Agenda item

23no. Affordable Dwellings

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the development of 23no. affordable dwellings (for copy see file of minutes).  

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Gemma Heron gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location, photographs of the site and a site plan.  She provided a verbal update to Members in relation to Affordable Housing as a point of clarification.   Paragraphs 148 to 155 of the committee report set out the consideration of the application in the context of affordable housing provision. This section recognised that the scheme was presented as a 100% affordable housing scheme. However, only 15% of the dwellings were offered to be secured as affordable units in perpetuity under County Durham Plan (CDP) Policy 15 through a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the remaining provided as affordable on a voluntary basis. This was due to complexities around Homes England Funding on such matters.

 

Since the CDP was adopted, the Government’s First Homes policy had come into force and required as a minimum of 25% of all affordable housing units secured to be as First Homes. A First Homes was a discounted market sale unit, discounted by a minimum of 30% against the market value. To comply with the NPPF, one first home unit would need to be provided on the site.

 

The applicant as an affordable home provider confirmed that a discounted market sale product was not a product they could offer and would not align with their Homes England grant bid.   In considering this matter although recognising the deviation from the requirements of the NPPF, the benefits of the scheme, particularly through the provision of seven bungalows, over and above the two-bungalow requirement by the planning development plan policy this would be sufficient to outweigh this NPPF policy conflict. Therefore for clarification the 15% affordable home obligation within the S106 would equate to four units, with a breakdown of one affordable home ownership unit and three affordable rent units.   

 

Cllr M McKeon entered the meeting at 9.38am

 

Mr Ridgeon, Hedley Planning Services addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant Adderstone Living who were a specialist developer of affordable homes, building affordable housing developments across the North East. Once built, the new homes would be managed and maintained by North Star, a local Registered Provider. 

 

The application proposed the delivery of 23 affordable homes, including seven bungalows, which would significantly contribute to meeting an identified housing need within a sustainable location, within the Newton Aycliffe settlement boundary and with nine bus stops within 250m, that would provide access to the full range of services and amenities. All proposed dwellings met both level access standards and space standards.

 

The application was fully policy compliant and demonstrated an effective use of under-utilised land. The site was not allocated as open space, nor was it publicly accessible.  Amendments were made to the scheme where possible to address local resident and consultee comments. A financial mitigation was agreed where required, to provide extra NHS provision and open space improvements in the area. This included the required Nutrient Neutrality mitigation, which wasn’t a requirement when the project was started. This required credits to be purchased from Natural England. In addition to the over £47,000 required to be paid to comply with the County Durham Plan policies, an additional £89,425 had to be paid to secure nutrient neutrality mitigation that had a significant effect on viability.

 

The applicant had worked withthe Local Authority to address all outstanding design and consultee comments. As detailed within the report, the latest Design Review concluded to highway matters and potential overshadowing of future dwellings. Subsequent work was undertaken and these had been fully addressed. The Highways Authority had no objection to the proposal as there was no adverse impact upon the safety or usability of the highway network. The proposal complied with County Durham Parking Standards and the internal highways layout had been considered appropriate and safe, including all bin collection point locations.

 

The concerns regarding overshadowing had been overcome through the re-positioning of properties on the southern boundary, that included rotating properties to ensure they had access to sun in the rear gardens. The acceptability had been demonstrated through the submission of a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment.

 

To ensure an attractive outlook for those residing in dwellings, two areas of public open space had been designed into the scheme. The first area adjacent to the site entrance would be utilised as a dry SuDS basin and second central area had been designed as a rain garden, which would also provide residential amenity value. Alongside a detailed landscape scheme and proposed features, the applicant would provide off-site net gain in biodiversity which would be controlled by a Section 106 Legal Agreement.  The submission of technical information such as landscaping plans, ecology reports and drainage assessments have all concluded that the proposed development would have limited impact on the surrounding area and its residents.

 

Councillor J Atkinson was unclear on what affordable housing was and how the bungalows outweighed any policy concerns. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the developer was a registered affordable housing provider but under the conditions of the Homes England funding they could not exceed the number of affordable housing on the site.  Although the site was 100% affordable housing only 15% could be accounted for through policy and the remainder would be built on a voluntary basis by the developer which could not be considered by policy but was recognised as such. The NPPF also stated that a developer would need to provide a First Homes property that would be offered at a discount by 30% of the market value to adhere to the criteria. This would not be viable for the applicant and would provide more bungalows above what was set out in policy instead.

 

Councillor E Adam requested clarity on the biodiversity net gain and ecology for the site.  There had been changes with the design and conservation within the updates that he had found difficult to oversee in particular the RAG

(red, amber green) rating within the report.  He was unsure as to why there were four reds and three amber ratings.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that there had been issues identified within the internal assessment of the properties within the design review that had been highlighted by Highways.  These had since been addressed and amended within the report.  The red ratings were to do with the working site in its context as there was not enough proposal impact on the surrounding trees.  Additional information had been submitted that had been considered within the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the latest amendments to biodiversity net gain and ecology were that the mitigation would need to be offered off site.  This would be offered via the Wildlife Trust offsite which was a common approach.

