Housing Land Allocations) Responses

Appendix 6b – Policy 30 (Housing Land Allocations) Responses

Allocated Sites Site Sound Not Sound H1 – Sniperley Park 0 4 H2 – North of Arnison 2 4 H3 – Sherburn Road 1 3 H4 – Durham Johnson School 0 1 H5 – Durham Northern Quarter 2 57 H6 – Former Stonebridge Dairy 1 0 H7 ‐ Framwellgate Fire & Rescue 0 0 H8 – Merryoaks 2 10 H9 – Willowtree Avenue 0 1 H10 – East of Brandon Football Club 0 0 H11 – Bogma Hall Farm 1 4 H12 – West of Grange Farm 0 0 H13 – East of Mill Lane 2 86 H14 – North of Ladysmith Terrace 0 2 H15 – North of Cook Avenue 0 0 H16 – Greenwood Avenue 0 0 HE1 – Lambton Park 1 0 H17 – BOC Site 1 0 H18 – Civic Centre 1 0 H19 – South of Drum 2 5 H20 – North of Hermitage Comprehensive 0 0 H21 – Blackfyne Sports College 0 5 H22 – Castleside Reservoir 1 3 H23 – Adjoiniing English Martyrs School 1 1 H24 – Genesis Site 0 4 H25 – Moorside Comprehensive School 0 1 H26 – Muirfield Close 0 19 H27 – Rosedale Avenue 0 1 H28 – South Knitsley Lane 0 3 H29 – Oxhill Farm 0 0 H30 – Stanley School of Technology 0 2 H31 – Rear of Elm Avenue 0 1 H32 – Lingey House Farm North 0 1 H33 – West House Farm 1 11 H34 – East of Dene Crescent 0 0 H35 – Syke Road 0 1 H36 – Bone Lane 0 4 H37 – West of Woodstone Village 2 10 H38 – Scott Court 0 0 H39 – Brooms Public House 1 6 H40 – Woodhouses Farm 0 2 H41 – Canney Hill 0 3 H42 – East of Bracks Way 0 1 H43 – Former Chamberlain Phipps 0 0 H44 – Rear of High West Road 0 17 H45 – West of Crook Primary School 0 5 H46 – Low Copelaw 3 1 H47 – South of Agnew Plantation 0 0 H48 – Congreve Terrace 0 0 H49 – Eldon Whinns 0 3 H50 – North of Travellers Green 0 1 H51 – Site N Cobblers Hall 0 0 H52 – Site O Cobblers Hall 0 0 H53 – Woodham Community College 0 1 H54 – West Chilton Farm 0 1 H55 – South of Dean Road 1 0 H56 – West of Newcomen Street 0 3 H57 – South of Eden Drive 1 24 H58 – Fishburn Hall Farm 1 1 H59 – North East Industrial Estate 0 1 H60 – Adjacent to Shotton School 0 2 H61 – Dene House School 0 1 H62 – North Blunts 0 0 H63 – South of Edenhill Community Centre 0 0 H64 – South of Passfield Way 0 1 H65 – East of Milton Close 0 0 H66 – North of Portland Avenue 0 0 H67 – Lawnside 0 0 H68 – Parkside 0 0 H69 – Seaham Colliery Site 0 1 H70 – Seaham School 0 1 H71 – Former Council Offices 3 21 H72 – West of Fennel Grove 1 31 H73 – West of Petwell Crescent 1 16 H74 – East of Martindale Walk 0 9 H75 – Dunelm Stables 1 2 H76 – North of Hartlepool Street 0 0 H77 – West of Bevan Crescent 1 209 H78 – Auction Mart 0 4 H79 – North Of Bowes Road 0 8 H80 – Grove Works 1 0 H81 – Rear of High Riggs 0 4 H82 – South of Green Lane 0 2 H83 – Rear of Bridge Inn 0 5 H84 – East of Leekworth Gardens 0 18

Objections to non‐ allocated sites Site Sound Not Sound 1/LA/07 – Cadger Bank HA/17 85 2 5/DH/01 – Land at Deaf Hill 1 (506 sig 0 petition) 2/RI/01 – Land at Picktree Lane 40 1 7/SH/119 – Land North of Fulton Court HA/101 0 1 2/BO/03 – Land at Castlefields, Bournmoor 15 1 6/GF/03b & 03a – Land at Neville Close HA/114 5 1 HA/47 – Land South of Wellfield Road 2 1 6/MT/09 – South of Penine Cottage HA/115 2 0 HA/104 Opposite West Road 3 0 1/CO/13 – South of Berry edge farm 1 0 HA/111 – West of Startforth Morritt Memorial School 2 1 5/SE/23 – Land at New Drive Seaham 1 0 4/DU/73 – Sniperley Park 1 1

Additional Housing Sites submitted at the Pre‐Submission Draft Stage Site Sound Not Sound Presser Pumping station 0 1 Sacriston Pumping Station 0 1 5/HW/01 – Land at Hawthorn 0 2 5/SE/25 – Land at Seaham Grange 0 1 Land to the west of the A694, East Law 0 1 7/NA/079 – Former Elmfield Primary School 0 1 5/SE/26 – Land North of Seaton Lane 0 1 4/BS/07 ‐ Land at Brasside Stores 0 1 5/MU/22 – Land South of Station Road 0 1 5/SH/14 – Land to the West of B1280 0 2 4/KE/02 – Land North of Woodland Crescent 0 2 4/CO/03c – Land at Coxhoe Industrial Estate 0 1 3/SP/19 – Shittlehopeburn Farm 0 1 Canney Hill 0 2 HA/43 – Land behind Burns Terrace & Swan Castle Farm 0 1 Land west of Station Road, Rainton 0 1 3/WO/11 – Land Rear of Durham Road 0 1 1/TL/03 – Tanfield Lea Industrial Estate 0 1 3/BA/01 – Land North of High Bondgate 0 2 Land at Flint Hill 0 1 Land at Laundry Cottage 0 1 Land to the rear of Durham City Retail Park – off Eden Terrace 0 1 Land at Eldon 0 2 5/SE/15 – Land at Dalton Heights 0 1 7/CH/118 – Land South of Chilton 0 2 4/DU/59 – Land at Ustinov College – Kepier House 0 1 4/BH/01 – Land South of Station House 0 1 Land to south west of West Auckland 0 1 5/WH/05 – Wheatley Hill Dog Track 0 1 4/PA/02 – Land east of Parkhill 0 1 4/DU/18 – Blagdon Depot 0 1 Land at Waldridge 0 1 Land at Whitwell Acres 0 1 5/WI/03 ‐ Lowfield Farm House 0 1 6/SF/02 – Land West of Start

Objections to committed sites Site Sound Not Sound 4/LA/01 – Land East of Langley Park 0 1 5/PE/27 – Land at Lowhills 0 2

Contents

Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites 6 H1 - Sniperely Park, Durham City 6 H2 - North of Arnison 6 H3 - Sherburn Road 8 H4 - Durham Johnson School (Whinney Hill) 9 H5 Durham Northern Quarter 10 H6 - Former Stonebridge Dairy 11 H7 - Framwellgate Fire and Rescue HQ 12 H8 - Merryoaks 12 H9 - Willowtree Avenue 13 H10 - East of Brandon Football Club 14 H11 - Bogma Hall Farm 15 H12 - West of Grange Farm, Coxhoe 16 H13 - East of Mill Lane, Sherburn 16 H14 - North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor 19 H15 - North of Cook Avenue, Bearpark 19 H16 - Greenwood Avenue, Burnhope 20 HE1 - Lambton Park 20 H17 - BOC Site 21 H18 - Civic Centre, Chester-le-Street 21 H19 - South of Drum, Chester-le-Street 22 H20 - North of Hermitage Comprehensive, Chester-le-Street 23 H21 - Blackfyne Sports College, Consett 23 H22 - Castleside Reservoir 24 H23 - Adjoining Former English Martyrs School 25 H24 - Genesis Site 27 H25 - Moorside Comprehensive School 28 H26 - Muirfield Close 29 H27 - Rosedale Avenue 29 H28 - South Knitsley Lane 30 H29 - Oxhill Farm 31 H30 - Stanley School of Technology 32 H31 - Rear of Elm Avenue 33 H32 - Lingey House Farm North 33 H33 - West House Farm 34 H34 - East of Dene Crescent 35 H35 - Syke Road 35 H36 - Bone Lane 37 H37 - West of Woodstone Village 38 H38 - Scott Court 39 H39 - Brooms Public House 40 H40 - Woodhouses Farm 41 H41 - Canney Hill 42 H42 - East of Bracks Way 42 H43 - Former Chamberlain Phipps 43 H44 - Rear of High West Road 43 H45 West of Crook Primary School 45 H46 - Low Copelaw 47 H47 - South of Agnew Plantation 48

