Agenda item

Construction of 37no. dwellings (amended 24.11.2023).

                The Senior Planning Officer, George Spurgeon gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had previously visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the construction of 37no. dwellings (amended 24.11.2023) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement as set out in the report.

                 

                The Senior Planning Officer explained the application was reduced from an initial application for 46 properties, after working with Planning Officers in respect of the application.  He noted the application represented around one quarter of the previously developed land, with existing barns and stables to be demolished, leaving three-quarters of the site as greenfield.  He noted a proposed development to the north east of the site for 75 houses had been refused at Committee, in respect of the scale and density of the proposed layout.

 

Councillor A Surtees entered the meeting at 10.01am

 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the proposed site access would be via the existing access point, opposite to the existing village green.  He noted a SUDS pond was proposed at the south of the site, noting some trees would be retained, some to be removed to allow for the proposed layout and roads.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted Seaton with Slingley Parish Council had objected to the application, noting issues in respect of highway safety, including the narrowness of Hillrise Crescent, impact upon wildlife and on nearby schools and healthcare.  He noted that the Highways Section had no objections subject to junction widening, citing no impact upon highway safety.  He added the Flood Authority offered no objections, subject to conditions.  It was noted the Design and Conservation Team noted no objections to the layout or house types, noting materials would be in the local vernacular. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the Landscape Officer had noted some adverse impact, noting the site was present in views from the Haswell to Ryhope walkway, though noted a suitable landscaping scheme was possible.  He added that the Ecology Team had offered no objections, subject to conditions and contributions towards off-site BNG.  He noted Environmental Health had offered no objections, subject to conditions, and added that 6no. affordable houses were proposed in the form of 2no. discounted market sale properties, 2no. first homes, and 2no. properties for affordable rent.

The Senior Planning Officer noted contributions were sought in respect of school places and the NHS.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted 202 objections had been received in relation to the original application for 46 dwelling, with a 283-signature petition in objection also received.  He noted that following amendment of the scheme to 37 dwellings, a further 363 objections had been received.  He noted details of the objections were set out within the Committee report, including objections from the local MP, Grahame Morris, Local Councillor D McKenna and Seaton with Slingley Parish Council.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that it was felt the edge of settlement development was well related, bound on three sides with existing residential development, with woodland to the remaining side, and was in line with Policy 6 of the CDP.  He added that given there were two Public Houses and a community centre nearby, and with additional services around one kilometre away, with cycle routes and bus services, it was felt, on balance, that was sustainable in terms of the scale of the proposed development.  He added that Officer felt the highways issues, as well as design and conservation elements were acceptable, noting separation distances were met.  He reiterated as regards affordable housing and ecology, school places and NHS contributions and concluded by noting, while there were a high number of objections to the scheme, Officers felt the application should be approved.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter asked Councillor A Surtees, who had entered the meeting following the start of the Officer’s presentation, if she felt she was sufficiently sighted in terms of the application to participate in the debate and decision making.  Councillor A Surtees apologised for being later, however, noted she was very familiar with the site and local area and would be happy to participate in the debate and vote on the application.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked Parish Councillor Alison Slater to speak on behalf of Seaton with Slingley Parish Council.

 

 

Parish Councillor A Slater thanked the Chair and Committee and explained she was the Chair of Seaton with Slingley Parish Council and also representing Seaton Community Association and was herself a local resident.  She noted that the impact of the proposed development on the ‘old village’ would be absolutely catastrophic, adding that despite the amendment to reduce the number of properties, it was still felt that the proposals were out of character for the area.  She noted while affordable housing was proposed, it was felt that the village was not ‘affordable’ and that such provision would be better suited nearer to Seaham. 

 

She added the proposals would impact the village green opposite the site, and the development would water down the existing community spirit, and she had concerns upon the sustainability of the community centre.  Parish Councillor A Slater noted concerns that elderly residents would be forced to use cars to access the community centre, rather than walk along the narrow Hillrise Crescent, and would likely not be able to park given construction traffic.  She added those residents were the ‘bread and butter’ for the community centre and it would be a disgrace if the community centre was lost.

