Agenda item

Erection of 148 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping (amended description)

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the Erection of 148 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping (amended description)Erection of 148 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping (amended description)erection of 148 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping on Land to the North of George Pit Lane, Great Lumley (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

L Ollivere, Senior Planning Officer updated the Committee in respect of refusal reason no. 4 to read the following;

 

·      The application fails to demonstrate that the development would have good access by sustainable modes of transport to services and facilities in Great Lumley contrary to criteria f of policy 6 of the County Durham Plan and Paragraphs 105 and 110 of the NPPF.

 

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, site layout, elevations and photographs of the site.  Members had attended a site visit the previous day.

 

Councillor Heaviside, addressed the Committee as Local Member and also as Chair of Lumley Parish Council.  He confirmed that residents had been outraged on social media when the application was first submitted, feelings which remained and were reflected in the number of objections received.  A public drop-in session had been arranged with Planning Officers and was attended by 200 residents, most of whom were opposed to the scheme.

 

The Parish Council had received regular representations from residents relating to the site and had submitted an objection to the application.  There were several reasons for refusal which related to policies 6 and 10 of the County Durham Plan (CDP).  Councillor Heaviside suggested that Policy 6 had been quoted out of context by the Applicant, which was an excuse to land grab a greenfield site for development.  The site in question was used for food production and he questioned whether it could afford to be lost.

 

Another issue was the footpath provision on Cocken Lane and the S bend into the village to the East.  The developer had made assurances that the footpath would be widened, however at Stainmore Drive the property boundaries would not allow this and neither would the narrow road.  Further down Cocken Lane the school were already subject to parking issues which would be exacerbated if the school expanded and additional children accommodated.  Members who had attended the site the previous day, had observed a near miss incident with a vehicle.

 

Councillor Heaviside referred the Section 106 contributions which equated to £470k for primary school accommodation for 45 pupils and suggested that this was not enough as a similar building in the village had been erected at a cost of over £2m.  Park View Academy had been allocated similar contributions but had been unable to make a single extra classroom place.  Due to other large developments in Chester le Street and bordering areas of Sunderland, children from the area were being taken to out of area schools by bus, passing Park View to attend North Durham Academy in Stanley. 

 

There were two bus operators that were running services in the area and the report suggested that a bus could reroute, however Councillor Heaviside suggested that it would be unlikely for operators to drop services to accommodate a bus stop outside of this development.

 

Councillor Heaviside confirmed that the report was extensive and contained a fair appraisal of the application.  Having considered local objections and the content of the report, he supported the recommendation to refuse the application.</AI6>

 

Ms M Juniper addressed the Committee on behalf of a group of 60 householders from Great Lumley, who objected to the proposal.  The scheme conflicted with CDP Policies 6 and 10.  Specific concerns were in relation to the position and density of the development – it was disproportionate and would result in a significant population increase, impacting on already limited services in Great Lumley.

 

The site encroached into open countryside and would result in loss of agricultural land as well as footpaths and Public Rights of Way that were used for amenity but were also an important habitat for wildlife.  With regards to the removal of hedgerows, Ms Juniper considered that the mitigation offered would take years to regenerate.

 

With regards to the highway safety concerns, Ms Juniper reiterated the dangers on the S bend which often met cars on the wrong side of road and suggested that the scheme would exacerbate existing transport and parking issues.

 

Mr L Marlow, addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal.  The site was not sustainable, there was little employment in the village and a strong reliance on transport to get to work.  The site was also situated on top of a hill with four main roads, two of which were inaccessible on foot.  The roads were too dangerous for cyclists and there were very little passing places.  The suggestion from the developer that they would give all house buyers a £100 voucher towards a bicycle was ludicrous due to location.  Mr Marlow supported the comments from Ms Juniper and asked the Committee to reject the application.