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Contents

H48 - Congreve Terrace 48 H49 - Eldon Whins 49 H50 - North of Travellers Green 50 H51 - Site N Cobblers Hall 51 H52 - Site O Cobblers Hall 51 H53 - Woodham Community College 52 H54 - West Chilton Farm 52 H55 - South of Dean Road 53 H56 - Newcomen Street 54 H57 - South of Eden Drive 55 H58 - Fishburn Hall Farm 56 H59 - North East Industrial Estate 57 H60 - Adjacent to Shotton School 58 H61 - Dene House School 58 H62 - North Blunts 59 H63 - South of Edenhill Community Centre 59 H64 - South of Passfield Way 60 H65 - East of Milton Close 61 H66 - North of Portland Avenue 61 H67 - Lawnside 61 H68 - Parkside 62 H69 - Seaham Colliery Site 62 H70 - Seaham School 63 H71 - Former Council Offices 63 H72 - West of Fennel Grove 66 H73 - West of Petwell Crescent 69 H74 - East of Martindale Walk 71 H75 - Dunelm Stables 74 H76 - North of Hartlepool Street 75 H77 - West of Bevan Crescent 75 H78 - Auction Mart 77 H79 - North of Bowes Road 78 H80 - Grove Works 79 H81 - Rear of High Riggs 80 H82 - South of Green Lane 81 H83 - Rear of Bridge Inn 82 H84 - East of Leekworth Gardens 83

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Contents

Objections to non-allocated sites 84 1/LA/07 Cadger Bank HA/17 84 5/DH/01 - Land at Deaf Hill 84 2/RI/01 - Land at Picktree Lane HA/54 84 7/SH/119 - Land north of Fulton Court HA/101 84 2/BO/03 - Land at Castlefields, Bournmoor 84 6/GF/03b & 03a - Land at Neville Close HA/114 84 HA/47 South of Wellfield Road 84 HA115- 6/MT/09 South of Pennine Cottage 84 HA104 Opposite West Road 84 4/LA/01 - Land East of Langley Park 84 5/PE/27 - Land at Lowhills 84 1/CO/13 - South of Berry Edge Farm 84 HA111 West of Startforth Morritt Memorial School 84 5/SE/23 - Land at New Drive Seaham 84 4/DU/73 - Sniperley Park 84

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Contents

Additional Housing Sites submitted at the Pre-Submission Draft stage 85 Presser Pumping Station 85 Sacriston Pumping Station 85 5/HW/01 - Land at Hawthorn 85 5/SE/25 - Land at Seaham Grange 85 Land to the west of the A694, East Law 85 7/NA/079 - Former Elmfield Primary School 85 5/SE/26 - Land North of Seaton Lane 85 4/BS/07 - Land at Brasside Stores 85 5/MU/22 - Land South of Station Road 85 5/SH/14 - Land to the West of B1280 85 4/KE/02 - Land North of Woodland Crescent 85 4/CO/03c - Land at Coxhoe Industrial Estate 85 3/SP/19- Shittlehopeburn Farm 85 Canney Hill 85 HA43 Land behind Burns Tce & Swan Castle Farm 85 Land west of Station Road West Rainton 85 3/WO/11- Land rear of Durham Road 85 1/TL/03- Tanfield Lea Industrial Estate 85 3/BA/01 - Land North of High Bondgate 85 Land at Flint Hill 85 Land at Laundry Cottage 85 Land to rear of Durham City Retail Park-off Eden Terrace 85 Land at Eldon 85 5/SE/15 - Land at Dalton Heights 85 7/CH/118 - Land South of Chilton 85 4/DU/59- Land at Ustinov College-Kepier House 85 4/BH/01- Land South of Station House 85 Land to South West of West Auckland 85 5/WH/05- Wheatley Hill Dog Track 85 4/PA/02- Land east of Parkhill 85 4/DU/18- Blagdon Depot 85 Land at Waldridge 86 Land at Whitwell Acres 86 3/WI/03- Lowfield Farm House 86 Land at Former Sawmills Site 86 5/PE/26 Andrews Hill 86 Land adjacent Harmire Enterprise Park 86 Land at Seaham Grange 86 Land at Seaham Grange 86 Land West of Howlish Hall 86 7/SP/101-Land West of Attwood Terrace 86 7/SP/135-Wider Tudhoe Colliery Site 86 7/CH/062 - Land to the South of Chilton Cemetery 86 7/CH/078a - Land North of West Chilton Farm 86 4/BE/02 - Land at Waterworks, Bearpark 86 7/BM/061 - North of Stoneybeck 86 2/FE/02 - Land North of Morton House 86 2/CH/07 - Land between Waldridge Lane & Road 86

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Contents

2/CH/08 - Land between Waldridge Road & Castle Farm 86 Land at Haswell 86 2/BO/06 - Bournmoor Cricket Club 86 2/BO/10 - Whitehall Farm 86 Land at Coundon 86 1/DI/07b- North Road Harelaw 86 Land at Durham Gate 86 7/SP/331- Land at Grayson Road 86 7/KM/036- South of Merrington Road 86 7/KM/037- South of Merrington Road 86 3/TR/02- Land to the South of Addison Road 86 7/SF/123- Land east of Stockton Road 86 3/WI/01- Land Opposite West Road 86 3/SB/03-Opposite Hunwick Lane 86 3/SS/06- Land Rear 54-57 Front Street 87 7/SH/053- North of Shildon Leisure Park 87 7/SH/317- Land East of Primrose Drive 87 Land on the North side of Escomb Road, BA 87 7/SF/124 - Land at Stockton Road 87 Plawsworth Reservoir 87 4/BR/05 - Land at Brandon Lane 87 3/BA/28 - Land North of Etherley Moor 87 1/LA/12 - Herdsman Close 87 3/CR/37 - Land at the former Crook Works 87 3/HU/02 - Dyson Thermal Technologies 87 4/DU/107 & 4/DU/106 & 4/DU/105 87 3/BA/42 - Land South of Durham Road 87 4/SB/02 - Land East of Forster Avenue 87 Land at Low Farm, Bradbury 87 4/DU/129 - Passport Office, Framwellgate Peth 87 Fernhill, Newcastle Road, Durham 87 7/KM/034 - South of Primary School 87

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H1 - Sniperely Park, Durham City

H1 - Sniperley Park, Durham City

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 4 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to representations against Policy 8: Durham City Strategic Sites and the relevant SPD. Concern regarding the increase in traffic particularly with reference to accessing Sniperley Grove and Witton Grove. A concern regarding flooding on the site. The principle of Green Belt deletions in particular regarding the impact on the World Heritage Site, coalescence of Durham City with Sacriston and Chester-le-Street. Development should be focused on brownfield sites. A proposal that the site should be extended to included land off Witton Grove.

Response to main issues:

The development of this site will be expected to incorporate bus, pedestrian and cycle routes within the connecting to adjoining facilities. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan for each site will also be required ensure that reliance on the private car is reduced and to mitigate the impact of increased traffic. The movement frameworks will also incorporate schemes proposed within the Durham Integrated Transport Assessment. Sustainable Drainage Systems will be incorporated to deal with surface water drainage as well as exploring opportunities to improve local water quality. The strategic sites have been subject to a three stage Green Belt assessment process which sought to find sites with the least environment and heritage impact. This is being supplemented further by an Environmental Impact Evaluation. The sites will include sufficient landscaping and the Green Belt beyond these sites will remain in place to prevent coalescence. A detailed assessment of available land (including brownfield land) more than 0.4ha (12 units) has been undertaken through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment which concluded there was insufficient land to meet Durham City's housing requirement.

H2 - North of Arnison

Number of representations to this allocation. 6

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 sound.

6 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H2 - North of Arnison

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 4 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to representations against Policy 8: Durham City Strategic Sites and the relevant SPD. Support has been expressed from the main parties with an interest in the site: Story Homes and Ainscough Strategic Land although it is suggested that the site can accommodate more units of approximately 1,200 houses using a yield multiplier of 35 dwellings per hectare. Framwellgate Parish Council object to 1,200 executive homes on this site because of the impact on Rotary Way and the access into the Arnison Centre. The principle of Green Belt deletions in particular regarding the impact on the World Heritage Site, coalescence of Durham City with Sacriston and Chester-le-Street. Durham City is unique and special and its surrounding green spaces should be preserved for future generations. Air quality and noise concerns relating from increased HGV vehicles. A congested road network. Sherburn Road and Sniperley Park are better sites. The site is a haven for wildlife - blue tits; coaltits; sparrows hedge sparrows; blackbrids; fieldfare; housemartins; robins; swifts and swallows who use the airflow above the fields to teach the young to fly. Magpies, crows, wood pigeons, woodpeckers; flying ducks; pheasants and occasional heron and sparrow hawks; cows, hedgehogs, rabbits, greysquirrel, moles, common frogs and field mice. The site should be considered as a woodland burial site and then could accommodate both the relief road and the wildlife.