 

Councillor E Adam expressed concerns over the waste bin collections and the turning circle.  It appeared that residents would have to pull their bins from the rear of the property to the bin collection site. He also wanted to know how many bungalows this would affect.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded that within linked terraced properties not every resident would have garden access for waste bin collections.  There had been a bin storage area allocated within the design to

ensure bins were not left on the street and could be returned to the rear of the property. He noted that this would affect the bungalow at plot 20 but the rest of the bungalows would have direct access from their garden to the front.

 

Councillor E Adam queried the safety of the disused railway footpath at the

rear of some of the properties.  He thought this could attract Anti-Social behaviour and residents could use the path as a through route to the site that would create a nuisance.  As this was not a designated path he wondered if this could be blocked off.

 

The Principal Planning Officer stated that some of the footpath was recognised and was within the balance of permeability and safe design.  As

two bungalows faced on to the path there would be a high degree of

surveillance to prevent Anti-Social behaviour. The railway footpath would not be blocked.

 

Councillor E Adam noted that he had not seen any statement within the

planning application for renewable energy to be installed in the properties to

address climate change.

 

Mr Ridgeon explained that renewable energy elements would be installed in all properties as defined in the building regulations. He also responded to

Councillor E Adam’s query about the installation of broadband and electric vehicle charging points that were also sited in the building regulations that would be adhered to. A broadband provider had not yet been appointed as this would be arranged later in the development of the site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that section 181 of the report referred to the installation of broadband.  This information would be submitted to planning by the applicant at a later stage.

 

Councillor E Adam referred to the cultural assessment within the report and

asked about the tree and hedgerow removal and the shadowing of the

properties by trees at the southern end of the site.  As a Local Councillor

he received many complaints from residents about trees whether it be from

the roots that caused damage, leaves or the lack of light.  He asked what action had been taken to alleviate these potential future issues.

 

Mr Ridgeon confirmed that many of the trees and hedges within the red line boundary had been retained.  The design of the properties at the southern

end of the site had been re-evaluated in relation to the trees to minimise the issues the retained trees may cause. The properties had been moved further north and some had been rotated to reduce over shadowing.  A daylight and sunlight assessment had been carried out and had not highlighted any major concerns.  North Star were happy they could manage the maintenance of the trees that had been taken into consideration when designing that area.  The developer was required to pay an additional £90,000 for offsite mitigation for the Nutrient Neutrality credits from Natural England.

 

Councillor G Richardson had attended the site visit the previous day and considered the site to be very small at less than two acres with too many properties for the area and had a narrow access.  He reiterated concerns about overshadowing with properties potentially only getting light when there were no leaves on the trees. 

 

Councillor L Brown queried the number of parking spaces and thought there was not enough visitor spaces within the site around the bungalows where if residents were elderly may have carers in attendance.

 

The Highway Development Officer, Phil Harrison confirmed that the number of parking spaces adhered to current parking policy, adding that this was currently under review.

 

Councillor D Brown asked who the affordable housing team were that had been referred to in the report and requested that the affordable housing slide was re-presented to explain what affordable housing was.

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) explained that the scheme was 100% affordable housing but only 15% could be recognised within the section 106 agreement to access grant funding from Homes England.  The remainder of the properties would be affordable housing on a voluntary basis by the applicant.  The Government had introduced a new initiative First Homes that offered first time buyers the chance to buy affordable newly built homes at a discount of at least 30% of the market value.   To meet this requirement the applicant would have had to supply 25% First Homes on the site but as this was not financially viable the applicant had agreed to supply seven bungalows above the requirement that mitigated the conflict with the policy within the PPG.

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) also explained that the Affordable Housing Team sat with the Spatial Policy team who analysed planning applications to determine what the policy would mean to a developer and advised them accordingly.

 

Mr Ridgeon advised that North Star had worked with the Affordable Housing Team to look at the key options for them in relation to the application. This was to prevent house builders from applying for grants when building for registered providers.

 

Councillor J Atkinson had not been aware of the money that had to be paid for mitigation off site for ecology.  He questioned how the applicant could draw this money back since it had not been envisaged when the project first commenced.

 

Mr Ridgeon confirmed that this was the first scheme within the North East Tees Valley catchment area where nutrient neutrality had to be factored into the planning application.  This had been done by buying credits from Natural England. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that it was £2500 per credit from Homes England.  A Daylight and Sunlight Assessment had been carried out that showed sufficient sun in the gardens.  The site offered bungalows that addressed a need in the area and would provide a significant benefit. 

 

Councillor N Jones was in support of the application as this would develop brush land and would be all the better to provide affordable housing in the area.  He did feel that the trees would cause issues with shadowing as within his ward he received many complaints about trees blocking light.

 

Councillor J Atkinson felt this was a good development for Newton Aycliffe and moved the application.

 

Councillor E Adam also thought the development was a benefit for Newton Aycliffe that utilised the land that included bungalows.  However he thought the design was very dense for the small plot of land.  He was concerned about the removal of hedges and trees from the site and the impact of shadowing to the properties.  He was worried about Durham County Plan policy 41 and NPPF part 15 relating to the biodiversity being mitigated by a third party.

 

Councillor L Brown wanted to know what type of species of trees were to be removed as if they were Ash they potentially would be felled anyway if they were diseased.  She seconded the application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer was unsure what species of trees would be removed but the trees that would be lost were not of significant value and were not protected by Tree Protection Orders.  The hedgerows would be retained on the boundary line.  Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

Resolved

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed in the

report.