Agenda item

Erection of 22no. dwellings, together with formation of the site access, landscaping and associated works.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer for the erection of 22 no. dwellings, together with formation of the site access, landscaping and associated works on land to the east of Holdforth Crescent, South Church Road, Bishop Auckland (for copy see file of Minutes).

G Heron, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location map, aerial photographs, site photographs that showed the various angles and differences in land levels, a proposed site plan, and proposed elevations.  A site visit had taken place prior to the committee meeting.  She explained that an amended site plan had been submitted after the reports had been published to extend the gardens and push the retaining wall back by 2 metres.  She stated that the original plans still showed the relevant information.  She mentioned that within the consultee exercise the application had received objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Environment Agency and Network Rail.  There had also been objections from the Public Rights of Way and Ecology teams on the design.  

The Senior Planning Officer declared that she had also received a report from the Noise Assessment Team that had not been circulated before the meeting that had reassessed their views.  They had recommended that if acoustic glazing was added to the properties this would address the noise issue.   She updated the committee that as the noise element for refusal had been withdrawn there were now only 5 reasons for refusal and not six. 

D Marjoram, Agent addressed the committee in support of the application.  As set out in the Committee Report the proposals satisfied all relevant policies of the development plan and NPPF provisions, as well as supplementary guidance, and fundamentally disagreed with the proposed reasons for refusal.  As for the poor design he was surprised given the indicative layout submitted as part of the earlier outline consent that showed a layout that was very similar to the current proposals.  The earlier scheme proposed access from South Church Road in virtually the exact same position, with semi-detached dwellings arranged either side of the single access road that formed a cul-de-sac.  He was not aware of how housing could be delivered on this accepted suitable site in a different way.  The planned outward-facing bungalows onto the linear route of South Church Road would reflect the character of the settlement in an appropriate manner and had inward-facing houses at the northwest corner of the site that was logical due to their location behind an existing large wall, because front access could not be formed to these.

D Marjoram stated that owing to the levels, the proposed bungalows would be set down from the existing properties opposite, whilst appropriate and high quality materials could be secured by condition.  The key point to note was that the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment identified that the greatest need to 2035 was for two and three-bed sized properties, and bungalows, which his client was trying to deliver.  The proposals would require a sizeable retaining structure along the eastern boundary of the site, albeit this would sit below the existing tree canopy when viewed from the west, and behind these trees when viewed from the east.  That notwithstanding, if the Committee were satisfied with the proposals and looked favourably on the development if split level dwellings were proposed, as was the case for the original outline consent, then he would be happy to make such revisions if the application were deferred.  This would reduce the height of any retaining structures accordingly.

D Marjoram noted that a sizeable area of open space was proposed on-site, which excluded the drainage tank, some of which could be utilised with a view to maximise the biodiversity value of the site post-development.  In the event that a net gain could not be achieved, an off-site contribution towards such could be secured via a conditional S.106 Agreement. 

He remarked that his client’s Engineers had advised that the proposals would not tangibly increase flood risk on or off-site.  The area of the site within Flood Zone 3 was very small, at around 38sq.m, with the proposed houses and their gardens to be located substantially above this. The Engineers had further advised that the small area within Flood Zone 3 could be designed out through further revisions to the scheme, if the Committee were minded to defer the application to achieve such.  Any deferral would also provide an opportunity to submit and agree a suitable drainage strategy that all relevant consultees were satisfied with.  With regards to the viability response from the Council, he disagreed with this, as the example of values chosen by the Council were not comparable (some are from higher value areas). 

He remained of the firm view that the development was not viable with affordable housing contributions, which was not unexpected for a scheme of this scale in the lower value area based on the whole plan viability work.  This scheme delivered an enhanced M4(2) specification (100% as opposed to 66%) and help to meet the need for bungalows within the authority area.  If the Committee were minded to defer the application to allow further discussions about this matter, he would not have any issues.  He felt it was important to make Members aware that the Public Right of Way route, according to the Council’s maps, would see people walking over the railway line and not the crossing.  The route of the diversion shown on the proposed site plan was more reflective of reality than the Council’s records, and the suggestion that the new route would be an unacceptable deterioration in quality and experience, was simply not true in his view.  The experience would clearly change by virtue people would be walking through a housing development, but they would be able to get from the northern site boundary clearly and legibly to the southern one.

He felt that not only would the proposals make a positive contribution towards the Council maintaining a 5YHLS (5 year housing land supply), but they would also be located in a clearly sustainable location a short walk from the town centre, with a footpath to be provided along much of the site frontage on the eastern side of South Church Road.  Crucially, the scheme would deliver two and three-bed size properties, and bungalows, which were most needed according to the SHMA.  Developers were continually being asked to deliver smaller properties and bungalows, which was precisely what our client offered, on a site where Officers recognised that the principle of residential development was acceptable.  He therefore respectfully encouraged the Committee to either: approve the application in its current form, or subject to all technical matters and affordable housing being addressed, with Officers granted delegated powers to approve thereafter; or defer, if it was considered that with some of the proposed changes and/or more information the Committee could support the application in due course.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that the key debate on the scheme should be based on what plans had been submitted to date.  There were fundamental reasons based on planning issues for refusal.  She advised that she had tried to work with the applicant to improve matters but highlighted that the issues had not been resolved and Members would need to decide.