Response to main issues:

The number of units proposed on each site are, in most cases, an indicative figure that will meet the housing requirementas set out in the Plan. It is accepted that the 31,400 is a minimum requirement. Exact numbers will be considered as part of a planning application. There will be some sites which will not support a higher number due to factors such as the site layout or surrounding densities.

The development of this site will be expected to incorporate bus, pedestrian and cycle routes within the connecting to adjoining facilities. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan for each site will also be required ensure that reliance on the private car is reduced and to mitigate the impact of increased traffic. The movement frameworks will also incorporate schemes proposed within the Durham Integrated Transport Assessment. Detailed traffic surveys for the sites are on-going including along Rotary Way. The strategic sites have been subject to a three stage Green Belt assessment process which sought to find sites with the least environment and heritage impact. This is being supplemented further by an Environmental Impact Evaluation. The sites will include sufficient landscaping and the Green Belt beyond these sites will remain in place to prevent coalescence. In addition, an Environmental Impact Evaluation is currently being undertaken. A detailed assessment of available land (including brownfield land) more than 0.4ha (12 units) has been undertaken through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment which concluded there was insufficient land to meet Durham City's housing requirement.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 7 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H3 - Sherburn Road

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to representations against Policy 8: Durham City Strategic Sites and the relevant SPD. There is support for the allocation from Banks Developments who also support the parameters of the SPD.

Development of the site will add to the already congested traffic levels on the A181 which is the road along the site's northern boundary.

One access at the traffic lights at Bent House is insufficient. Further clarity on the improvement of bus stops is required.

Para 2.8 of the SPD suggests that houses were built alongside the apartment and this is disputed. The developers went into receivership and they are now rented from a bank.

The development will not enhance the rural character and setting of Benthouse Lane through a landscape buffer.

Benthouse Farm is above the 80m contour line.

The vision for the site does not align with high quality jobs which they suspect will be within the retail sector.

The site is a valuable recreation area.

The development will have a negative impact on Durham Beck and the general wildlife.

Site will be be unattractive to buyers because of noise associated with the A1(M).

Response to main issues:

The draft SPD accompanying this allocation acknowledges that the local road network has experienced pressures in recent years, particularly as a result of the retail uses along Dragon Lane. Improvements to the network are still being implemented and can be expected to continue in the future to help deal with projected traffic growth and new development including the possibility of a new link road to the north of Damson Lane. The access will be primarily from the A181 to the north. A secondary access could be provided from Bent House Lane to the west. Previous iterations of the Plan have shown a separate housing allocation on Bent

8 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H3 - Sherburn Road

House Lane however it is considered appropriate for Bent House Lane to form part of the strategic allocation to enable a more holistic highways solution. Any planning application for the site will be expected to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan. The developer will be expected to consider the existing public transport provision and explore opportunities for integration and enhancement of new or existing services. Any possibility of providing a public transport route through the site should be investigated for example ensuring estate roads are of a suitable standard (width / construction) and bus stops are provided at suitable places through the site. The comment raised to para 2.8 of the SPD will be investigated and amended as necessary. Bent House Farm sits on the 80m contour line. Green infrastructure and recreational routes will be a key component of the design and layout of the site to ensure there is a strong landscape framework to alleviate any noise and visual influences. It is envisaged that any noise attenuation can be be incorporated into the detailed layout and design of the scheme and it is not envisaged that this will impact on the site's attractiveness to the market. Discussions are on-going with the Environment Agency to ensure that there are wider environmental benefits associated with the development including to Durham Beck such as by undertaking riparian management along the Beck.

H4 - Durham Johnson School (Whinney Hill)

H4 - Durham Johnson School, Whinney Hill

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Highlighted that this is the only allocated housing site in Durham City Centre. Considered that as such, it should be protected as a housing site which should not be sold for University facilities, student accommodation or houses that will be let out to students. Concerned that the City and, in particular, Whinney Hill is in desperate need of permanent residents who will contribute to the future long term development of the area and Durham City.

Response to main issues:

Student housing is a form of housing. This site is allocated for housing and any planning application on this site would therefore need to be considered in this context. However, most student housing (or housing which is to be rented to students) is generally for occupation by 3 or more unrelated adults and would therefore be classed as a 'House in Multiple Occupation'. Under Policy 32 of the plan, this site would not be considered acceptable for 'Houses in Multiple Occupation', as it is located in, or within 50m of a postcode area where more than 10% of the total number of properties is already in use as a licensed HMO or student accommodation exempt from council tax charges.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 9 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H5 Durham Northern Quarter

H5 - Durham Northern Quarter

Number of representations to this allocation. 59

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 57 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The developers for this proposal and support the principle of this allocation although they seek a larger site area as proposed by their landscape and visual work prepared and a larger number of houses to reflect 26 individual executive homes, 67 standard townhouses and 37 apartments. They believe this site is a unique opportunity to connect key parts of the City and regenerate areas blighted by unsightly buildings, inappropriate uses, poor connectivity and landscapes which are under utilised and neglected. They believe there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of this site from the Green Belt. The owner of Sidegate House also supports the proposal. Major concern is regarding the impact on Crook Hall which is a grade I listed building. The concern arises from a historical, ecological, landscape and economic point of view. The economic concern relates to concerns that development of the Durham Northern Quarter proposal will deter visitors and tourists and impact on the business. Other issues raised with regard to the impact on Crook Hall include traffic, noise, dust and vibration. In terms of the ecological concerns the wildlife spotted include: woodpeckers, goldfinches owls and other birds as well as mammals including bats, foxes, stoats. There is also a suggestion that Great Crested Newts could be present. There are also ancient trees suggested to be present. Archaeology issues have been raised including the presence of Framwellgate Well and an ancient pilgrimage route to and from Crook Hall. There is also concern regarding the proposal's impact on the conservation area and World Heritage Site. A question is raised with regard to the Non-Strategic Green Belt Modifications Paper around the reasoning why the Council had previously proposed the site was retained in the Green Belt. Brownfield sites should be the focus of development including the former petrol station, John Street, 24-25 the Avenue, the eastern end of Chruch Street, Whinney Hill, Elvet Waterside, Kepier House, Ferens Close, the Sands, Claypath, Milburngate House and Aykley Heads. There is concern about the deliverability of the benefits associated with this proposal particularly if the housing is delivered through Green Belt release and then these don't materialise. This is particularly with regard to the crossing of the East Coast Mainline and the nature reserve. The land behind Crook Hall should be included within a 'Community Asset Transfer' to ensure its longer term protection. There has been a concern that respondents have only been provided with one opportunity to comment to this proposal.

Response to main issues:

10 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H5 - Durham Northern Quarter

Whilst in environmental terms, we accept that the site could accommodate more than 40 dwellings, there are current highway restrictions particularly with regard to Milburngate. A higher number of units on this site would need to be assessed in terms of trip generation. Crook Hall is a Grade I listed building. The proposed development would deliver the regeneration of the surrounding area as well as reinforcing the setting and retaining open space to the north of Crook Halls and Gardens as part of structural landscape framework to provide views for visitors over open grasslands. The site's proximity to the World Heritage Sites in the City Centre and its topography sloping upwards from the River Wear towards the railway line as part of the 'bowl' that curves around the northern edge of the City) mean that it forms part of the setting of the World Heritage Site. Development of this site needs to be dealt with sensitively to ensure that views to and from the World Heritage Site are not compromised and enhanced. Similarly the site also forms part of the City Centre Conservation Area and development must conserve and enhance its character and appearance. A Supplementary Planning Document is being prepared to help establish the design principles associated with this sensitive site. The first iteration of the Non Strategic Green Belt Modifications adopted a precautionary approach to this site. However following more detailed work by the site's promoter and views sought from our specialist services team it was felt that the wider regeneration benefits associated with this site presents exceptional circumstances for the site' Green Belt release which could be managed in a sensitive and environmentally acceptable manner. The second version of the Non Strategic Green Belt Modifications paper reflected this. Ponds within the Barkers Haugh Local Wildlife Sites (the area proposed as a nature reserve) have been surveyed over recent years and there appears to be no newts present. If Great Crested Newts are found then planning permission will not be granted until adequate protected species surveys have been carried out. Any planning permission granted will need to comply with all legislations protecting species including great crested newts. Biodiversity surveys and reports will also be need to accompany a planning application. A detailed assessment of available land (including brownfield land) more than 0.4ha (12 units) has been undertaken through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment which concluded there was insufficient land to meet Durham City's housing requirement. Policy 30 is clear that a range of benefits are associated with this allocation and will need to conform with if the development is to come forward. The proposal for a Community Asset Transfer is only applicable where the land is in public ownership. The Pre-Submission Draft consultation is the statutory consultation stage. The opportunity provided at this stage is sufficient to enable those representatives to have a right to appear and to be heard at the Examination in Public.

