Agenda item

Full planning application for the development of 75no. new homes (Use Class C3) including affordable homes and associated access, landscaping and infrastructure (amended 21.04.2023).

The Senior Planning Officer, George Spurgeon 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 Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was a full planning application for the development of 75no. new homes (Use Class C3) including affordable homes and associated access, landscaping and infrastructure and was recommended for refusal, for the reasons set out in the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer asked Members to note some updates following the publication of the agenda pack.  He explained that an updated air quality report had been supplied and reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Team and consequently they had withdrawn their objection.  He noted that therefore refusal reason 4 would be removed.  It was noted that the applicant had submitted over the weekend, prior to Committee, an indicative site plan which included some details relating to parking.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that Officers had not had sufficient time to consider the details submitted, however, he noted that even if the details were satisfactory and refusal reason 3 could be removed, the recommendation would still be for refusal, with reasons 1 and 2 being the most fundamental.  He asked that, if Members were minded to refuse the application, that Officers be given delegated authority in terms of the inclusion of refusal reason 3, after considering the indicative site plan supplied by the applicant.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that paragraph 158 referred to Landscape Plan (g), he noted that the latest revision was (i).

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked the Chair of Seaton with Slingley Parish Council, Parish Councillor Alyson Slater to speak on behalf of the Parish Council in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor A Slater explained that she was Chair of Seaton with Slingley Parish Council and resident of the area for 70 years.  She noted that the Parish Council would wish for the application to be refused and added that, as the local Council with the ‘feet on the ground’, they understood the residents feeling very well.  She explained that the land in question was a very attractive piece of land, with a great deal of wildlife in the area, including deer, as well as other uses including agriculture. 

 

Parish Councillor A Slater noted that the proposed access via The Meadows was too narrow and that the B1404 leading to the proposed access was also very narrow.  She added that residents were very concerned as regards the speed of the traffic along that road, as well as traffic often being backed up which would be exacerbated by the proposals.

 

Parish Councillor A Slater explained that the area was rural and unique and noted that the property designs for the proposed development were ‘bog standard’ and did not fit in with existing dwellings in the area.  She noted that Seaham already had a number of developments that were ongoing.

 

Parish Councillor A Slater added that bus services in the area were unreliable, with no service on Sundays and only operating 8.00 until 18:00 the rest of the week.  In relation to the local sewers, she explained the system was overloaded and noted two holding systems that were in place, adding that adding more would be inappropriate and could compromise the system.

 

Parish Councillor A Slater explained that there was no desire for the proposed residential development and noted that there were many other more suitable sites for such volume builds.  She added that the proposals would represent a blight on the small community and noted the spirit of the community should be protected.  She concluded by noting that the Parish Council would ask that the application be refused.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor A Slater and asked Councillor D McKenna, Local Member, to speak in respect of the application.

 

Councillor D McKenna thanked the Chair and Committee and acknowledged the significant amount of work by residents and the Parish Council to protect the fabric of their village, clearly in opposition to the proposals.  He explained that Avant appeared to looking for maximum profit, irrespective of the damage it would cause.  He noted that while the number of properties proposed had reduced from 106 to 75, residents were still opposed the plans in terms of the lack of requisite infrastructure, poor transport links, overdevelopment of the site and the proposed access being too narrow.  He added that, if approved, road safety would be compromised. 

He concluded by explaining that the development was unwanted, unsuitable and unsafe and therefore he would ask that the Committee refuse the application.

 

Councillor D McKenna left the meeting at 1.53pm

 

The Chair asked Helen Golightly, Local Resident, to speak in relation to the application.

 

H Golightly explained that she had been a local resident for 30 years and had raised two children while living in the village.  She emphasised that it was a rural village, separated from Seaham by the A19 and surrounded on all sides by countryside and noted that residents welcomed the recommendation for refusal from Officers.  She noted that residents objected to the application for several reasons, noting they agreed that the application was contrary to County Durham Plan (CDP) Policies 6 and 10.  She added that the settlement strategy focussed on new development and wider access to services and noted this was very limited in Seaton, with only two public houses and a community centre.  H Golightly explained that therefore the application was contrary to the CDP as it did not meet the needs of those potential additional residents and would make them primarily reliant upon a car, contrary to CDP Policy 29.  She added she felt the application was significant development, disproportionate in size, and therefore the unsustainable location was also in conflict with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Paragraph 105 and the Spatial Strategy of the Council.  She noted that the proposed house types did not reflect the style of the properties at The Meadows and were also not well related, contrary to Policy 6.  H Golightly noted that the site was an important landscape buffer with the A19, and the land also represented a gap between the village and Seaham nearby.  She explained that the Hawthorn to Ryhope public right of way was very visible from the site and the development of the site would impact on the character and setting and openness, contrary to CDP Policies 6(c), 10(l) and (o) and 39, as stated in the Officer’s report.