 

Parish Councillor A Slater noted loss of farmstead use, with tractors and combines usually left overnight, which would in future not be able to be left, rather would have to travel back into the area each day, increasing traffic and mud left on the road.  She added two farmers worked all year round in the area.  She reiterated that Hillrise Crescent was very narrow and that the proposals would exacerbate issues in terms of pedestrians using the road, and despite Highways stating the width was acceptable, it would be problematic with farm and delivery traffic.  She explained that public transport was spasmodic at best, and cited examples of people having to use taxis in the area.

 

Parish Councillor A Slater noted there was significant development in the Seaham area and noted that residents of the area were not adverse to development, however the scale and impact of the proposal had not be taken into account and residents and the Parish Council were opposed to the development as proposed.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor A Slater and asked Local Member, Councillor D McKenna to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor D McKenna thanked the Chair and fellow Committee Members and expressed his disappointment that Believe had pushed forward with the proposals given that they threatened the integrity of the village and community.  He added that he expected Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to act with integrity, however, the proposals mirrored other developments in terms of a quick turnaround for profit.

Councillor D McKenna noted the Strategy Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) had previous identified issues with the access point, stating no significant development greater than five dwellings.  He noted Members would have seen on the site visit that Hillrise Crescent was very narrow and reiterated that farm vehicles used the road, and that the footpath would need to be reinforced, given the number of vehicles requiring to mount the path.  He added the impact would be greater still for construction vehicles, making the area unsafe.

 

Councillor D McKenna noted that public transport was unreliable in the area, and anyone looking to rely on public transport for employment, education or healthcare would note be able to live at the proposed development.  He added Planners had quoted distances for cycling, however, that was only possible if one were young, noting the impracticality for older people.

 

Councillor D McKenna noted there was already issues with school places, with some children from the village having to travel outside of County Durham to Houghton-le-Spring and Sunderland for school.  He added that the contributions in this respect, and the NHS would not be sufficient to meet the demands from the proposed development. 

 

Councillor D McKenna note the biodiversity loss, adding the contributions sought would not make up for the loss of green space for the village.  He reiterated that the residents had a caring, tight-knit community and had fought many applications in their area, citing several examples.  He added this was a lot for a small community to bear and added that development should be encouraged for brownfield sites, however, of the right type in the right area.

 

Councillor D McKenna concluded by noting the development as proposed did not sit well with him and reiterated that the SHLAA said the site was ‘unsuitable’ and urged the Committee refuse the application.

 

Councillor D McKenna left the meeting at 10.30am

 

 

The Chair asked Janet Lowes, local resident in objection, to speak in respect of the application.

 

J Lowes thanked the Chair and Committee and explained she had been resident for around 21 years and represented around 400 local residents.  She reiterated that concerns included issues relating to highway safety, drainage, ecology and protecting local services.  She added residents did not agree with the case officer and reminded Members that the Committee had the ability to make a judgement on the application. 

She noted Officers had accepted the principle of development; however, she noted residents felt the scale was not appropriate.  She noted issues in terms of sustainability and the impact on the character of the area and visual dominance of the proposed scheme.  She noted that there were 165 dwellings in the area, two public house and the community centre.  She added the proposals represented around a 20 percent increase in dwellings.  She explained that the site was not allocated for development, and Policy 6 of the CDP stated that such development should be ‘well-related’, adding that residents felt this was not the case and therefore the proposals were in conflict with Policy 6. 

 

J Lowes noted the need to access services was effectively via car, and that was also contrary to Policy 6.  She noted that it was also felt the proposals were contrary to CDP Policy 10, with impact upon the character of the area, as well as the incursion into the countryside impacting upon the openness of the countryside, especially given the highly visible site.

 

J Lowes asked the Committee to consider the impact upon residents and the character of the area, with the proposals being contrary to Policies 6, 10 and 31 of the CDP, and given there was greater than four years housing supply was also in conflict with the CDP.  She urged Members to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked J Lowes and asked Alexander Franklin, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

A Franklin thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak, explaining he was Associate Director at Hedley Planning, representing the applicant.  He explained that the application had represented over 12 months of hard work, working with Officers from the Council to achieve a proposal with a positive recommendation for approval.  He added that the applicant, Believe, worked with Homes by Carlton, a Small to Medium Sized Enterprise (SME) based in County Durham, to provide properties in a traditional material palette that would assimilate well into the local area.  He noted that the applicant was a local provider, reinvesting profit back into communities, and being one of the key providers of affordable housing in the County, working with the Council throughout the process.  He noted pre-application work, with an initial 54 dwellings being sought, however, reduce to 46 and then 37 following discussions with Planning Officers.  He reiterated that Officers had been listened to, and the proposals were well-designed and met the requirements of the NPPF and CDP Policies, including Policy 29.