H6 - Former Stonebridge Dairy

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 11 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H6 - Former Stonebridge Dairy

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

It is considered that this site can deliver much needed new housing. This proposal takes full account of Central Government planning guidance. The Council should therefore consider the realignment of the existing Green Belt boundary so that the site lies outside the Green Belt and is available for development.

Response to main issues:

The Council is proposing an alteration to the Green Belt, to exclude proposed housing site H6 at Stonebridge Dairy. This is explained on page 89 of the Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan. The 'Non Strategic Green Belt Modification Evidence Paper' gives further details of the methodology used to arrive at this approach.

H7 - Framwellgate Fire and Rescue HQ

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

H8 - Merryoaks

Number of representations to this allocation. 12

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 10 not sound.

12 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H8 - Merryoaks

Summary of main issues raised:

Concerns that this site had not featured in previous iterations of the Plan and therefore opportunities for consultation was limited. The addition of Merryoaks as a housing allocation will not meet the economic objectives of the Plan and therefore there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the sites' Green Belt release. There should be a greater emphasis on brownfield land, redevelopment and regeneration. A concern that the traffic impact assessment submitted to demonstrate the site can be achieved was flawed and did not consider the culmulative impact of other developments such as Mount Oswald, Potters Bank and Redhill Lane. Previous iteration of the Green Belt Assessment Phase 2 (December 2010) suggested that there were negative residual impacts associated with the site together with the Western and Northern Relief Roads. Site should remain Green Belt and has only be designated for ten years. Unsuitable SHLAA site. Unacceptable traffic levels on the A167. There is a lack of community and recreational facilities within the locality and this coupled with the transport levels makes this site unsustainable.

Response to main issues:

Merryoaks was not included in the Preferred Options version of the County Durham Plan because there was a concern regarding its deliverability which has now been overcome. Our highway department are satisfied with the content of the traffic impact assessment. The economic circumstances when the Durham City Green Belt was designated were different to the pressures currently being faced. Merryoaks was considered within the Green Belt Assessments together with Mount Oswald. The progression of Mount Oswald through a planning application meant that Merryoaks was no longer of a scale considered to be a strategic site. However the areas proposed for release are those which have least environmental impact. A full assessment of brownfield sites within Durham City and the County has been undertaken and suitable, available sites have been allocated wherever possible. All sites within the Green Belt are deemed as unsuitable within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The SHLAA demonstrates that there are insuifficient suitable, achieveable sites to meet the housing requriement for Durham City. The site will be contributing towards the Western Relief Road to relieve congestion by creating an alternative route for traffic seeking to travel from the south west of Durham City to the north. The improvements will provide the highway capacity to enable the delivery of Merryoaks together with Sniperley Park and the North of Arnison. All sites will be expected to meet the requirements of Policy 20 which sets out the green infrastructure requirements for new sites.

H9 - Willowtree Avenue

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 13 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H9 - Willowtree Avenue

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Planning permission on the site has recently been refused. There is already problems with standing water in the area and new development would make it worse. There is also a restrictive covenant on the deeds to the land to prevent building homes.

Response to main issues:

The planning application for 54 dwellings was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer however was refused by Members on the grounds that it was contrary to existing Durham City policies. These policies will become obsolete if the new County Durham Plan is adopted. However this application was appealed in October and a decision is expected from the Inspector at the end of March. In the mean time the applicant has submitted a new outline planning application for 49 dwellings which will go to committee on 11th March 2014. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) will be incorporated to deal with surface water drainage as well as exploring opportunities to improve water quality. The existence of a restrictive covenant (limiting use of the land for agricultural purposes) has been brought to the Council’s attention. This has been verified, and we therefore acknowledge than an agreement (most likely financial) between all parties would need to be reached to have the covenant discharged. We acknowledge that this will influence timescales for delivery and viability of the site.

H10 - East of Brandon Football Club

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

14 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H11 - Bogma Hall Farm

Number of representations to this allocation. 5

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 4 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The identification of the site in the early phase of the Plan is welcomed.

It is considered that there are no barriers to development or delivery.

It is argued that the site is not consistent with the NPPF.

It is considered that previous representations have not been addressed.

It is considered that demand for further housing growth in Coxhoe has not been evidenced.

Concern is raised about the cumulative impact that the development of the site would have on the village in terms of impact upon local infrastructure including educational, public transport and medical facilities.

Concern is raised about the proposed access arrangements to the site and existing excessive traffic volume and speeding will be exacerbated will impact upon highway safety.

It is considered that the development of the site would have an adverse impact upon village character and landscape.

It is argued that the development of the site will have an adverse impact upon archaeology within the site.

The development will negatively impact upon the biodiversity value of the site.

Concerns are raised about flooding and hydrology in relation to the site.

Response to main issues:

Support for the site is accepted and agreed. In view of is location and physical attributes the site is considered to have the potential to deliver sustainable development in conformity with the NPPF. The cumulative impact of the development of the site on local services and facilities has been assessed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and can be mitigated at planning application stage. The developer will be required through any subsequent planning application to address any deficiencies identified at the time of determination in accordance with Policy 5 (Developer Contributions) and Policy 20 (Green Infrastructure).

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 15 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H11 - Bogma Hall Farm

The scale of growth across the County is fully evidenced and the distribution of development accords with the Spatial Strategy of the plan which reflects a range of matters including previous consultation findings, the availability of suitable, deliverable land, market factors and infrastructure requirements. A detailed transport assessment will be required to support any forthcoming planning application for the site. As part of the site suitability assessment conducted as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) the Highway team confirmed that suitable access arrangements could be achieved and no unacceptable cumulative impact upon the road network was anticipated. The impacts of the development of this site upon a wide range of matters including archaeology, biodiversity, flood risk, the character of the village and the wider landscape have been fully assessed through the SHLAA process and are considered to be acceptable in principle. Where mitigation is required this is identified in the SHLAA and would need to be adequately addressed by the developer at detailed planning application stage to accord with the Plan. The suitability of this site has been reviewed as part of the annual review of the SHLAA and in the knowledge of the objections previously raised.

H12 - West of Grange Farm, Coxhoe

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

H13 - East of Mill Lane, Sherburn

Number of representations to this allocation. 88

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 86 not sound.

16 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H13 - East of Mill Lane, Sherburn

Summary of main issues raised:

Development of this site would put pressure on the existing highway network. This relates particularly to the B1283 which runs through the village, already considered to be a very busy road. There are concerns over the potential access point to the site from a safety perspective, particularly in relation to the 'blind' bend where it is proposed. The site boundaries are within close proximity of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Local Nature Reserve (LNR), there are concerns over the detrimental impact that any development may have on the SSSI/LNR/ecology interests. The site boundaries are within close proximity of the Conservation Area, there are concerns over the detrimental impact that any development may have on heritage assets. Development would see the loss of a greenfield site. Queries as to why brownfield sites in the village have not been considered. Development of this site would increase the pressure on the local infrastructure, notably sewage capacity, schools and the doctors surgery. Development would have a negative impact on the landscape character and open countryside. Development would impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. There are flooding concerns associated with the development of the site, it is suggested that the site floods at certain points in the year. Further to this there are concerns that standing water may pollute Sherburn Beck. There are concerns over the procedure and how the site allocation has been included within the Plan at this 'late' stage of the process. The site was not included within the previous Preferred Options draft of the plan. The site was considered previously by the former Durham City Council and was not considered suitable for housing, queries as to the site why the site is now considered acceptable. Queries over the need for housing, given approval of housing elsewhere and other allocations within the proximity. Queries as to why the number of empty homes in the village cannot meet the housing need in the village. Concern over the lack of amenities to support the new development.