Margaret juniper

Thanks for opp to address cttee – representing group of 60 householders from great Lumley, read report and happy with the outcome, clear conflict with Cdp policy 6 and 10

 

Issues specific concerns, position and density of development, disproportionate and result in 10% increase in population and will impact on the already limited services

Location – incursion into countryside and would impact

Previous development squared off

Agricultural, footpaths and ROW as amenity, important habitat for wildlife, place to preserve

Hedgereows will need removing, although mit will be a nety loss and take years to regenerate

Concerned about highway saferty, on s bends often meet cars on wrong side of road,

Transport and parking is a problem

Asks committee to refuse

 

Leaonard marlow

Sustainale  transport, all people moving in are going to need to work somewhere and little employment in village, we live in rural community, unfortunately great lunley also on top of hill and isolated, there are 4 main roads, 2 inaccessable by footway, one in CLS narrow road, dangerous on push bike, 5% hill leading into village 60mph – if come from duhram 12% HILL ON narrow lane, little passing places, suggestion from developer give £100 voucher get a bike, joke

 

Move into village, people sold bike because roads too dangaeroius

If council serious about wlking cycling this devleeope

Support Margaret asks to reject

 

N Westwick spoke on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that over the course of the application, they had worked proactively with the Council and listened and responded positively to feedback.  The original application had been for 157 dwellings, since reduced to 148.  This was a high-quality mixed development which was policy compliant, with only two outstanding red scores relating to walking routes.  The Applicant had worked to address this by creating improvements such as new bus stops at the site entrance and a commitment to extend or divert the footpath which would be fully funded by the Applicant.  There were no outstanding objections from the Highways Authority and the scheme had not yet been back to the design review panel.  He considered there to be some inaccuracies in the report and disagreed that the walking distance exceeded acceptable limits as the measure did not account for the shortest walking distance through Millennium Park.  With regards to the HSE point about the treatment works, the historic Hazardous Substances Consent was a historic matter and the site fell below the 10% threshold which was an acceptable limit.  Mr Westwick highlighted the contributions the scheme would provide for schools and other improvements and it accorded with policies. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to confirm that the land was considered grade 3b which was moderate agricultural land and not the best or most versatile.  The loss was not considered to be a significant enough reason to refuse the application so had not been included as a reason for refusal.

 

In response to concerns raised about the S bend, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a new crossing had been proposed as part of the application as well as new footways which were accepted by Highways Officers.  Regarding the contributions to education, money was subject to a clause to ensure it was invested in nearest schools if it could not be invested in the schools named.  There was new bus provision and it was possible to reroute the bus route, however there was no guarantee that the service would continue after five years when the subsidy provided by the Applicant ended.

 

With regards to comments raised regarding the lack of employment in the area, the Senior Planning Officer accepted this point, but the issue regarding sustainability was with regards to the lack of services in close proximity to the development.

 

In response to the comments from Mr Westwick regarding the walking distances, the authority considered the most logical and direct routes in terms of distances and the route through Millennium Park had been discounted.

 

As an experienced farmer the Chair disagreed with the conclusion that this would not result in the loss of agricultural land.  This was a 20 acre site which was suitable for growing forty tonnes of grain in a country that needed food.

 

Councillor Bell complimented the Officer for the standard of the report.  He agreed the development would result in the loss of agricultural land and the assessed walking route was not the best route, however he understood the rationale behind using it.  Extending the narrow footpaths to a width of 1.5 m would still fail to comply with national guidance of 1.8m and he highlighted road safety issues on Cocken Lane which had been reported by the school in recent years and prevented continued use of nearby allotments that were frequented.  It was not safe to expect children to walk to school, on a route that was dangerous.

 

Councillor Bell referred to the presentation slide which showed the village boundary and to a recent site that had squared off the village and been fully supported.  This extension was unsuitable and would create an unusual boundary, potentially resulting in more development.  The site had been assessed in the SHLAA and was not accepted.  The Officer’s opinion was consistent and confirmed that this was an unsustainable site for housing.

 

The development would exacerbate issues accessing the nearest secondary school, Park View which was consistently oversubscribed.  Recently, 18 children from Lumley had been refused a place and were expected to go much further afield.  Park View had been unable to spend contributions previously allocated. 