 

A Franklin noted as regards visitor parking spread within the site, and noted cycle storage to be secured via condition, and the design of the entrance to the site being designed in sympathy with the village green opposite, to help maintain the openness and be a positive addition to the village. 

He noted the additional properties would help support the local economic viability of the two public houses and community centre, helping reduce the likelihood of services closing.  He noted that assessments from Highways professionals had noted the proposals were safe and did not impact upon the highway network.  A Franklin noted the Section 106 Legal Agreement in terms of schools, NHS, open space, heritage coast and BNG of around £160,000.

 

A Franklin concluded by reiterating that the applicant had worked with the Council to develop a quality scheme in line with the CDP and NPFF, with no objections from professional Officers, and kindly requested Members approve the scheme as per their Officer’s recommendation.

The Chair thanked A Franklin and asked the Senior Planning Officer to address the issues raised by the speakers.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the SHLAA had referred to the site as ‘amber’, meaning that the site or an element of the site was potentially unsuitable for development, however it was not a ‘red’ score with a specific constraint against development.  He added that an application would have to then demonstrate they had overcome the ‘amber’ rating and in this case, Officers were satisfied that the proposals overcame the issues.  In respect of infrastructure, it was acknowledged there would be additional demand as a result of the development, and a Section 106 Legal Agreement would secure contributions in respect of school places and the NHS.  The Senior Planning Officer added that there were also contributions in respect of biodiversity, open space and coastal protection.  He noted in terms of need, while not an allocated site, there was demand for housing as detailed within the report and while a four-year supply could be demonstrated, to go beyond was not necessarily a bad thing.  He added that while brownfield sites were preferred, each application was to be judged on its own merit and the application did contain a mix of dwellings.  The Senior Planning Officer reiterated the separation distance were met, and site levels also helped mitigate any potential issues.  He reiterated the site was well related to the settlement, accepting it was outside of the settlement boundary, with it being bound on three side by development, and Officer felt the application was in line with Policy 6, subject to the details outline within the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor C Kay noted he had listened with interest, as a keen cyclist and Council Cycling Champion, as regards the potential to cycle and the proposed use of active travel.  He noted the highways assessment noted that a lot would use cycles from the properties, however, he could not accept that it would be the case as people would likely not use the very narrow road. 

He added the new cyclists especially could feel unsafe at first and there was no route from the dwellings to the town centre that were separated from motor vehicles.  He added that many people only cycle in good weather and therefore he could not accept that in design the proposals were cycle friendly.  He noted he felt the proposals were contrary to Policies 4, 6, 10, 21 of the CDP and he could sympathise with the position of residents.  He noted the contributions that would be made via the Section 106 Legal Agreement, however, he would listen to other Members before making a decision, however he could not see himself supporting the application.

 

The Chair asked members of the public to not clap or disrupt the proceedings of the Committee.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he had attended the site visit the previous day and noted it was clear from the number of people in attendance, that there was enormous concern regarding the proposals.  He noted upon arriving at the site his impression had been of a mature, beautiful piece of landscape, with pasture, trees and hedgerows.  He added that where development impact upon the landscape, there was usually some retention of features and therefore he was alarmed that the proposals would remove trees, hedgerows and anything of value.  Councillor J Elmer noted the Council’s Ecologist had referred to a figure of around £46,000 via Section 106, however, he felt that was simply an applicant buying off the issue, with replanting not being the same as mature trees for at least 40-50 years.

 

In respect of sustainability, Councillor J Elmer note he did not feel the case had been fully argued by the Planning Report, with buses being less than hourly, unreliable and did not run on an evening.  He added there were no local services, there was a need to travel to access those, likely by car, and therefore was not sustainable.  Councillor J Elmer added that after visiting the site he was not convinced the site was well related to Seaton, and noted the removal of such a large number of trees was very destructive.  He noted he did not see the evidence for housing need on this unallocated site.

