Agenda item

Proposed bungalow, boundary wall and associated access (resubmission).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer that proposed bungalow, boundary wall and associated access (resubmission) at Land West of The Garth, Old Eldon, DL4 2QT (for copy see file of minutes). 

H Sperring, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation that included a site location plan, aerial photographs, site photographs, images that showed the vision splay by highways, proposed site plans, proposed floor plans and the proposed elevation.  A site visit had taken place prior to the Committee meeting to enable Members to assess the impact of the proposed development and the relationship with their surroundings.  She explained that the application was for a 2 bed property with a siting room at the front and an open plan kitchen/dining area.  Upon consultation Eldon Parish Council were in support of the application to help establish a growing community. There were 2 letters of support and 1 letter of objection.  Highways had objected as they considered property to be unsustainable and there were road safety issues with the access.  The application conflicted with policy 10 as there were no street lighting meaning the property would be dependant on vehicles as it would be dangerous to cycle or walk between settlements.  A bat box would be required to be attached to properties.  There were issues in purchasing nutrient neutrality credits with Natural England which in turn would cause issues in completing the Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRA).  Natural England credits could not be secured by a condition to the application. The development was not supported by policy 6 and was not compliant with policy 10 as there were no services or amenities to the site and there were no paths or lights on the C34 road.  Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Councillor D Whitlaw, Eldon Parish Councillor addressed the planning committee in support of the application.  He explained that Eldon Parish Council were shocked when the first planning application had been withdrawn following advice from the Planning Officer that it would likely be refused. He gave some background and history to Old Eldon as it was a historic settlement and there had been a need to support the housing stock within the village which was difficult to develop due to the raft of legislation to prevent it.  Old Eldon was classed as a sporadic cluster or properties in the country rather than being classed as a hamlet.  He noted that historically the settlement had been there before statutory planning came into force. 

Councillor D Whitlaw asked members to consider to move the criteria to approve the development as it was minimal 2 bed single storey structure on an infill plot of land in the middle of the settlement of Old Eldon.  Members had visited the site and there was clear evidence there were footpaths in the area but there were severely overgrown which was a Durham County Council matter. 

Mr K Ryder, applicant’s agent addressed the committee in support of the applicant.  He argued that the development was not in conflict with policy 6 or 10 that the site was unsustainable and Old Eldon was a sporadic cluster of properties in the countryside with no services.  The village had water, electric, broadband and street lighting.  He noted that 7 barns had been developed on a site within the vicinity and were occupied that had 15 new car parking spaces.  The development would be a natural village infill.  He felt that the application had addressed all the issues that had been highlighted including the highway safety element on the access in the revised version of the application.

G Dugdale (Applicant) addressed the committee in support of the application and asked the committee to consider that the development as an infill plot that was in the middle of the village.  The highways safety issues with the access had been addressed as she used the access twice daily to care for her horse.  She noted that there was traffic calming in the area, with slow signage and staggered junctions.  She advised that there was a streetlight at the entrance to the site.  The site was environmentally sustainable as there would be an air heat source pump, EV charging points and solar panels installed.  She had opened an account with Natural England for credits to address the nutrient neutrality issue and had a reference number.  She advised that if she was unsuccessful at procuring credits she would turn 1.2 hectares of low land back into green land planted with trees and flowers that would be more than enough to offset the nutrient neutrality issues.

S Pilkington, Principal Planning Officer pre-empted questions from members and advised that the settlement of Old Eldon scored zero in sustainability scores due to the lack of services that were not just physical elements like social links, employment, bus stops and schools.  There were no paths or highway verges that could be walked safely.  Consideration in assessing sustainability looked at the function of the settlement, intensive road safety and the lack of paths that linked existing settlements. 

The Principal DM Engineerstated that the main highway safety objection was in relation to the sub-standard access visibility.  The speed limit of the main road was 60 mph and the highway standards state that visibility from the access must be no less than 215 metres for this speed.  This technically could be achieved from the west but not from the east.  The available visibility from the east was less than 70 metres and this level of visibility was only equivalent to an approach speed of 30mph however this did not take into account parking adjacent to the development that reduced this visibility even further.  He added that vehicle speeds on this road were well in excess of 30mph and therefore there was significantly inadequate visibility.  An accident could occur if approaching vehicles at these speeds could not see someone pulling out.  Access was sub-standard, unsatisfactory and highways therefore objected to the application due to the serious road safety issue.

Councillor E Adam asked highways for clarity as to whether there was a recognised footpath within the vicinity but it was just overgrown.  He advised that he drove along this road on a regular basis and thought that there were street lights close to the development.  He also sought clarity on whether the supposedly lack of streetlights was due to the Council’s energy reduction scheme where they had taken out streetlights in areas to save energy.

S Pilkington, Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was street lighting in Old Eldon but not on connecting roads that lead to other settlements meaning people would have to walk in the dark which was not safe or sustainable.  There was a public right of way from Eldon to Old Eldon just off the highway which was extremely overgrown and would not be practical to use to access services from other settlements.  There was no footpaths on the roads connecting to other settlements and in some places there was no verge either.

Councillor E Adam asked if the removal of lights to save energy conflicted with policy.

