Agenda item

Erection of 65no. dwellings with associated access, infrastructure, and landscaping.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer for the erection of 65no dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping on the site of the former greyhound track, Front Street, Merrington Lane, Spennymoor (for copy see file of minutes).

G Spurgeon, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation that included a site location plan, aerial images, site photographs, images of the proposed site layout, the house type and the proposed street scene.  A site visit had taken place prior to the Committee meeting.  He explained that there had been previous planning applications for this site and this application proposed 100% affordable housing.  During the consultation period Spennymoor Town Council were in support of the application and the Lead Local Flood Authority were happy with drainage that was sufficient to deal with any excess surface water but raised concerns over SUDs not being designed to form an intrinsic part of the layout. There were no responses from members of the public.  A Noise Impact Assessment had been carried out to ensure ample amenities for future residents that Environmental Health were satisfied with.  The planning application conflicted with policy and had scored two red classifications due to the lack of active bus stops within 400 metres of the development and SUDs not being designed to form an intrinsic part of the layout. As the development would improve the visual amenity and bring with it section 106 contributions, including to secure the delivery of 100% affordable housing, this outweighed the conflict with Policy and the harm it would cause and it was recommended to approve the application.

C Smith, Agent addressed the Committee in support of the application. He briefed the Committee on a few additional points to the Senior Planning Officer’s presentation.   He explained that the development was a partnership that had been established between Hardwick Homes and Livin that was similar to that of the development at Hamminkelm Place, Sedgefield which had been awarded the Royal Town Planning Institute’s NorthEast Chair’s Award, with judges noting its placemaking qualities, and detailing within the individual house types that provided assurance for quality of the development on this site.  As noted in the Officer’s presentation, 100% of the proposed 65 dwellings would be affordable housing available for rent and rent to buy, which was a significant contribution to the delivery of affordable housing both in the local area and the County. The development made use of a brownfield site which had been out of use since the 1990s.  Its redevelopment would include a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses which included a mixture of family homes and bungalows.  It was also located in a highly accessible and sustainable location, in walking distance to the town centre. 

A further benefit was that it would be a low carbon development with no gas connection and energy/heating would be generated by heat pumps and solar panels.  During the course of the planning application, the applicants had worked positively with Officers that included engaging in the Council’s Enhanced Design Review Service which had allowed any comments on specific areas of the layout and design to be discussed and subsequently addressed.   In terms of next steps, and subject to the Committee’s resolution, the applicants aimed to continue working with the Council to finalise the Section 106 Agreement and commence the development as soon as possible in the new year.  This would also dovetail with the completion of the Laburnum Grove development in St Helens Auckland which was another partnership development between the applicants and allow the transition of construction staff to the site.  He wanted to take the opportunity on behalf of the applicants, to thank Officers for their time, and effort, throughout the application process. Their contribution had enabled a timely conclusion to the planning application and influenced the quality of the development presented to committee. He respectfully urged the Committee to support the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor E Adam was concerned that the application had received two red scores in relation to transport and the SUDS scheme and was still recommended for approval.  He requested an explanation on what had been discussed around these elements.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the first red score was in relation to transport as there were no active bus stops within 400 metres of the entrance to the site.  As the development was for 65 dwellings, along with an existing consent for additional dwellings on the former Electrolux site to the east, there was potential for the bus company to introduce a bus service to this area in the future.  It was felt that it was not proportionate for the applicant to fund a bus service and the town was within a reasonable walking distance from the proposed site.  The second red score was due to concerns with the SUDS that conflicted with Policy 35 of the Durham County Plan regarding the treatment of surface water.  The surface water would generally be dealt with by the addition of swales to convey run off water and remove pollutants to connect to the SUDS that would be an intrinsic part of the overall development.  He advised that this was not the case with this development but the applicant had since proposed to install a treatment device instead, as to create larger SUDS as suggested by the Lead Local Flood Authority it would reduce the number of properties on site which would make the scheme unviable. He stated that on balance the benefits to redevelop the site and the delivery of 65 affordable homes outweighed the harm and conflict with policy.

Councillor E Adam was happy with this explanation.  He advised that he had attended the site visit and was concerned with potential noise issues generated by forklift trucks on the Jewson site that would impact plot no 1 as it was set against the main fence. 

He noted that the proposed sound bar fence would be lower standing at 1.8 metres to that of the PowerGrid original fence that stood at 2.8 metres high.  He queried if plot no 1 was to remain if the noise proofing could be improved.