Response to main issues:

While housing development on the site would increase traffic levels, it is not considered that the level of trips generated from the proposed housing would have a severe impact on the highway capacity of the B1283. The site will be subject to a full Transport Assessment at the planning applications stage. The Highways Authority have considered that the site could be made accessible from Mill Lane subject to visibility and footway improvements. The sites proximity to the SSSI is acknowledged and therefore appropriate mitigation will need to be identified when a detailed scheme is drawn up. Subject to mitigation, development is unlikely to have an adverse impact on ecology. While the site lies adjacent to the Conservation Area, it is not considered that the development of the site would have a detrimental impact upon it, although any detailed scheme would need to be sympathetic to its proximity to it. The site selection process identified four potential sites for allocation in Sherburn, these were from the SHLAA database. One of these was a brownfield site north of the industrial estate, however various reasons including its proximity to industrial uses meant the site was considered unsuitable for housing development. The other sites considered were greenfield, these were

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 17 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H13 - East of Mill Lane, Sherburn

deemed unsuitable on highways and landscape grounds. This left the site East of Mill Lane as the most suitable site. There are limited brownfield opportunities able to deliver the housing need within the village. The cumulative impact of the development of the site on local services and facilities has been assessed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and can be mitigated at planning application stage. The developer will be required through any subsequent planning application to address any deficiencies identified at the time of determination in accordance with Policy 5 (Developer Contributions) and Policy 20 (Green Infrastructure). Development of the site may incur some adverse residual impact but it is also considered to be a logical consolidation of the built up area. Development of the site would be relatively easy to screen with a structural landscape belt on the outer perimeter limiting the landscape impacts. It is considered that a scheme could be designed on the site that would not significantly impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. The site is not situated within the Environment Agency (EA) floodzones and the EA have not objected to the site allocation. Small areas of the site are subject to surface water flooding, however with appropriate mitigation, the site is considered developable for housing. Appropriate mitigation should also alleviate any concerns over pollution of the beck. Development of the site at the planning application stage will need to accord with relevant policies in the Plan, in relation to incorporating a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) to manage surface water drainage. The site was not identified previously, following further detailed consideration of the site it was put forward within the Pre-Submission draft of the County Durham Plan. Its inclusion was a result of the overall requirement for housing increasing following the release of updated population projections figures. This along with the loss of some sites after the Preferred Options, meant that further allocations were required. This Pre-Submission draft was subject to consultation for 8 weeks from October 2013 to December 2013. During this time period there were 2 consultation events held within the village that allowed opportunities for residents to view the plans for Sherburn and discuss any concerns with Council officers. Further to this the Plan was available to view in local libraries, Council offices and also on the Council website. Finally, the Pre-Submission Draft consultation is the statutory consultation stage. The opportunity provided at this stage is sufficient to enable those representatives to have a right to appear and to be heard at the Examination in Public. The site was previously considered by the former Durham City Council, this identified that the site was developable, but with mitigation, at that time other sites were therefore preferred. Since that time many of the sites previously identified by the City Council are no longer available with many being developed out. The site is therefore now considered necessary for allocation. The County Durham Plan has identified a need for 31,400 houses, this number includes existing sites with permission for housing. Sherburn has been identified as a suitable settlement for growth and therefore a site has been allocated in the village to meet housing need. The site allocation would account for just 0.3% of the total housing growth in County Durham. While there are vacant properties within Sherburn, a certain percentage of empty homes is always needed to allow for churn in the housing market which would otherwise be blocked by no movement possible. The most recent data shows that the numbers of empty properties in Sherburn is low with only 9 properties vacant for longer than 6 months. Sherburn village has been identified as a tier 2 settlement in the plan. These are small towns and larger villages with a good range of services and facilities, Sherburn village is therefore considered to have sufficient amenities and services to support moderate housing growth within the village.

18 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H14 - North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor

Number of representations to this allocation. 2

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The developers support the proposed allocation. However they dispute the timeframe which has been applied to this site and wish to see the site developed sooner than 2021. The site has the ability to accommodate 165 dwellings rather than 120 as proposed by Policy 30. A woodland buffer for the site could be accommodated outside of the identified allocation. A shortfall of sites within Ushaw Moor to meet the 220 units identified for the settlement. A detailed Flood Risk Assessment and an assessment of highway safety onto Whitehouse Lane as part of any planning application should be required.

Response to main issues:

Traffic resulting from the site at Ladysmith Terrace has the potential to have an unacceptable impact on the Stonebridge roundabout and the junctions with the A167 at Nevilles Cross and Toll House Road. The phasing for this site has been introduced to take account of the operational timescales for the Western Relief Road. An estimate of the number of dwellings to be delivered on each site was determined by adopting an average density and developable area. The yields quoted are indicative only and will not be used as a reason for refusing planning permission. It is agreed that the most appropriate visual and landscape solution would be for the woodland buffer to be accommodate beyond the site's allocation. The number of units for Ushaw Moor is made up of the proposed housing allocation and sites already with planning permission. This is set out in Policy 4 of the Plan. This site is greater than 1ha and therefore a flood risk assessment would be applicable at the planning application stage. In addition, a transport assessment and travel plan will be expected.

H15 - North of Cook Avenue, Bearpark

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 19 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H15 - North of Cook Avenue, Bearpark

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

H16 - Greenwood Avenue, Burnhope

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

HE1 - Lambton Park

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to the representations relating to Policy 12 Executive Housing Allocation and the relevant SPD.

The proposed development of the site is supported. The site is considered to be deliverable.

20 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

HE1 - Lambton Park

Response to main issues:

The support and confirmation of deliverability is accepted.

H17 - BOC Site

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

No opposition to this proposal as it identified a brownfield site. A preference that amenities are incorporated as part of the redevelopment to meeting the needs of the residents of North Lodge as at present there is nowhere for residents to meet. Access should only be from Vigo Lane and not North Road.

Response to main issues:

Comments noted. An application for the site has not yet been submitted, however there will be a further opportunity to comment on the proposals at the application stage. Initial discussions with the Highways Authority, during the site assessment phase, indicated that access would be from Vigo Lane not North Road.

H18 - Civic Centre, Chester-le-Street

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

No objection to the redevelopment of the site. Would prefer to see housing targeted at the elderly and infirm as its close proximity to the Town Centre is advantageous.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 21 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H18 - Civic Centre, Chester-le-Street

Response to main issues:

Comments noted. An application has not yet been submitted for the site however there will be a further opportunity to comment at the application stage.

H19 - South of Drum, Chester-le-Street

Number of representations to this allocation. 7

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 5 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Concern that brownfield sites have note been considered first before developing on greenfield/green belt sites. Suggestion that the area around Stella Gill industrial estate would be a better location for this development. The Green Belt should remain in place. Concern that there are already empty offices and industrial units available within the area. Concern that the development will lead to congestion at the Northlands roundabout and along Blind Lane.

Response to main issues:

A full assessment of brownfield sites within Chester-le-Street and the County has been undertaken and suitable, available sites have been allocated wherever possible. It is noted that a brownfield site has been allocated within Chester-le-Street. There is not however the level of brownfield land within the town to accommodate the housing need identified within the Plan. The site at Stella Gill was assessed however this assessment identified concerns over achieving a suitable access onto the site. Assessments have identified that that there are insufficient suitable, achievable housing sites to meet the housing requirement for Chester-le-Street. This site in the Green Belt has therefore been considered as suitable for development. An exceptional case has been made for the site's release from the Green Belt that highlights the limited role of the Green Belt within this area of the County. The employment site will come forward alongside a housing site, it is highlighted that land to the south of Drum has the potential to offer the town a sustainable urban extension whilst helping to stimulate the necessary infrastructure required to incentivise employment in this location. The site is considered deliverable with the potential to provide exceptional benefits to the area.

22 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H19 - South of Drum, Chester-le-Street

The site has been identified as a potential employment site due to high take of employment land at Drum Industrial Estate. Drum has proved to be a popular location for business and this site has therefore been identified for industrial/business growth. There are highway improvement proposed and agreed that will create capacity at Northlands roundabout and there is also funding for major improvements to junction 63 of the A1(M).

H20 - North of Hermitage Comprehensive, Chester-le-Street

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

H21 - Blackfyne Sports College, Consett

Number of representations to this allocation. 5

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 5 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Site should be deleted or reduced in favour of an increase of the site at South Knitsley Lane (H28). Development should be limited to the footprint of the school buildings and yard. The site is in close proximity to a golf course. There are traffic access issues. There will be a loss of a playing field.

