Agenda item

Full application for the development of 71 new residential dwellings (Use Class C3), including access, open space and landscaping details

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the full application for the development of 71 new residential dwellings (Use Class C3), including access, open space and landscaping details at Land North West Of 20-26 Duchy Close, Consett (for copy see file of minutes).

C Harvey, Senior Planning Officer provided an update to the Committee and confirmed that two further documents from the Applicant had been received.  With regards to refusal 6, which was in respect of biodiversity net gain, the updated information received had been considered by the Ecology Officer and the content deemed acceptable.  The remaining required information could be secured by condition and therefore the reason for refusal 6 as set out in the report was no longer recommended by Officers.

In addition, Members had raised some issues with regards to the condition of the site during the site visit which had taken place on the previous day.  This had been considered by the Ecology Officer who had confirmed that an updated ecological survey was not required.  In respect of ground nesting birds, mitigation measures could be secured by condition, to ensure that there would be no impact during the proposed works. 

Members had received a late submission from the Applicant prior to the start of the meeting which had alleged a number of incorrect statements in the report.  Officers considered that the points raised were simply matters of professional disagreement and therefore the recommendation had not changed.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which

included a site location plan, aerial photographs, site photographs, a historical map of Consett Steelworks, masterplan from 2012 development, drawings of previously approved plans from 2015, a proposed site layout and proposed character area plan.

A Bowen, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and referred to a letter from Richard Holden MP from July 2022, confirming that the Council had assured him there were no plans for building in the immediate area.  The land was not allocated in the County Durham Plan and she raised concerns regarding land contamination and the impact of works on the site, which she believed would release toxic contaminants.  

Ms Bowen described the land as a green jewel amongst and extensive housing development. Used regularly for recreation, it was also native to significant wildlife, including endangered species.  There had been recent changes to planning policy to protect former brownfield sites that were operating as valuable open green spaces and this site was extensively used at any time of the day for various recreational purposes.  It also contained the Coast to Coast cycle route would also be impacted and brought into direct traffic.  Ms Bowen described the high landscape value of the site and the loss of the uninterrupted views across the Pennines and Northumberland.  There was also a myriad of footpaths, trodden since the steel works had closed which would be lost. 

The plans were for mostly two storey dwellings that would overshadow and overlook the bungalows and their gardens, impacting on privacy.  This was unacceptable and a material planning consideration.  Ms Bowen advised that the proposal would increase traffic, particularly during construction and impact an access road with existing problems, reducing safety for pedestrians and cyclists.  The traffic survey had been done during school holidays and therefore not an accurate reflection.  There was only one bus per day which picked up at 9.14am and returned at 11.30am.  The alternative to a car was to walk and the distances were long and uphill.

Local services lagged behind the needs of the increased population, it was difficult to get a Dentist or GP appointment and children were travelling out of the area for school.  Ms Bowen noted the Applicant’s statement which included information about Regent’s Park but the units included specific services that did not include benefits to herself and wider members of the community.

The construction would produce noise and dust and the potential danger of contaminants and residents would lose special views and a recreational space which provided them with health benefits. There could also be an impact on property values.  New roads and additional street lighting would impact existing properties.  Ms Bowen hoped the site would remain as open space to continue to be enjoyed, she could see no positive benefits to the area or people.

H Emms addressed Members on behalf of the Applicant, first advising that they had not been given the opportunity to meet Officers and there had been no engagement in the formal design process.  The Applicant had endeavoured to address all the professional concerns raised however he was concerned that Officers had pre-determined the application early in the process and unless the Committee supported the application, they would welcome the opportunity for proper engagement with Officers.  As a consequence of the lack of communication, Mr Emm advised that the Committee report contained factual inaccuracies and did not provide fair and correct analysis to assist Members in determining the scheme.  These inaccuracies had been outlined in a letter to Members. 

Mr Emms advised that the starting point for consideration was whether the development was in accordance with the County Durham Plan.  The report failed to acknowledge the mixed use development allocation across the whole of the Project Genesis site, with which the scheme complied.  It had instead been incorrectly assessed against policies relating to unallocated sites which undermined the whole policy assessment process and overall planning balance exercise which had subsequently been carried out.  The report had failed to reference the benefits of the Project Genesis site, the delivery of mixed use housing, or wider economic employment benefits.

Mr Emms continued that the density had been reduced in agreement with officers across the phases.  This final phase would deliver up to the 480 approved units, allocated in the County Durham Plan and would complete the Regents Park development.  They were not additional homes.

The site was in an accessible location, close to the centre of Consett and other designated development sites.   The recently completed Regent Centre would soon have new tenants providing a café and convenience store, which added to the sustainability of the scheme.  Bus stops and shops were located within an acceptable walking distance.  The Council had acknowledged six primary schools within an acceptable and safe walking distance and a wide range of services located under one mile. 

