Agenda item

Residential development (outline) for 9 dwellings (resubmission).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding a residential development (outline) for 9 dwellings (resubmission) at Eden Transport Ltd, Eden House, High Hesleden, TS27 4QFth(for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members of the Committee had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting. Members were advised that a late representation had been received from local member, Councillor A Cox. Councillor Cox supported the local residents and the 31 objections from the village. He fully agreed with their reasons of concern should the development go ahead, as outlined at paragraph 51 of the officers report. His opinion was that the application should be refused. He noted the intention of Eden Transport Ltd to relocate the business to an alternative site, and hoped that would go ahead whatever the outcome of the Committee meeting.

Mrs P Twigg, local resident, addressed the Committee, also speaking on behalf of Mr Cummings, also a local resident. She began by advising that along with 80% of the population of High Hesleden, she objected to the application for several reasons.

Mrs Twigg believed the Highways report to be flawed, advising the Committee that the proposals would lead to a significant increase in traffic on an already unsuitable road. Whilst there was road signage in the area, Mrs Twigg reported that the road was only 225 yards in length and just 50 metres from a blind bend, which gave rise to many concerns regarding road safety. The introduction of more houses would generate more traffic and more road trips, which would impact on road safety.

The Committee were advised that the site within High Hesleden was not sustainable as there were no local amenities and no infrastructure which would support such a development. Furthermore the proposed development did not accord with the Preferred Options proposals.

Mrs Twigg also expressed concerns that while the proposal was currently for 9 dwellings, there was a possibility that this could be increased in the future.

Councillor R Crute, local Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that in principle he did not disagree with the proposed development, he was however concerned that the location was unsuitable, and as such supported the objections of local residents.

The proposed estate was outside of the settlement boundary of High Hesleden and as such conflicted the Easington Forward Plan. He did not accept the site was sustainable as there were no local facilities or infrastructure to sustain it.

Councillor Crute advised that the wealth of objections from a hamlet the size of High Hesleden was phenomenal and illustrated that the local community was in total objection to the development. Their concerns were underpinned by Councillor Crute and also the local Parish Council.

Members were advised that Councillor Crute had been a local member in the area since 1987 and had never received any complaints relating to transport from the business, contrary to the claims of the applicants.

Councillor Crute also expressed concerns regarding flood risk, a lack of affordable housing provision, and that the proposed development was not in keeping with the character of the village.

The Committee was advised that a Neighbourhood Plan was in the process of being developed for the area which was a preferred option to determining any future development for the village. Councillor Crute further advised that the application contravened the local Parish Plan, the NPPF and the emerging County Durham Plan.

Mr R Newlove, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He began by advising that Eden Transport had been a long established business on that site and over the years the business had grown, to the point that now, larger premises were required in order for the business to expand.

In relation to the concerns expressed in the letters of objection, Mr Newlove highlighted that the applicant, rather than proceed with the proposed development, could instead sell the land and then the residents would be left with no guarantees as to who may take over the site. Furthermore in response to the points raised about the area being unsustainable, Mr Newlove highlighted that it was in fact the residents who found the village to be unsustainable and therefore they may, in time, leave the village for a more sustainable location themselves.

In relation to the style of housing, the Committee were advised that the proposals were not to introduce unsuitable housing to the area, indeed similar properties to those proposed, existed in the village already.

Mr Newlove advised that both the Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging County Durham Plan were not valid reasons for refusing the application as both were some time off being implemented. Mr Newlove referred the Committee to pages 46 and 47 of the officers report where the benefits to the application were listed.

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

• Speeding/road safety – there was no direct correlation between speeding issues and the introduction of 9 new dwellings to the area;
• Future applications – The Committee were advised that a previous application for a high density development on the site had been refused, as such this development would not exceed 9 dwellings;
• There were significant highway safety benefits in removing the number of HGV trips and replacing with private vehicle trips.

The Highways Officer addressed the Committee and referred Members to paragraphs 72-74 of the report which set out the Highways issues. The Committee were advised that the estimate of 72 two way vehicle trips was calculated using a nationally agreed method, and that the estimated amount of trips for the size of development was well within acceptable limits.

In relation to the access arrangements to the site, the Highways Officer believed them to be the best proposed arrangements he had seen, greatly improving the area and positively beneficial to the area. The junction would be substantially improved and it could only be classed as a benefit to see the removal of numerous articulated wagons from a road network that struggled to support them.

In response to a query from a Member, the Solicitor clarified that because of the size of the development there was no Section 106 requirement, and the only obligation on the developer was to relocate the business within the County and that the relocation occurred prior to commencing with the development.

Councillor Dixon fully supported the application, commenting that the access improvements were extremely impressive and the removal of a HGV company, plus the introduction of 9 dwellings, could only be a good thing for the area.

Councillor Bell agreed, commenting that having seen the site on the visit earlier that day, he felt that residential properties would be more in keeping with the area as opposed to the existing haulage company. He did express concerns regarding the lack of 106 monies for future community benefit, and queried whether the applicant could be required to make a financial gesture to the area. The Principal Planning Officer that as the trigger for requiring 106 monies was 10 units, this development fell below that threshold and so any contribution would have to be made voluntarily by the applicant. The agent for the applicant advised that the applicant was to make a massive spend on achieving the access improvements which would in the long run be good for the area.

Upon a vote being taken it was,

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report.