Response to main issues:

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 23 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H21 - Blackfyne Sports College, Consett

The site is one of a number of sites around Consett giving a range of locations for housing and realising the numbers of dwellings needed. It is also brownfield with former school buildings. The amendments to the South Knitsley allocation are covered under that section (i.e. the site has been redrawn to take into account the update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, whereby all sites were re-assessed and the southern part of this site was deemed unsuitable for housing). The scale and quantum of development identified for this site are considered appropriate given its sustainable location and within the context of the level of growth identified for Consett. A key stimulus for identifying housing sites is ensuring they are well located in relation to the form and layout of the settlement which means ensuring optimum access to services and facilities while minimising adverse impacts that can result from development. The allocations identified in the County Durham Plan are considered to be the optimum sites for delivering the housing growth identified by the Plan. The indicative figures for the site consider lower average dwelling numbers to be appropriate and this and other features such as access can be considered at a design stage. Development of the site will give the opportunity for improvements to the playing fields immediately to the west. The Play Pitch Action Plan will consider whether a new playing field is required or whether the new Academy will provide an equivalent area.

H22 - Castleside Reservoir

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Good accessibility to local shops and services Site is available and suitable and should be developed in short term not medium term Object to overall allocation in Consett on the basis that South Knitsley (H28) has been reduced in size without explanation. Castleside is too crowded Drainage infrastructure will not cope Highway access via Drover Road is too dangerous.

Response to main issues:

The sustainability of the location is acknowledged.

24 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H22 - Castleside Reservoir

considered appropriate given its sustainable location and within the context of the level of growth identified for Consett. A key stimulus for identifying housing sites is ensuring they are well located in relation to the form and layout of the settlement which means ensuring optimum access to services and facilities while minimising adverse impacts that can result from development. The allocations identified in the County Durham Plan are considered to be the optimum sites for delivering the housing growth identified by the Plan.

The phasing of sites within the Plan (short, medium or long term) is indicative and is merely intended as a guide to when it is envisaged that the sites will come forward, based upon an assessment of the market; infrastructure constraints; any issues which may affect viability; and other relevant issues. It is not intended to be a definitive and inflexible rule as to when sites will be developed. There is no reason why a site which is phased as later in the Plan period could not be developed earlier if it becomes clear that the site can be viably developed sooner and any constraints overcome.

The sites in the area have been assessed as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment update and the allocations in the Plan are considered to be the most suitable to meet the Distribution of Development (Policy 4) housing requirement.

The site has scope to deliver sustainable development and is considered to have a reasonable prospect of being delivered within the Plan period without saturating the local housing market. As set out in the Plan, to support the population, migration and job growth set out in the chosen scenario and promote sustainable living we need to provide sufficient housing to accommodate future households, including those than move into the County. Using the mid-range projections to calculate objectively assessed need and with the allowance for economic growth the requirement is 31,400 new homes by 2030. The number of units proposed on each site are, in most cases, an indicative figure that will meet the housing requirement as set out in the Plan. It is accepted that the 31,400 is a minimum requirement. Exact numbers will be considered as part of a planning application. There will be some sites which will not support a higher number due to factors such as the site layout or surrounding densities.

The Highway Authority raises no objection to principle of housing with access to be at northern end of site.

H23 - Adjoining Former English Martyrs School

Number of representations to this allocation. 2

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 25 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H23 - Adjoining Former English Martyrs School

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The policy requirements set out at H23 appear reasonable and deliverable. The site represents a suitable and sustainable location for housing development, providing a range of high quality modern homes to meet the identified housing needs of the area, including the provision of family homes and affordable housing. The site is adjacent to the recently planted Woodland Trust community woodland scheme to the east which would provide residents of the site the benefit of recreation opportunities and open space provision. Past delivery in the area has been strong and it is a proven market location for new housing development. Accordingly, assuming planning permission is granted, delivery of housing at the site is achievable in the next five years, with some housing likely to be delivered in years 6 to 10, following a phased approach. The requirement for structural planting will ensure a high quality green living environment. The allocation at this site has been increased over what was set down in the Preferred Options Draft - this appears to have been done at the expense the scale of the allocation at South Knitsley. The allocations H21, H22, H23, H24, H25, H26, H27, H29 and H30 should all be omitted or reduced so that the South Knitsley area can be properly and comprehensively developed.

Response to main issues:

Support noted. The site is well located in relation to existing services and facilities however improvements will be required across the site and in relation to links to ensure optimum accessibility for residents. All sites will be expected to meet the requirements of Policy 20 which sets out the green infrastructure requirements for new sites. The phasing of the site will need to take into account the requirements of the County Durham Plan and the physical constraints of the site. The proximity of the adjacent bypass means appropriate levels of structural planting will be required on this site. The boundary of this site has been redrawn to include the area of land to the east of the public byway as it was considered that this area could be incorporated into the scheme in a sustainable manner. The amendments to the South Knitsley allocation are covered under that section (i.e. the site has been redrawn to take into account the update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, whereby all sites were re-assessed and the southern part of this site was deemed unsuitable for housing). The scale and quantum of development identified for this site are considered appropriate given its sustainable location and within the context of the level of growth identified for Consett. A key stimulus for identifying housing sites is ensuring they are well located in relation to the form and layout of the settlement which means ensuring optimum access to services and facilities while minimising adverse impacts that can result from development. The allocations identified in the County Durham Plan are considered to be the optimum sites for delivering the housing growth identified by the Plan.

26 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H24 - Genesis Site

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised: Support for this allocation site by the applicant. Development of this site will adversely affect values of existing properties adjacent to the site - please confirm how these residents will be compensated for their loss? Reduce the scale of the proposal. The number of empty houses in Consett and existing roads (won't be adequate) means that new housing isn't needed.

Was told the cycle route along Abbots Way would never move but now being told it will.

Have heard a small shop is going to be incorporated into Genesis site which is not required given the proximity of the Tesco supermarket. Development of Genesis site will result in the loss of a large area of green space used by people out walking. The allocation at this site has been increased over what was set down in the Preferred Options Draft - this appears to have been done at the expense the scale of the allocation at South Knitsley. The allocations H21, H22, H23, H24, H25, H26, H27, H29 and H30 should all be omitted or reduced so that the South Knitsley area can be properly and comprehensively developed.

Response to main issues:

Support noted. Financial impacts on existing property, that may result from new development, cannot be regarded as a material consideration in the planning balance. The scale and quantum of development are considered appropriate for the site given its sustainable location and level of growth identified for Consett, which is regarded as a sustainable main town and a strong housing market area where new development will be viable and deliverable. Empty properties are being addressed by Council and are taken into account in terms of calculating the overall housing requirement for the County. The Council aim to encourage sustainable economic and housing growth within the County in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. The highway infrastructure in Consett is considered adequate to meet the needs of the development identified for the settlement however should any capacity issues emerge they will be considered as new development is progressed through the planning system (i.e. planning gain monies could be utilised for improvements to highway infrastructure). The Genesis scheme will likely include upgrades to the adjacent cycle infrastructure related to the Sustrans C-2-C route however this will be in full consultation with local residents and the infrastructure provider.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 27 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H24 - Genesis Site

The scheme will likely include some commercial units which would be available for use as shops, clinics, etc. to improve accessibility to services in accordance with national planning policy guidance - this would complement the adjacent large retail facility. The area has been identified as a development site for more than fifteen years - the new scheme will need to provide open space, which in addition to the existing supply in the vicinity of the site will ensure adequate levels of provision to good quality open space for a range of leisure and recreation activities. The amendments to the South Knitsley allocation are covered under that section (i.e. the site has been redrawn to take into account the update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, whereby all sites were re-assessed and the southern part of this site was deemed unsuitable for housing). The scale and quantum of development identified for this site are considered appropriate given its sustainable location and within the context of the level of growth identified for Consett. A key stimulus for identifying housing sites is ensuring they are well located in relation to the form and layout of the settlement which means ensuring optimum access to services and facilities while minimising adverse impacts that can result from development. The allocations identified in the County Durham Plan are considered to be the optimum sites for delivering the housing growth identified by the Plan.

H25 - Moorside Comprehensive School

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Site should be deleted or reduced in favour of an increase of the site at South Knitsley Lane

Response to main issues:

28 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H26 - Muirfield Close

Number of representations to this allocation. 19

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 19 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Site should be deleted or reduced in favour of an increase of the site at South Knitsley Lane. The area of the site is subject to flooding. There are access issues. Impact on wildlife and greenspace. Loss of views.

