Agenda item

Proposed residential development (outline application)

Proposed Residential Development (Outline Application)

Consideration was given to the report submitted in relation to the above application (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Inch, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Officer advised that since the report had been circulated representations  had been received from local Member Councillor P Charlton. Councillor Charlton indicated her support to the application. Evenwood Gate would benefit from some rejuvenation, although it would have been better if the former Brown Jug Public House had been included in this development. However the area was looking ‘run down’ and this would give it a boost. The area intended for development was not prime land.

Whilst she was aware that Regional Planning Policy highlighted a preference for previously developed sites there had been exceptions to this.

Councillor S Hugill, local Member also spoke in support of the application. The applicants wished to improve this untidy corner which was situated on a busy route to Barnard Castle. Approval had been granted previously for the erection of a bungalow, caravans and garage on the application land, and for 13 dwellings on the Brown Jug site. 

Access onto Evenwood Lane off this site would not present any problems as it was a quiet road and traffic was slowing at this point for the junction onto the A688. The village benefitted from a number of local facilities and a regular bus service to Bishop Auckland where there were 2 new supermarkets.

The businesses in Evenwood Gate and the school were in support of the proposal which would attract younger people to live in the area, which was much-needed.

Mr J Lavender, the applicant’s agent expressed concern that the application was recommended for refusal based on ‘indicative’ plans which he did not believe was a matter for consideration as part of an outline application. In his opinion the principle of the development and access were the main issues for determination.

He expressed further concerns that there had been no mention in the report of paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF which made it clear that Teesdale Local Plan should only be given proportionate weight to policies in the NPPF. Contrary to the Officer’s statement in the report the NPPF stated that to promote sustainable development in rural locations housing should be located where it would maintain and enhance the local community, and development in one village may support services in villages nearby. The report emphasised separation of Evenwood and Evenwood Gate yet local people recognised the inter-relationship between the two. Residents of both villages supported the proposals.

He concluded that this application represented a well-designed sustainable development in principle, on a site which could be safely accessed, with good transport links. He referred to the earlier application on the Agenda relating to High Riggs, Barnard Castle which was situated further outside the settlement limits and which Members had approved.

In responding to the comments made by the applicant’s agent in respect of the NPPF the Principal Planning Officer explained that it did not change the statutory status of the Development Plan as a starting point for determining applications. The site would be a substantial addition to the settlement and would be a substantial distance from facilities. As such, residents would drive to make use of any services and there was no guarantee that they would use those located in Evenwood Gate.

Whilst the application had been submitted in outline form it included an indicative housing layout plan. These details intended to demonstrate that an acceptable form of development could be achieved on the site. Access was deemed to be acceptable but in terms of the principle of the development Planning Officers considered that it was not in a sustainable location.

In determining the application a Member commented that this application would improve an untidy corner and that not all of the site was in open countryside. However, Members noted that 70% of the site was greenfield and that 5 other sites in Evenwood had been classified ‘green light’ in the SHLAA as suitable for residential development. If approved this application may hinder development of these areas of land.

In response to the comment of the applicant’s agent with regard to the High Riggs application, Members reiterated that each planning application was considered on its merits and that comparisons should not be made between the two sites.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.