 

Councillor B Kellett noted he had attended the site visit and noted the trouble the minibus had with the access, driving gingerly up to the site.  He noted site represented a huge area, with a derelict barn further into the site.  He noted the removal of trees would impact upon the greenfield site and noted many adequate brownfield sites existed elsewhere.  He asked while on the site visit whether the trees would be trimmed, only to be told they would be removed.  He added that one could see that the site was a great positive for the village, with the proposed development likely to spoil the village.  He noted that the site visit minibus had to mount the footpath on occasion and therefore the issues raised as regards highway safety seemed legitimate.  He felt there were sufficient grounds to refuse the application on highways safety and impact upon a greenfield site.

Councillor A Bell noted that he too had been on the site visit, noting two elements, the existing barns, that would be brownfield development, and the open part of the site, representing greenfield and tree belt, an open space that was a haven for wildlife.  He noted the access road was a single lane, with cars parked down all of one side.  He added he had been surprised to see the landscape harm was not set out more within the report.  Councillor A Bell noted he felt there would be harm as a consequence of the proposals, and while he could understand if just the element of the barns were build upon, he felt the development of the large open space was contrary to Policy 6, and the development would also not be well related to the rest of the village.  Accordingly, he moved refusal of the application.

 

The Chair noted highways issues had been referred to several times and asked the Highways Officer to address the matter.

 

The Principal DM Engineer, David Battensby noted the issues that had been raised related to Hillrise Crescent.  He advised that the application had been considered in some detail and Hillrise Crescent was an existing road on the highway network and provided access to adjacent settlements and businesses.  He noted that should it be deemed necessary, parking restrictions could be introduced via other primary legislation to prevent any obstructive parking, however, prior to this application there had been no complaints received as regards parking issues in the area.  He added that 700 vehicle movements per day on this road was considered light traffic.  He added that the proposed parking provision on-site was considered sufficient and in accordance with the DCC Parking Standards and that it was not necessary to have any parking restrictions, there being sufficient capacity on the road.

 

The Chair asked members of the public to not interrupt proceedings, and noted if they continued to do so, they would be asked to leave the Chamber.

 

Councillor K Robson noted he too had attended the site visit and had been struck by the outstanding beauty of the site.  He added he disagreed with the Highways Officer, noting the 37 proposed properties would need to be service by bin wagons, and would have either cars traveling to and from for work or shopping, or would have shopping deliveries attending the properties.  He agreed with other Members in terms of the narrow access road, and added he felt Seaton would benefit more from a small shop than these proposed houses.  He noted he would be against housing in this area.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he would second Councillor A Bell’s motion for refusal, with the proposals not being well related to the existing settlement, and hence in conflict with CDP Policy 6.

 

The Chair asked for comment from the Senior Planning Officer in respect of the comments made.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that Policy 6 criterion (f) related to the sustainable transport and criterion (d) referred to scale, form and character and asked if that what Councillors were referring to.  Councillor A Bell noted that was correct.

 

The Principal DM Engineer noted the road serving the site, Hillrise Crescent was currently used by bin wagons, delivery vehicles, agricultural vehicles and there had been no complaints received in respect of the road, and therefore were not considered to be issues in this case.  The Senior Planning Officer noted further reference to Policy 6, criterion (c), and Policy 39 if referring to landscape harm.  Councillor A Bell agreed.

 

Councillor C Kay noted Policy 4 spoke as regards the impact on the periphery of the settlement.  The Senior Planning Officer noted Policy 4 referred to allocated sites Policy 6 to unallocated sites.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he had nothing further to add to the Senior Planning Officer, with reference having been made to Policy 6 and various elements.  He noted that he would have found any refusal reasons based around highways grounds to be problematic.

 

A motion for refusal had been proposed by Councillor A Bell, seconded by Councillor J Elmer and upon a vote being taken it was;

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED as:

 

1.     The future occupiers of the development would not benefit from a genuine choice of transport modes so as to realistically reduce dependency on the private car, as the application site does not have good access by sustainable modes of transport to relevant services and facilities nor does the scale of the development reflect the size of the settlement or the level of service provision within that settlement, contrary to Policies 6 f) and 21 of the County Durham Plan and Part 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.     The development represents incursion into the open countryside that would result in the loss of an attractive edge of settlement field that positively contributes to the character of the village, with inadequate mitigation to outweigh the identified harm. The application is therefore contrary to Policies 6 c) and d), 10 l), and 39 of the County Durham Plan, and Parts 12 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Councillor D McKenna entered the meeting at 11.10am