Response to main issues:

The amendments to the South Knitsley allocation are covered under that section (i.e. the site has been redrawn to take into account the update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, whereby all sites were re-assessed and the southern part of this site was deemed unsuitable for housing). The scale and quantum of development identified for this site are considered appropriate given its sustainable location and within the context of the level of growth identified for Consett. A key stimulus for identifying housing sites is ensuring they are well located in relation to the form and layout of the settlement which means ensuring optimum access to services and facilities while minimising adverse impacts that can result from development. The allocations identified in the County Durham Plan are considered to be the optimum sites for delivering the housing growth identified by the Plan. The impacts of the development of this site upon a wide range of matters including access, biodiversity, flood risk, and the wider landscape have been fully assessed through the SHLAA process and are considered to be acceptable in principle. Where mitigation is required this is identified in the SHLAA. The suitability of this site has been reviewed as part of the annual review of the SHLAA and in the knowledge of the objections previously raised. Material planning considerations will be taken into account when considering any application

H27 - Rosedale Avenue

H26 - Rosedale Avenue

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 29 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H26 - Rosedale Avenue

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Site should be deleted or reduced in favour of an increase of the site at South Knitsley Lane

Response to main issues:

H28 - South Knitsley Lane

Number of representations to this allocation. 3

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Both the developer and the landowner support the allocation of the site but object to the current site boundary and total site area which would not support the suggested number of units. The County's overall housing requirement is too low and should be more aligned with the 2008 CLG projections. Landowner objects to unexplained alterations in Consett - requests full allocation as originally proposed be set out, so request that H21, H22, H23, H24, H25, H26, H27, H29 and H30 all be omitted or reduced so that the Knitsley area can be properly and comprehensively developed.

Response to main issues:

The boundary of the site is consistent with the update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All sites were re-assessed and 1/CO/44 (the Southern part of the proposed allocation in the Preferred Options) was deemed as unsuitable for housing. The boundary of the site has been amended accordingly.

30 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H28 - South Knitsley Lane

H29 - Oxhill Farm

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Landowner to South Knitsley lane objects to unexplained alterations in Consett - requests full allocation as originally proposed be set out, so request that H21, H22, H23, H24, H25, H26, H27, H29 and H30 all be omitted or reduced so that the Knitsley area can be properly and comprehensively developed.

Response to main issues:

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 31 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H29 - Oxhill Farm

H30 - Stanley School of Technology

Number of representations to this allocation. 2

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

H30 should be omitted or reduced so that the Knitsley area (H28) can be properly and comprehensively developed. Sport England object as the land in question is, or includes, in whole, part, land that is used or was last used as playing field, and its loss has not been specifically justified by the County Playing Pitch Strategy or the respective Playing Pitch Action Plan for that area.

Response to main issues:

The amendments to the South Knitsley allocation are covered under that section (i.e. the site has been redrawn to take into account the update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, whereby all sites were re-assessed and the southern part of this site was deemed unsuitable for housing). The scale and quantum of development identified for this site are considered appropriate given its sustainable location and within the context of the level of growth identified for Consett. A key stimulus for identifying housing sites is ensuring they are well located in relation to the form and layout of the settlement which means ensuring optimum access to services and facilities while minimising adverse impacts that can result from development. The allocations identified in the County Durham Plan are considered to be the optimum sites for delivering the housing growth identified by the Plan. The site is considered suitable for housing development, being a well-located previously developed site and considered deliverable. Development on this site will need to be justified in accordance with the Stanley Playing Pitch Action Plan where surplus pitches are identified. Areas of the site which are currently hardstanding will be brought back into use to mitigate the loss of existing pitches.

32 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H31 - Rear of Elm Avenue

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Support allocation H31, namely 200 dwellings on Rear of Elm Avenue, Pelton. Object to the site being phased to deliver in the medium term. Should be phased for short term. Criterion b should be deleted as a five year supply should not prevent granting of permissions as this would be outwith Policy 1 and NPPF paragraph 49. Also the criterion needs to confirm whether the assessment would be on a County Wide or Delivery Area basis.

Response to main issues:

Housing applications will be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment report sets out the current position in terms of a five year land supply which is assessed at a County level.

H32 - Lingey House Farm North

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The number of dwellings proposed is too low and should be increased. The site should be phased earlier in the Plan period than long term.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 33 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H32 - Lingey House Farm North

Response to main issues:

The number of units proposed on each site are, in most cases, an indicative figure that will meet the housing requirement as set out in the Plan. It is accepted that the 31,400 is a minimum requirement. Exact numbers will be considered as part of a planning application. There will be some sites which will not support a higher number due to factors such as the site layout or surrounding densities.

H33 - West House Farm

Number of representations to this allocation. 12

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 11 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The site has doubled in size with the numbers increased from 174 to 370. Issue about the capacity of local services and facilities. Access issues particularly onto Cross Lane. Impact on wildlife.

Response to main issues:

Consideration has been given to the availability of suitable sites in the north delivery area and the capacity and sustainability of H33. The site has scope to deliver sustainable development and is considered to have a reasonable prospect of being delivered within the Plan period without saturating the local housing market. As set out in the Plan, to support the population, migration and job growth set out in the chosen scenario and promote sustainable living we need to provide sufficient housing to accommodate future households, including those than move into the County. Using the mid-range projections to calculate objectively assessed need and with the allowance for economic growth the requirement is 31,400 new homes by 2030. The number of units proposed on each site are, in most cases, an indicative figure that will meet the housing requirement as set out in the Plan. It is accepted that the 31,400 is a minimum requirement. Exact numbers will be considered as part of a planning application. There will be some sites which will not support a higher number due to factors such as the site layout or surrounding densities.

34 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H33 - West House Farm

H34 - East of Dene Crescent

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H35 - Syke Road

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 35 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H35 - Syke Road

The loss of such a large area of open space is [un]acceptable - the land is well used by locals and walkers and has many paths across it - unsure as to whether these are informal or whether they constitute formal rights of way. Alongside the previous loss of the Lambton Gardens site these are two of the largest open spaces that are publicly accessible. Existing residents needs and the level of amenity they have been used to should be considered.

More clarity on what is required by structural planting.

The pleasant character of the locality and approach into Burnopfield down Syke Road will be spoiled by the development.

Due to the topography of the site the privacy and views from existing properties on Friar's Row and Thornhill Gardens will be significantly impacted.

Massive amounts of earth, flood and structural works would be required and this would be likely to make the scheme economically unviable, especially considering the need for 'structural planting' to be incorporated and rights of way and areas of open space retained or new ones created.

Concerns regarding flooding and drainage, both to any properties that would be built here and also to other properties, due to the increased run-off from built structures and hard surfaces.

Concerns regarding the ability to create a suitable access for the site.

Unsuitable access through the existing estate - there would be a large number of cars associated with this scheme and the existing estate roads on Lintz would not be suitable for this as they are too narrow and there isn't enough off-street parking. The road on Friar's Row is especially narrow and one car can barely get down this when cars are parked.

Response to main issues:

The site is not regarded as a formal open space however development of the site will be required to take into account the existing pathways/desire lines and incorporate these within the layout wherever feasible. A PRoW runs along the souther edge of the site which would unlikely to be affected by the scheme (mitigation would be required in the event that there are any impacts upon this route). The Councils Open Space Needs Assessment identifies a shortfall of certain types of open space (for example allotments, parks and gardens) within the ward area and planning contributions associated with development of the site could be used to address these shortfalls. The southern boundary of the site is quite open - planting of trees/hedges etc will help to 'soften' the visual impact of the edge of the settlement which will improve the views and approach into the settlement. Structural planting refers to this type of planting which helps to create a defined edge to new developments. The current edge of the settlement in this location is quite hard and the development offers the opportunity to create a softer, landscaped edge which will help to integrate the scheme into the settlement and the wider landscape. Privacy distances will be preserved in accordance with the Council's standards for ensuring adequate distances between buildings. The right to a view is not a material planning consideration.

36 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H35 - Syke Road

The developer has made representations to state that the site is viable taking into account the earthworks and other infrastructure works required for the site. Given the moderate housing market in the settlement and the likely scale of development the Council has no reason to dispute this assertion. Sustainable Drainage Systems will be incorporated as necessary to deal with surface water drainage in accordance with Policy 46. Highways are confident that there is a suitable access available for this site. Lintz Road provides sufficient capacity to provide access to the site - as part of the planning process there will be opportunities to explore improvements to the access should there be a requirement.

H36 - Bone Lane

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 4 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Object to the whole estate being built on a green field. The scheme will impact upon the lovely open aspect of the residential cul-de-sac.

3 storey houses are not in keeping with the area which consists of bungalows and colliery type terraced housing along with Coal Board semi-detached properties typical to the area and in keeping with our local history.

Scheme will result in extra traffic on the existing quiet streets creating noise, air and light pollution to the detriment to the area - Plunkett/Palmer Roads should not be used for access. The scheme will be an enormous hindrance to existing occupants adjacent to the site trying to reverse out of their drives. A further 50+ houses will mean an on-going potential 100 + additional cars using the roadway on a daily basis, not to mention deliveries to those houses. Safety concerns.

