Agenda item

Erection of 15no. bungalows.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer for the erection of 15no. bungalows at Eclipse Development site B, South of Rudkin Drive, Crook (for copy see file of minutes).

G Heron, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation that included a site location, site photographs and a proposed site plan.  A site visit had taken place prior to the Committee meeting. 

The site was an underdeveloped parcel of land that was on a coal field high risk area that proposed two types of bungalows to be built, 14 semi-detached dwellings and a single detached property. It was close to Beechburn Industrial Estate that would ultimately create noise issues that would prevent future residents from opening their windows at night. 

During the consultation process the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Coal Authority had objected to the application and the Highways Authority had raised concerns with the proposed access and had made suggestions for consideration.  The biodiversity net gain was based on estimates rather than facts and there had been no habitat survey carried out.  There were two letters of objection from the public with one member of the public claiming adverse possession to some of the land which was a civil matter outside of the planning remit.  It was highlighted that there were car parking issues in the area.  The development was of poor design and had insufficient provision for flood risk to deal with excess surface water.  The recommendation was to refuse the application.

Councillor A Reed, Local Member was not present at the meeting but had asked the Committee Clerk to read out her letter to refuse the application. She stated that following attendance at the site visit on Wednesday 13^th December 2023 to the above location with Members of the Planning Committee she had given some thought to the application and whilst there was a pressing need for housing in Crook, particularly bungalows, she was minded to object to the planning application mainly because of the omission of detailed information. 

Firstly, the area of land in question was for many years used for industrial purposes, industrial debris in the form of large heaps dominated the landscape until it was removed, creating an open grassed area and the construction of housing developments nearby. The land itself lay within the high-risk coalfield area and there was no mention in the report that identified whether the land was suitable to build upon.  In addition, the open grassed area which was the proposed application for 15 bungalows lay between the present housing development and was in close proximity to the Industrial units, some of which were in operation on a shift basis. Inevitably owing to the nature of the businesses in that particular area, the noise levels would be raised by the volume of heavy industrial vehicles, equipment and machinery. These continuous noise levels would occur at sociable and unsociable hours and could pose annoyance for some people occupying proposed nearby residential buildings.

Finally, residents living in the nearby housing development complained about the lack of parking spaces, many parked on the A689 road at Pease’s Way, which was not ideal given that the road had issues with speeding vehicles and generally vehicles were forced to overtake on the wrong side of the road. The entrance to this proposed development was now used as a parking area and the creation of an entrance would displace the vehicles, thus adding further congestion to the area.  Owing to the reasons she provided, she confirmed that she was unable to support the application.

J Baines, applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.  She saw this application as an opportunity to provide bungalows in the area.  She explained that a detailed report had been carried out when the former factory had been in operation which had supplied figures that had informed the planning application.  It was subject to pre-advice that the planning application had been brought forward.  The site was designed to ensure that noise was kept to a minimum with kitchens possibly at the front of the dwelling and bedrooms at the back.  The bungalows would be of a high specification with ventilation and safe amenities.  They would be enclosed in a gated community for public protection.  All properties had parking space to alleviate parking issues.  The properties would be also screened by a soundproof fence.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the land acted as a buffer between the existing residential dwellings and the industrial estate.  The space helped to identify the two uses. 

Councillor L Brown was disappointed that the noise consultant was not present at the meeting to question.  She noted that the ecology report appeared to have expired in November 2023 and           queried if there had been another report submitted.  She was concerned about the 3 red flags from the Highways Authority.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that the latest ecology report had been submitted and had been reviewed by Officers.

Councillor L Brown mentioned that she could not see the latest ecology report on the planning portal prior to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the updated ecology report that commenced in November 2023 was on the planning portal and had been noted by officers.

D Battensby, Principal DM Engineer commented that the planning application did not meet Durham County Council’s parking standards. There were outstanding safety issues relating to the length of the drives meaning that cars could overhang onto the pavement causing issues for pedestrians and people with disabilities using the footway.  He was unaware that the development would be gated as this had not been indicated at any point during the application process, which would result in the development not being adopted by the Highway Authority.  The non-adoption of an estate would require the developer to take on significant responsibilities in perpetuity in relation to maintenance and services which would not be provided by the Local Authority. There were several outstanding issues that had not been resolved and as a result highways were not in support of the application.  

Councillor E Adam asked the applicant why there was a lack of information in relation to the Coal Authority and the Lead Local Flood Authority.  He had attended the site visit and had seen first hand the amount of standing water on the site.  He felt that the flood management needed to be considered as a matter of urgency. 

K Ryder, Agent commented that a comprehensive water management and highways report had been submitted with the planning application along with the mining report.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that information had been supplied by the applicant that had been reviewed by the team and found to be unacceptable.  The team had then requested additional information but this had not been received.The focus was the noise impact assessment where she has met with the applicant along with the Nuisance Action Team to work through issues that had been raised.  She noted that the planning application had originally been submitted in June 2022 and the applicant had had plenty of time to submit the relevant information requested but a determination on the application was now needed.

Councillor E Adam was saddened that the planning application had not progressed further in the time span from when it was first submitted.  He was troubled by the noise report as there was heavy machinery on the industrial estate that would be intolerable for future residents. 

The Senior Planning Officer notified the Committee that the noise information received by the applicant was not sufficient.  Meetings had been held with herself, the applicant and the Nuisance Action Team to mitigate measures to deal with the noise.  It was felt as it stood potentially future occupiers would not be able to open their windows at night which did not comply with Policy 31 of the Durham County Plan therefore the recommendation was to refuse the application. 

Councillor D Brown was not impressed that during the consultation period there had been no response from Northumbrian Water.  He queried if there was an explanation as to why this was.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that generally Northumbrian Water only responded if they had an issue.

Councillor D Brown explained that the reason he asked was because Northumbrian Water were responsible for the supply of clean water, sewage and storm water to the site and therefore it was not acceptable that they had not responded.

The Chair opened the Committee to debate the application.

Councillor E Adam was disappointed that there were large gaps in the information supplied as the applicant had had plenty of time to provide what was requested.  He stated that there was a clear need for housing and bungalows in the area but this was not the ideal location due to the close proximity of the industrial estate.  He declared that the country had just survived a pandemic and it would be highly inappropriate if future residents could not open their windows. He was also concerned that the Coal Authority had objected to the planning application.  He rejected the proposal due to the poor condition of the application, insufficient information and the issues with parking in the area and Moved to refuse the application.

Councillor L Brown Seconded the application to be refused as it was not just the noise issue but also the conflict with Policy 7 of the County Durham Plan.

Councillor S Quinn commented that this was a very ambitious planning application that she could not approve.  She agreed with the Officer’s recommendations to refuse the application.

Councillor J Quinn agreed and echoed concerns about the noise complaints and stated that just because there was a need for housing in the area did not mean that the application should be approved.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

Resolved

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.