 

H Golightly noted that there were also concerns as regards transport safety, as noted by the Highways Section, with the 4.5-metre-wide access through The Meadows into the site being less than the 4.8 metres required.  She added the footway was also insufficient and only on one side.  She explained that there was a poor proposed layout, and there were issues with drivers and heightened risks, contrary to Policies 6(f), 10(q) and 21 of the CDP and Section 1 of the NPPF.  She noted that the land was unallocated land within the development plan and the Council was able to prove sufficient housing for five years. 

 

 

She noted that residents would urge that Member refuse the application, and she thanked the Officers for their comments as regards the additional information provided in terms of the proposed layout, and in noting the main refusal reasons being those set out at reasons 1 and 2 within the report.

 

The Chair thanked H Golightly and asked Richard Newsome, Agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

R Newsome noted that Avant North East welcomed the update from Officers withdrawing refusal recommendation 4, noting that the applicant had put right the issues that had been raised.  He noted disappointment in that the verbal update was that recommendation was still for refusal, and noted that given the limited time available, he would ask Members to look at the updated position reasonably.  He explained that in terms of the scale, the original proposals were for 106 properties, and this had been reduced by 30 percent to 75 properties.  He added that there was open space to the north and east of around 1.58 hectares, with a play area and planting, and area equivalent to 11.5 football pitches.  R Newsome explained that the proposals represented a 60.9 percent biodiversity net gain, much greater than the 10 percent required under the Environment Act or the CDP.

 

He noted that Avant had been very positive in terms listening to feedback from Council Officers when meeting as regards the development and changes to the design and character appraisals had been produced, including the submitted computer generated images.  He noted Avant had asked for a further design review meeting, however, this had been declined.  He added that the access proposed was in fact suitable, and similar to many other applications that had been before Committee before.  He added that while it was a decent walking distance away from some facilities, around 550 metres away at nearby Seaham, a reasonable distance with a safe and appropriate route.  He noted that the Highways Section had requested an internal road layout 25 August, and this had provided limited time for a response to be produced, with an indicative plan having been produced and submitted for consideration.  He asked, therefore, that the application be deferred, to allow the Developer, Avant, to come back with an update to address the points raised.

 

The Chair thanked R Newsome and asked the Senior Planning Officer to address the points raised by the Speakers.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that whilst the 30 percent reduction in properties, from 106 to 75, referred to by R Newsome was correct, prior to the application being submitted officers had provided advice to a pre-application enquiry submitted in November 2020 for 78 properties. 

 

He noted that Officers had explained to the applicant that 78 at that time represented a development that was too dense and Officers had noted that a significant reduction, from 78, was required as it was considered that 78 dwellings would ‘not be in keeping with adjacent development or in keeping with edge of settlement development’. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that 75 properties represented only 3 properties fewer than 78, not a 30 percent reduction.  He noted the applicant had carried out a character appraisal and a design and access statement.  He added that the proposal was an edge of settlement development, not an infill development, and that the density proposed far exceeded the density of the adjoining The Meadows, contrary to the submitted Design and Access Statement which acknowledged that housing density typically disperses from the centre and as it moves outwards. Therefore, Officers could not agree with the interpretation within the Applicant’s submissions. 

 

In respect of an enhanced design review, the Senior Planning Officer noted that this was not a compulsory review, similar to pre-planning advice, and explained there would be a fee for such a review.  He noted that from the dialogue in terms of the impact of the proposed scheme when looking at CDP Policy 29 and looking at the ’Building for Life’ Supplementary Planning Document, there were a number of ‘red’ scores, in part indicating that the proposals were too dense.  He added that advice at the pre-application stage had been that the proposals had been too dense, with the submitted scheme showing that the applicant had not been willing to reduce the density sufficiently.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that accordingly, the applicant was advised that there was little value in going through the enhanced design review process as it would have simply been taking a fee from the applicant to reiterate that the scheme was too dense, as stated at the pre-application stage. 

 

In terms of sustainability and walking distances, the vast majority of services were greater than 400 metres away, with national guidance stating that when greater than 400 metres, people were not likely to walk, and would use other modes of transport.  He added that it was desirable to have ‘straight’ walking routes, with those that were winding being less desirable, putting people off from walking.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the ‘Planning for Walking 2015’ stating that ‘pedestrians prefer to see where they are heading’.  He noted that therefore with no direct route to the bus stop, potential residents would likely rely upon use of a private car.   In terms of the services at Seaham, the Senior Planning Officer noted they were at what was considered to be at or in excess of an upper threshold of what could be considered a reasonable distance to walk for access to services. 