Councillor D Brown had attended the site visit and had been concerned with the amount of traffic on South Church Road.  He felt that trying to enter the road would be suicidal. He directed a question at the Highways Officer asking what process took place in deducing their report.

J Robinson, Principal DM Engineer (Highways) responded that surveys had been completed at peak times where there were heavy flows of traffic that had been found to be mild to moderate.  The amount of traffic generated by the proposed properties was considered and how that would affect the peak flow.  It was found to be a negligible low amount.

Councillor D Brown felt that a Highways Inspector should have attended the site visit at the same time to get a feel for how busy the road was.  He thought that the photographs did not show the site well in comparison to visiting the site.  He thought the site was not very productive to go forward with the development with the different levels.  He was unsure how the process would take place to build the properties and the retaining wall at the end of the site. 

S Pilkington, Principal Planning Officer stated that the proposed level was shown for visual purposes.  It would be Building Control’s remit to ensure the building of the proposed dwellings was carried out correctly including the significant retaining structure.  He added that Members could add conditions to the planning application that would be related to the structure.

Councillor V Andrews commented that she previously lived at Selby and had seen first-hand the impact of properties built on a flood plain where residents had to move out of their homes.  She had also seen how the water affected the wider area.  She did not agree to building houses on flood plains and as such could not agree to the application.

Councillor E Adam considered that the flood plain was a major issue.  He had attended the site visit and could see an issue with flooding in the area especially with a 7 metre wall in place by a small burn.  If this backed up in heavy rain it could affect other areas.  He was also concerned with the retaining wall that would need to be built and asked if the site would need to be infilled.  He also asked it the applicant saw this as an expensive site to build and not financially viable given that there was no offer of affordable housing within the development.  

D Marjoram responded that the development had higher than normal costs associated to the site due to the retaining wall.  He advised that the applicant had been guided by the arborist in order not to cause any damage to the existing trees on site.  He noted that they would be split level properties as the applicant was keen to deliver bungalows so wanted to create a level plato rather than split level dwellings.  The higher than normal costs factor meant that affordable housing could not be delivered.

Councillor E Adam disputed the medium to low traffic flow in the area as on the day traffic was extremely busy.  He enquired as to how long ago the surveys were carried out and whether the road under the railway bridge had been considered in the survey as he did not think access to the site was a large distance away from the brow of a hill that would make it difficult to cross the road.  He was concerned about road safety and speed in this area and the entrance road especially in the wintertime trying to get onto the main road. 

J Robinson, Principal DM Engineer (Highways) replied that Highways did not fully support the application on the visibility.  The criteria was based on minimum visibility space for 30 mph but it was assessed on a higher speed as most people did not sit at the speed limit set for a road.  He stated that he had asked the applicant for additional information that had not been supplied to date.  The crest of the road at the north required both horizonal and vertical visibility.  He advised that the speed surveys had been carried out before lockdown that saw higher levels of traffic and post lockdown that had seen a lower level of traffic.

Councillor E Adam did not feel that the traffic flow measurement was up to date and a more recent survey should be carried out.  It appeared that there had been a lot of correspondence between the applicant and Highways to alleviate issues but there were still several concerns that had not been addressed. He moved to refuse the application based on the 5 reasons for refusals in the report.

Councillor M Stead knew the site well as he drove past it on a regular basis and knew how busy the road was.  He felt that the role of the Councillor was to debate applications with an open mind and he had not heard anything to support the application.  There were still issues to iron out.  He proposed to second the application for refusal.

Councillor J Atkinson stated that he would normally favour new build developments especially with affordable housing.  He was fully supportive of the Officers recommendations.  He was confused with the compromise from the previous outline application and was concerned with the amount of issues.

The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that there was no affordable housing being offered on the site.  There would be no financial contributions within the application.  She advised that if the agent came forward with a revised application that addressed all the issues it would be considered again.  The refusal reasons would need a new application to reconsider the key issues.

Councillor N Jones agreed that the application in principle was great as it was near shops and it would be nice to see the land turned over and used but it was a shame that it did not tick enough boxes.  He was concerned about the busy road. 

J Robinson, Principal DM Engineer (Highways) confirmed that there were 3 speed surveys undertaken between 2010 and 2015.  He reiterated that the applicant had been asked to complete a new survey at their cost which had not been received.

Councillor G Richardson was disappointed that he could not attend the site visit.  He had considered the maps on screen and listened to members that had attended the site visit.  He acknowledged that there was nothing in what had been said to support the approval of the application.  He agreed to support the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Upon a vote being take it was unanimously:

Resolved

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report (as amended).