The Coast to Coast cycle route would be improved and extended as part of the scheme and the Applicant was committed to the installation of street lighting to existing routes to Fawcett Park, which could be secured by condition.  In response to the comments from Highways Officers Mr Emms advised that when the Derwent View site had been assessed for planning, the highways assessment assumed up to 480 houses and had taken into account the cumulative impact.

The scheme would complete the planned delivery of the 480 homes committed in the County Durham Plan on the brownfield site, formerly Consett Steelworks.  It was not isolated development in open countryside, and whilst it was adjacent to the original red line boundary, it was not unallocated, but had the benefit of allocation for mixed use development.  The detailed comments submitted had not been acknowledged in the report.  The scheme constituted sustainable development and if approved, would deliver much needed local homes, including affordable homes, in an accessible location in Consett.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the issues which had been raised had all been responded to within the report.

Councillor Atkinson asked the Senior Planning Officer to respond to the statement that there had been no opportunity to speak with Officers, the comments regarding pre-determination and the allegation that the Highways Officers comments were incorrect.

In response to the comments regarding a lack of engagement, the Senior Planning Officer advised that it was made clear during pre-application advice that an application for housing on the site would not be supported, and during the consideration of the application Officers had responded at the earliest opportunity setting out their concerns.  Given that their concerns could not be addressed, it would not have been appropriate to extend the determination period.

P Harrison, Highway Development Manager advised that there were four housing sites in Consett to emerge and when assessing the cumulative impact of those sites, a number of affected junctions had been identified.  The Applicant had produced a Transport Assessment which included some of those junctions but not all and therefore further information had been requested.  The information had not been received, Highways Officers could not be confident that the cumulative impact was not significant.

Councillor Bell asked for clarification that the site was not part of the site identified in 2015 for 450 houses.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the current application site was outside of the red line boundary.  As applications had been received for reserved matters on that previous site, the number of units had reduced, however permissions granted on the adjacent site had not established the principle of additional housing on the current site.

Councillor Elmer asked the Senior Planning Officer to address the contradictory statement from the Applicant in relation to connectivity and the level of need for housing.  The Senior Planning Officer referred to the outcome of a recent appeal decision in which connectivity was a key issue.  An 800m standard distance had been used and accepted by the Inspector and therefore applied to this application.  The Applicant was referring to distances of one mile which equated to 1600m.  The listed distance to nearest facilities within walking distance was from the centre of the site using footpaths and whilst it was recognised that there were a number of facilities within one mile, there were not enough within 800m, conflicting with the County Durham Plan.

With regards to housing need, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the County Durham Plan had established a number of allocated sites across the county and also included an uplift.  There were a number of allocated sites across the Consett area which had not yet come forward, however the County Durham Plan was only four years old and accommodated for development up to 2035.  He advised that there was no reason to assume that the allocated sites would not come forward during the Plan period and therefore could not consider giving more weight to unallocated sites.  Given the current housing land supply position there were no concerns about meeting the County’s housing needs, therefore the site was not required to address local or countywide housing need.

Councillor Jopling was familiar with the issues raised regarding contamination on site and had concerns about developing it for housing.  The site was a well-used scenic amenity which had been observed on the site visit.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Environmental Health Officer was confident that the development could be managed with mitigation measures and the Coal Authority had not objected to the scheme.  The visual impact and recreational value of the site had been detailed in the report and formed the  reasons for refusal.

Councillor Martin knew the site well and had seen maintained parks used less for recreational purposes.  He referred to heavy development on estates without much green infrastructure and whist development was not excluded, it required exceptional circumstances.  It was clear from reading the report that the Developer had not met the requirement for housing and therefore he moved the recommendation for refusal.

Councillor Bell agreed that the importance of the land and its use had been evident from the site visit.  He seconded the motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Shaw tended to support development as he appreciated the outstanding need for housing, however he was unable to find a reason to support the application.  He appreciated the work done by Officers to describe the level of significant harm identified.  He suggested that the Developer considered alternative, more suitable sites.

Councillor Wilson confirmed that on this occasion, the level of harm could not be mitigated and he supported the recommendation.

Councillor Rooney confirmed that there were existing problems during peak times to exit the junction and it would be a shame to lose a beautiful piece of recreational land.  Councillor Jopling added that the land had rewilded and Members had observed the wildlife and plants on the site visit.

Councillor Elmer supported the points made by the rest of the Committee and advised that the site had criteria for designation as a local nature reserve.

Resolved

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons outlined in the report, as amended.