He noted the benefits of the scheme as described by the applicant were basic mitigation, with the scheme not being deemed acceptable without those mitigations.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (SF) and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Elmer asked as for a policy statement in respect of the previous Masterplan for the site.  The Senior Planning Officer (SF) noted that it was not relevant for this application, it being a full planning application, the Masterplan referred to the Reserved Matters applications previously mentioned.  Councillor J Elmer noted that he felt that brought into question the Masterplan process.

Councillor J Elmer explained he felt that it was a great shame that the scheme for five passive homes had been dropped in favour of additional housing, the application being for nine properties that only met minimum requirements and lacked consideration of heating solutions, which were possible and viable, such as air-source or ground-source heat pumps.  He noted that therefore that with disappointment he would move that the application be refused as it was contrary to CDP Policy 29, in terms of not making the best use of resources, and in this case energy.

Councillor C Marshall noted his previous work with Banks in terms of his former role as Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration.  He asked as regards viability of district heating for self-build plots.  The Senior Planning Officer (SF) noted none of the nine units were self-build and noted that CDP Policy 29(c) encouraged looking at such measures, however, the applicant had not explored that option for this development.  He added that district heating would usually be for a larger development and not for one of this size.

Councillor J Elmer noted CDP Policy 29 being described as aspirational and added that it was an adopted plan and therefore was as relevant as any other in the CDP and terming it as aspirational inferred to him that it carried less weight.  The Senior Planning Officer (SF) noted that it was not his intention to infer it was to any degreed lesser, and it was a fully adopted policy.  He added that the policy had minimum standards as well as areas in which it looked to encourage other aspects.  He noted the previous application for five passive homes was far above the minimum standards as set out by policy, however the current application for nine properties did meet the minimum requirements of that policy.  He reiterated that in effect it was superseded by Building Control regulations.

Councillor K Shaw noted he understood the point being made by Councillor J Elmer, however, the application did meet the need for County Durham, giving diversity to the housing offer in terms of executive homes, helping to meet the 10 year need.  He added that the contributions secured by the Section 106 Legal Agreement should be welcomed, especially in terms of affordable homes, and he therefore moved that the application be approved as per the Officer’s recommendation.  The Senior Planning Officer (SF) noted for clarity that the affordable housing contribution was for the area covered by the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan. 

Councillor K Shaw noted that made the application even more attractive in his opinion.

Councillor C Marshall noted that having clarification from the Senior Planning Officer on the queries raised he felt overall that the scheme was well thought through and, as it compiled with policy, he would second approval in line with the Officer’s report.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement as set out within the report.