Agenda item

Erection of 22 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the erection of 22 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping at land off Potters Bank, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Mr B Corrigan, local resident, addressed the Committee. He advised the Committee that, in principle, he did not object to the proposed development, however he drew attention to one aspect of the development which gave him cause for concern, though he believed to be easily resolvable.

Mr Corrigan advised the Committee that the first proposed property on the development would have an overbearing impact on properties within The Orchard, which directly adjoined the development site. Members were advised that the land behind the Orchard rose rapidly. Mr Corrigan advised that rather than step up the developments gradually from existing ground level, the proposal for Plot 1 was to erect a 10 feet high retaining wall. This, he believed, would have an overbearing impact on existing properties, and furthermore was contrary to Policy H13 as it would have an adverse effect on residential amenity.

Mr Corrigan suggested that this issue could be resolved if the developer would agree to develop Plot 1 at existing ground level. He advised that the developer had felt it not possible to do this due to drainage issues, however Mr Corrigan believed that further issues could also be overcome by pumping into the main sewer or installing a septic tank.

As he had no further objections to the development, he called on the Committee to defer consideration of the application to allow the developer to resolve the issue, and then submit an amended application.

Councillor N Martin, local member, addressed the Committee. He advised the Committee that the adjacent development of Dickens Wynd was designed with a hammerhead, which suggested that there would be further nearby development in the future. This application was now before the Committee, and Councillor Martin believed that, contrary to the plans, it would have been desirable to have a footpath egress between the 2 developments which would have added to the connectivity of the area.

Councillor Martin objected to the suggestion within the officers report that the development site was sustainable and convenient for commercial services. He argued that was not the case, the site was not a central location, indeed it occupied a position on the periphery and there were no local shops and other commercial premises nearby.

He further expressed concerns regarding the fund for a play area and artwork to be allocated by the developer and where that money would be spent, he felt it should be allocated to the Nevilles Cross Division.

Councillor Martin concluded by sympathising with the concerns expressed by Mr Corrigan and supported his request to see the matter being deferred to allow the developer to resolve the issues raised.

Councillor Holland, local member, addressed the Committee. He echoed the comments of Councillor Martin, in that he had no objections to the principle of the development, however he did agree with the objection raised by Mr Corrigan. Furthermore he agreed with the objector that the issues were resolvable.

In referring to Condition 9 of the officers report, he queried where the requirement to have at least 10% of the total energy demand of the development to be from renewable sources, had come from.

Councillor Holland further commented that he believed planning policy U14 and U15 blighted the Planning Authority when determining applications.

Councillor Holland noted that Part 11 of the NPPF had been deemed relevant to the proposal, which was to enhance the natural environment, however he suggested that Part 10 would be more appropriately applied.

Mr Jordan, representing the applicant Charles Church Ltd, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that in terms of sustainability, he had been heavily involved in developing executive homes within Durham, and he could not think of a more sustainable location than the proposed development site. It had good links to local transport and was within an already built up area.

Mr Jordan continued that the location was a sensible site for such a development taking into account the natural shape of the site. From the offset, the developer had been keen to ensure minimal impact on existing properties. Whilst he acknowledged the concerns already expressed, he was confident that the current plans posed no adverse effect on neighbouring properties.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to all comments made as follows:

• Condition 9 – It was acknowledged that Part 10 of the NPPF should actually have been applied rather than Part 11, this would amended with immediate effect.
• In response to the query from Councillor Holland regarding the 10% requirement for renewable energies, the Principal Planning Officer advised this requirement came from the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).
• It was stressed that currently the Council was experiencing something of a policy shift in relation to planning. There was the forthcoming emergence of the County Durham Plan alongside the decision by Central Government to abolish the Code for Sustainable Homes. An increase in building regulations would going forward largely take up the energy requirements of the Code. Whilst concerns from Councillor Holland were acknowledged, for the current time, the Planning Authority could only insist on what was permitted in accordance with the RSS as the most up to date development plan.
• Play Area – it was confirmed that the allocation would be spent within Nevilles Cross division.
• Dickens Wynd – it is preferred to see permeability throughout development schemes. The Principal Planning Officer did feel that the layout of the scheme would not lend itself to a private fenced off pedestrian link dissecting a private garden. Given the scale of the development, and good pedestrian links along Pottersbank and bordering public footpath no further link was necessary. 
• Sustainability – it was acknowledged that Nevilles Cross was devoid of some essential commercial features, however in the context of the city as a whole, it was a Greenfield site in a relatively dense residential area and was in accordance with the overall principles of sustainable development.
• In responding to the concerns raised by Mr Corrigan, the Principal Planning Officer advised that whilst the proximity to neighbouring properties was an initial concern, a lot of work had been done to improve this relationship. In accordance with saved policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan, there was a required separation distances between properties of 13 metres The plans for the development had been reworked and now demonstrated a 35m separation distance, along with the setting back of the retaining wall and relocation of the garage which was felt to be an acceptable compromise.

Councillor Blakey expressed concerns to the suggestion that a septic tank should be installed on the site, she further expressed concerns about potential flooding. She acknowledged the concerns of the objector, she found the Plot 1 property to have an overbearing effect on the nearest neighbouring property. Councillor Blakey agreed that if Plot 1 were built on lower ground, the issue would be resolved.

Councillor Charlton drew attention to paragraph 89 of the report and requested that the requirement for the developer to submit a surface water drainage scheme to be agreed prior to commencement of development, be ensured.

Councillor Naylor queried why there had not been any objection from Northumbrian Water.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the Committee as follows:

• In relation to bungalows, and housing for the elderly, this would be picked up within the emerging County Durham Plan and the possibility of a percentage allocation would be stipulated;
• He highlighted that Condition 8 to the application made requirements in relation to the surface water drainage scheme.
• Northumbrian Water were satisfied with the discharge rates and made no objections to the application.

Seconded by Councillor Bleasdale, Councillor A Bell moved that the application be approved with the amendment to Condition 9.

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report, and with the amendment to Condition 9 of the report to replace Part 11 of the NPPF with Part 10.