C Smith responded that plot no 1 was within the noise impact assessment that had been carried out on the layout of the site.  The orientation of the frontage of the dwelling helped screen the noise from the Jewson site along with the road and substation. 

Councillor E Adam noted that the agent had not covered the point that he had raised and would expect an improved fence. 

The Senior Planning Officer commented that the function required of the fence was to soundproof against the noise in the garden.  He advised that this was covered under condition 12 within the report and the applicant could if necessary install a taller fence to protect residents amenities.  

Councillor E Adam questioned whether there could be a condition put forward to widen the main footpath to the North of the site that went past the substation towards the underpass and improve the street lighting in this vicinity to not only encourage walkers but also cyclists.  

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the PROW 57 had been cited in condition 13 which would require details of the widening of this footpath to be discharged. This was considered necessary to serve the future residents of the proposed dwellings as well as the existing community which would represent a wider benefit that would help to outweigh some of the identified policy conflicts.

Councillor M Stead was concerned that the B6288 that lead to the A688 towards Thinford was a very fast road for pedestrians to cross to get to the Frog and Ferret pub.  He mentioned that the Town Council and the police had issues with speeding on the road and queried whether consideration could be given to reduce the speed limit to 30mph.

D Battensby, Principal DM Engineer commented that the B6288 was of a credible speed limit of 40mph due to the road environment and that a reduction in speed would not be considered.  He noted that the A688 was a rural A class road of good design standard and the speed limit of 60mph was also a credible speed for that road.  He cited that a reduction in speed would not stop motorists from speeding.

Pedestrian movement on the roundabout to access the Frog and Ferret pub was facilitated by the appropriate crossing facilities as such a junction.  The proposed residential development would be served by a subway that had been improved for residents in connections with the development of the former Electrolux site, the subway being the closest and most appropriate pedestrian route to the town centre.  He declared that the site could not sustain off-site or detached works to the highway that could not be justified against the proposed development.

There were no objectors registered to speak on the application therefore the Chair opened up the Committee for debate.

Councillor S Quinn agreed with the Officer’s recommendation and Moved the application.  She commented that the site was prone to flytipping and travellers camping on the land.  The site was in proximity to nurseries, schools and shops that would encourage people to walk to their destinations.  She approved of the agencies carrying out a joint venture to supply affordable housing.

Councillor E Adam reiterated Councillor S Quinn’s comments and Seconded the application.  He stated that there was a real need for housing in the area and the design of the project suited the area well that needed improving.

Councillor L Maddison mentioned that the brown field site had been unoccupied since 1980 and was subject to anti-social behaviour illegal encampments, flytipping and used by 4x4 vehicles.  The PROW 57 was the main route into town but people were reluctant to use it due to the unsuitable lighting along the path and in the subway where the area was not maintained.  She asked if a barrier could be placed in the subway to prevent 4x4 vehicle access, whether the footpath could be widened, if the acoustic screen could be extended and if the SUDS would be maintained as she had seen issues develop with other sites when they were not.  Overall she welcomed the development if it was approved for housing that would be a huge benefit for the area. 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that further details were expected on the drainage strategy design to discharge the condition on drainage.  The properties were outward facing onto the PROW that would act as a deterrent for anti-social behaviour.  He advised that new street lighting columns would be added as part of the adoption process by Durham County Council.  He was not receptive to barriers being erected in the area as this would detract from the benefits and value of the open space. The brick wall on the western boundary with a gap for pedestrians would act as a barrier along with landscaping to help restrict access to 4x4 vehicles.  He noted that as anti-social behaviour was an existing problem a condition could not be placed on the application to deal with it as it was not down to the applicant to solve the issue, but that the dwellings would help to provide informal surveillance. 

Councillor L Maddison queried if section 106 monies could be secured for CCTV for the underpass to incorporate it as part of the scheme.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that he would need to check  the requirements of a previous Section 106 agreement relating to the development of the former Thorn Lighting factory . 

Councillor L Brown stated that she was going to second the application for approval as it had no objections, it was 100% affordable housing, low carbon and was a brilliant sustainable scheme.

Councillor A Savory was also going to second the application for approval.  Members wanted to see more affordable housing in County Durham.  She thought it was a good well thought out scheme that had no opposition from the public, was supported by both local members and the Town Council.

Upon a vote being taken it was unanimously:

Resolved

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the financial contributions and be subject to the conditions as detailed in the report.