S Pilkington, Principal Planning Officer responded that streetlights were highway policy and the pathway was not suitable for someone pushing a pram as it was not lit.

Councillor E Adam referred to page 148 in the report and asked if the statement regarding the development being in support of policy 6 was correct.

The Planning Officer replied that it was a typing error and the statement should read that the development was not in support of policy 6.

Councillor N Jones felt that sustainability could not be judged on bus services as bus services had been cut to the bone within County Durham.

Councillor J Quinn noted that the committee needed to reflect any contradictions of planning policies.

Councillor S Quinn noted that this area was in her ward and she had not pre-determined a decision but did note that some people chose to live in these areas because they were not connected.  She stated that there were some parts of Shildon that were not covered by a bus route so sustainability could not be argued.  The development would not be isolated as there had been other homes built in the area nearby.

Councillor M Stead liked the application.  He had looked at street view and thought that the development would enhance the area as opposed to the monstrosity of the converted barns nearby. 

Councillor E Adam had found the application difficult to determine as the old settlement would benefit the additional property to enhance the area but he was stuck on the issues of sustainability and highway safety.  He raised the point that if the property was built it may increase highway problems.  He commented that sustainability was not just about bus services but location and how to travel to neighbouring facilities like schools and leisure centres.  He added that the settlement did not lend itself to facilities and there may be issues in the future if the applicant wanted to sell the property.  He agreed with officer recommendation to refuse as it was contrary to policy 6, 10 and 21.

S Pilkington, Principal Planning Officer pointed out there were two reasons for refusal i) sustainability and ii) highway safety.  Highways expected certain measurements for visibility which were not there and to go against officer recommendation would be going against professional advice from highway officers.

Councillor E Adam accepted the officer recommendation for refusal based on the key points.

Councillor N Jones asked highways if there was any data on the number of accidents there had been in the area.

The Principal DM Engineerconfirmed that there had been 7 accidents in the last 10 years.

Councillor S Quinn noted that she travelled the road on a regular basis which she felt was quite dangerous but people who lived in rural settings were more cautious and there were slow signs on the road.  She queried when the last accident happened.  She stated that the applicant going there on a daily basis would be no different to accessing the plot when it was built.

Councillor M Stead used street view to show the land to those members who had not attended the site visit. He showed that access was behind a closed gate which would be moved and a driveway added to the property.  He also felt that people driving in rural areas took their time.  The planning application satisfied him as the proposed property would enhance the area.  He was minded to move the application to be approved and go against the officer recommendation.

Councillor S Quinn seconded the application for approval to go against officer recommendation. 

Councillor E Adam moved the application to be refused, however no seconder was identified.

Councillor G Richardson also noted that the meaning of sustainability within the planning application was a red herring as there were people living in remote areas within Durham that relied on cars as there were no bus services.  He was in support of Councillor M Stead’s motion to go against officer recommendation and approve the application.

Councillor E Adam stated that highways sustainability talked about the odd car but potentially when the property was built there could be 3-5 cars.  Sustainability promoted climate change to move away from more cars being on the road and working towards other modes of transport like walking and cycling.  There should be accessibility to walk between settlements and this was not feasible and the application contradicted policy 6,10 and 29.  He noted that the NPPF also referred to this and members to go against policy was objectionable.

Councillor J Quinn directed members to consider highway safety as a vehicle pulling out of the access would have limited visibility.  Street view was not a good tool to assess visibility as it put you in the centre of the road.

The Principal DM Engineerstressed that it was clear in the Durham County Plan and the NPPF that where was a serious road safety issue the application should be refused.  He added that it was a difficult decision for Highways Officers but the highway safety issue was not just relevant to the applicant but also future residents of the property and other motorists travelling on that road.  The NPPF and Durham County Plan deemed the entrance incompatible to acceptable road safety and there was a risk that a substandard access could store up issues in the future that would not be able to be resolved by the Authority.  He added that the proposed access on to the C34 road should be visible on each side and the planning application could not achieve this. 

Councillor S Quinn mentioned that she had seen people walking, jogging and cycling along the C34 to Shildon.

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)informed committee members that in relation to this application they could not approve it.  They could instead be minded to approve it subject to the nitrate neutrality credit being procured from Natural England that may take a long time or secure a suitable alternative solution through a section 106 agreement and any mitigation to go through the HRA.  The application would also require delegated authority to officers to do that.

G Dugdale commented that there was alternative mitigation if Natural England declined to approve the procurement of credits as she would use some land and change it from lowlands to green land to more than offset the nitrate neutrality issues.

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)stated that the information relating to the application for credits from Natural England was not in front of Members so could not be checked. While it was appreciated that the applicant had applied there was no confirmation that Natural England were able to grant credits therefore Members could not approve but be minded to approve subject to credits or securing a section 106 agreement if thought acceptable by the HRA.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)  clarified again that Members could not approve the application.

Councillor J Quinn clarified for Councillor M Stead that if members were minded to approve the application then delegation authority would be given planning officers to resolve the nitrate neutrality issues and approval determined.   

Upon a vote being taken it was:

Resolved:

That the Committee were MINDED TO APPROVE the application, subject to Nutrient Neutrality Credits procured or Section 106 Legal Agreement and HRA undertaken, with a suite of conditions to be delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.