 

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that residents had an independent consultant carry out a speed survey, with the result being the 85th percentile travelling at speeds greater than the 30mph limit.  He added there was no crossing in place, and no footpath on the eastern side of the highway for the first 45 metres going into The Meadows.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the applicant’s Agent had asked Members to defer the application, however, Officers would reiterate that they were confident in recommending refusal based on Reasons 1 and 2 as set out in the report and that Officers and the applicant disagree in terms of the density of development suitable for the site.  He added the application, in this form, had been submitted in January 2022 and whether the Highway issues were or were not insurmountable, it was still felt that the application was contrary to Policy such Officers would recommend refusal, based upon Reasons 1 and 2 set out in the report.

 

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

 

Councillor L Brown noted she was disappointed as regards late information being submitted, this not helping Officers or Members. She asked if the ten ‘red’ on the ‘Building for Life’ SPD was still the current score.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that there were scores of 10 red, 1 amber and 1 green, with the amber being a drainage issue that had moved from red to amber.  Councillor L Brown noted that one or more red would be sufficient for refusal unless there were other significant issues to mitigate, however, she would hear what other Committee Members had to say on the application before she made a decision.

 

Councillor R Manchester asked what level of density would be deemed to be acceptable for the proposed site.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that it was difficult to give an exact number as each proposal was different, however, 75 was not close and there would need to a lot less properties and a different layout.  He reiterated that the initial number had been 78 properties and Officers had explained that was too many, with the reduction of 3 to 75 not being sufficient.  Councillor R Manchester noted that he had taken from the Officer’s response that it was not an application that could be made acceptable by ‘tinkering around at the edges’.  The Senior Planning Officer noted the refusal proposed by Officers was still the position, even subsequent to the deferral proposal from the Applicant.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he concurred with the assessment of the area in terms of its character, being a small, linear, rural village.  He noted that The Meadows itself was the ‘new estate’ and had already impacted upon the village.  He noted that the proposed very large addition did not appear to relate well to the rest of the village. 

He added that there would be impact in terms of loss of agricultural land and on the countryside.  Councillor J Elmer noted the ‘marginal pass’ in terms of Highways and the 4.5 metre width and asked for some clarity in terms of policy.  He noted his concerns in terms of creating car dependency as the bus services were not regular and with limited services within Seaton, residents must have a car. 

 

Councillor J Elmer explained he would be happy to propose refusal of the application, on Refusal Reasons 1 and 2, with Officers having delegated authority to include Reason 3, if having considered the late submission Officers still felt it would apply.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the access available via The Meadows would be around 4.7 to 4.8 metres wide, and therefore did not meet the current 4.8 metre requirements, with new requirements that were not yet in effect to be 5.5 metres.

 

Councillor K Robson noted he agreed with the points raised by Councillor J Elmer and added that on the site visit it was clear that there would be significant disruption in terms of any development on that site.  The Senior Planning Officer agreed, however, noted that should any development be approved, the Committee could impose a Construction Management Plan (CMP) by condition, to control construction traffic and safety.  He noted that element would not be grounds for refusal in itself.

 

Councillor L Brown noted she had not attended the site visit, however, she agreed with the comments from Councillor J Elmer and seconded that the application be refused on Refusal Reasons 1 and 2, with delegated authority as regards the inclusion of Refusal Reason 3.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted that he had attended the site visit and he noted that he was more comfortable with the setting of the application than perhaps other Committee Members.  However, his concern was the proposed access.  He noted discussions when on the site visit in terms of why other access options were not possible and thought it may be useful if Officers explained that for the benefit of the Committee.  He also noted he would be interested on any comments from the applicant in terms of mitigating issues raised, in terms of density and access.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the vehicular access was, as proposed, via The Meadows and noted that initially there would have been an additional pedestrian access, however, there had been concerns raised by Durham Constabulary as regards to the proposed footpath not being overlooked.  He added that ultimately Officers did not support the application and the only way to mitigate the issues raised would be to significantly reduce the density of housing.

 

The Chair noted that there had been a motion for refusal by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor L Brown.  He added he did not feel the need to hear further from the applicant in terms of density, they had set out their case in their statement and could come back with a new application should they wish.  Councillor D Oliver noted he felt at the moment that, given the scale and concerns in relation to the access, the application was not right for the site. 

 

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED, as per Refusal Reasons 1 and 2 as set out in the recommendation within the report, with delegated authority in relation to the inclusion of Refusal Reason 3 as appropriate.

 

Councillor D McKenna entered the meeting at 2.28pm