 

With regards to the rerouting of the bus provision, Councillor Bell considered this an attempt at making the site sustainable.  He could not support the application as the site was unsustainable, poorly linked and local residents and Members did not support it.  He moved the recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons in the Officer’s Report as amended.

 

Councillor Marshall queried the issues raised by the applicant regarding the statutory responses and the possible changes alluded to which had the potential to sway the decision.  He advised that he supported sustainable development, but a lot of time had been spent on the CDP to ensure that the correct development was forthcoming in places where it was needed.  This site extended the settlement in the direction of open countryside that didn’t fit in with policy 6 and he wanted clarification as to whether there had been any update from consultees.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the response from Landscape was the most up to date position.  They had not objected but given several views throughout the application, but whilst it had been confirmed that the application had positively evolved, they had confirmed an incursion into the countryside to a localised level, and left Planning Officer’s to make a judgment.

 

Referring to the HSE, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there had been no further response however they did have concerns regarding substances at Lumley water treatment works and following independent advice from Northumbrian Water, it had been confirmed to relate to historic records.  Chlorine was no longer stored on site, however as it was yet to be taken off the register and if the Committee were minded to approve the application, provision would have to be made to notify the HSE so they could consider referral to the Secretary of State.

 

S Reed, Planning Development Manager gave a detailed explanation regarding how the landscape impact had been assessed by Planning Officers and Policy 6 which included criteria on settlement boundaries and the presentation included a site boundary plan with the existing built area of Great Lumley and its defined settlement.  The application clearly sat outside of the settlement boundary and therefore failed to comply with Policy 6.  The Officer’s had worked positively and proactively with Developers and there were a number of sites which had been assessed under Policy 6 with a more positive outcome however those sites were better related and also in terms of scale and form.

 

Councillor Marshall seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Jopling had concerns about the density of the site, the loss of agricultural land and also the site was outside of the built settlement.  She agreed with the Officer’s assessment, it was contrary to the CDP and it would impact on wildlife with loss of hedgerows.  It was important to listen to Parish Councils, Local Members and residents as they knew their area.  Councillor Jopling supported the recommendation.

 

Councillor Boyes highlighted the necessity of the CDP in order to protect sites which did not accord to the policies within.  This site may have been approved without it, similar to a couple of sites in East Durham before it was adopted.  He agreed that it did not accord to CDP policies and he thanked locals for the input.  When weighing up whether the housing supply outweighed the impacts of the development, this scheme did not.

 

Councillor Wilson acknowledged the positive aspects of the scheme from the developer, however there were a significant number of issues, the lack of sustainability was a huge issue and he supported the recommendation.

 

Councillor Higgins had attended the site visit and confirmed that there was an incident with a vehicle.  He agreed with the concerns raised, one of the major concerns for him was that of the access which although would be altered, would continue to be hazardous.  The site was not accessible for someone without transport, especially those with disabilities who would find it difficult to walk into village to use facilities.  He supported the recommendation.

 

Councillor McKeon advised that she supported the recommendation and referred to the suggestion that an alternative walking route should have been used.  She would not walk through a park after dark no matter how well-lit it was and she wanted to highlight the need to consider young women when considering sustainable walking routes.

 

With regards to the comments from other Members regarding the loss of arable land, she highlighted the difficulties for younger generations to get on the property ladder and that at some point in the future, agricultural land was going to have to be used for development.  On this occasion the site that was being considered was not sustainable.  She also thanked the residents for attending the Committee and expressing their views.

 

Councillor Bell referred to the nearby housing estate referred to locally as Stainmore which would be significantly impacted by this development.  He thanked Officers for the way that they had dealt with the application and for the drop-in session which had been provided outside of office hours.

 

Councillor Elmer advised that with regards to basic sustainability, the site was quite a distance and the arrangements of the bus provision depended on subsidy, which raised a question of how it could be sustained.  The Council wanted to encourage people to use other methods of transport but this development would force car dependency in order to access services.  The incursion into countryside was a clear policy breach and it was important with large applications that the Council did not set a precedent and allow something that was not in accordance with policy.  He agreed with the recommendations.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons outlined in the report and as amended by the Senior Planning Officer.