Likewise the very heavy and dirty traffic during the construction phase would be unacceptable.

Query why St Patricks school are being given 300 thousand for funding for another classroom - what has Dipton Colliery School been offered?

More houses are not needed in this village as there have been numerous houses for sale, for some time, which have not sold.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 37 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H36 - Bone Lane

The site is a nature reserve, with rare crested newts having recently been found there.

The village does not have the infrastructure to cope with additional residents - schools, shopping facilities, health care facilities etc.

Response to main issues:

The Council is minded to approve a residential scheme for this site, subject to the signing of a s.106 agreement. It is well located within the settlement and is close to a range of local services and facilities. The greenfield status of the site was weighed in the planning balance and the opportunity to provide new housing in a sustainable location was deemed to provide overriding benefits. The scheme will incorporate an upgraded area of open space within the layout which will benefit local residents. The right to a view is not protected within planning law. The scheme incorporates a mix of house types and sizes in accordance with housing needs and demand. The design of the scheme has been deemed to be acceptable by the Council. The highways standards and impacts relating to the site have been fully considered during the planning process and are deemed to be acceptable. The highways standards and impacts relating to the site have been fully considered during the planning process and are deemed to be acceptable. Conditions have been attached to the Planning Permission to ensure that the impacts of the construction traffic are mitigated. Discussions between the Council and the developer pre-submission, and the Statutory consultation exercise carried out by the Council as part of the planning application for the site, identified a concern as to the capacity of local schools in relation to the potential number of additional children of school age generated by the scheme. The County Education Department was asked to identify where this need could best be met, and identified and costed the proposed additional classroom at St. Joseph’s School. The monies were secured and targeted on the basis of this advice.

Empty properties are being addressed by Council and are taken into account in terms of calculating the overall housing requirement for the County. The Council aim to encourage sustainable economic and housing growth within the County in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. The ecological impacts of the scheme have been assessed and appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated into the development. The scheme will ensure that there is additional support for existing local services in the settlement which help to ensure their viability. The impacts of the scheme have been assessed through the planning process and appropriate contributions have been agreed through planning conditions (i.e. financial contributions for open space improvements and additional school places).

H37 - West of Woodstone Village

Number of representations to this allocation. 12

38 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H37 - West of Woodstone Village

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 10 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Concurs with the inclusion of the site but disagrees with the phasing as a 'long term' site and suggests that it is deliverable in the 'short term'. Object to the loss of green open amenity space including a woodland walk. Concerns over surface water drainage capabilities, currently an issue.

Response to main issues:

H38 - Scott Court

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 39 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H39 - Brooms Public House

Number of representations to this allocation. 7

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 6 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Established open space used by local community (children, dog walkers, fetes etc.) and wildlife. Flood risk. Blight quality of life in relation to openness, light, privacy and the value of homes. No requirement or demand for new housing and social housing will lower values. Highway infrastructure cannot cope, lack of parking. Doctors/ dentists and other infrastructure full to capacity. Education provision will not cope with extra children. Phasing should only be indicative as site is deliverable within five years.

Response to main issues:

While development would result in a loss of play space the existing facilities are poor quality and development would allow re-provision in the vicinity to a higher standard, to mitigate for the loss. The determination of any future planning applications will assess any flood risk mitigation measures including Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. The determination of any future planning applications will assess issues relating to amenity of existing and future residents. The value of dwellings is not a material planning consideration. The site has scope to deliver sustainable development and is considered to have a reasonable prospect of being delivered within the Plan period without saturating the local housing market. As set out in the Plan, to support the population, migration and job growth set out in the chosen scenario and promote sustainable living we need to provide sufficient housing to accommodate future households, including those than move into the County. Using the mid-range projections to calculate objectively assessed need and with the allowance for economic growth the requirement is 31,400 new homes by 2030. The number of units proposed on each site are, in most cases, an indicative figure that will meet the housing requirement as set out in the Plan. It is accepted that the 31,400 is a minimum requirement. Exact numbers will be considered as part of a planning application. There will be some sites which will not support a higher number due to factors such as the site layout or surrounding densities. The Highways Authority have confirmed that the surrounding road network can accommodate the scale of development proposed for this site. Local medical / GP facilities provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by NHS Property Services Ltd, where supply and demand issues have been identified as a result of new development the Council will work with developers and partners to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan).

40 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H39 - Brooms Public House

Education provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by the Pupil Place Planning Team of Durham County Council, where supply and demand issues have been identified as a result of new development the Council will work with developers to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan).

H40 - Woodhouses Farm

Number of representations to this allocation. 2

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to representations made against Policy 11: Other Strategic Housing Sites and the relevant SPD. The site size area for Woodhouses Farm in Table 12 is incorrect and needs to be amended to 26.8 hectares. Development should be restricted to brown field sites before green belt is taken. Site located to south of Greenfield road should be built on before green belt is taken. This could quite easily be extended as the industrial activity is now reduced and could be relocated to other industrial sites in the area which are not utilised. The document puts the onus of highway assessment onto the proposed developer this is unreasonable as the traffic flow on Rockingham Drive, Greenfield Road and the road passing Wigden Walls farm is now approaching dangerously high levels, at specific times of the day. The water levels on the proposed site south of Coal House Burn are approaching saturation and the development should take extra care in the provision of carefully designed watercourse management.

Response to main issues:

Table 12 has been amended with accurate site area. Previously-developed sites within Bishop Auckland which are considered to be deliverable (suitable and viable) have also been allocated, and in some instances also have a current permission.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 41 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H40 - Woodhouses Farm

Site is greenfield rather than green belt land. The Highway Authority have confirmed that the road network can accommodate development subject to off-site improvements and creation of two access points (Etherley Moor Rd and Greenfields Road). Site layout and/or incorporation of a Sustainable Drainage System will deal with surface water drainage/run off.

H41 - Canney Hill

Number of representations to this allocation. 3

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Support the inclusion of the site, but objection to the proposed site boundary and request that the site encompasses the site to the north to provide a more logical rounding off of the site as was proposed previously at the 'Preferred Options Stage'. Environmentally sensitive design is essential.

Response to main issues:

Site boundary was amended to reflect detailed planning application for 39 dwellings (3/2013/0140) which had been submitted for consideration. Additionally land would be assessed against Policy 15 (Development on Unallocated Sites) and Policy 35 (Development in the Countryside). Development will need to adhere to Sustainable Design Principles (Policy 16) and local amenity (Policy 18).

H42 - East of Bracks Way

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

42 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H42 - East of Bracks Way

The phasing should be earlier than set out in the Plan - currently Long. The site could form part of a larger strategic site to the east of Bishop Auckland

Response to main issues:

Some of the parts of the proposed development to the east of Bishop Auckland have planning permission. However development on site to the east (3/DV/16) would have significant landscape impact. There are highways access issues and the site is considered to have a poor relationship with the overall settlement.

H43 - Former Chamberlain Phipps

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H44 - Rear of High West Road

Number of representations to this allocation. 17

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 43 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H44 - Rear of High West Road

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 17 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to the representations relating to Policy 11 (Other Strategic Sites) and the relevant SPD. It is argued that the status of Crook as a Main Town is not credible. The scheme will promote unsustainable travel patterns given the absence of employment and retailing facilities in the town and location in relation to other settlements. The housing market in Crook is depressed with many vacant houses and therefore the site is not required and creates the prospect of further housing development standing empty. The site will increase traffic on the A689/ A690 and access is proposed at an accident and speeding black spot. It will exacerbate existing problems. The amenity of those who currently use the public rights of way network will be negatively impacted upon given the loss of the rural outlook. The site will be a separate entity from the town. The development of the site will place local services such as sewerage, education and health under strain to the detriment of existing residents of Crook. Concerns are raised regarding the ability of the Council to secure mitigation from the developer and the feasibility of securing mitigation given the site is phased in the short term. The area already suffers from surface water flooding and this has not been taken into account when selecting this site. Development of the site will exacerbate the existing situation. The development of this greenfield site will have a negative impact upon biodiversity. The loss of the open approach into the town will have a negative landscape impact. Other suitable alternative sites exist within Crook which would accord with NPPF. These have not been adequately considered. The development of the site will devalue existing property prices and will give rise to loss of amenity, view and privacy of existing residents. There has been a lack of consultation on the proposal.

Response to main issues:

The Spatial Strategy directs the majority of housing growth to the most sustainable locations across the County i.e. the Main Towns and Smaller Villages & Larger Towns. Crook is considered capable of sustaining the level of housing growth planned over the lifetime of the Plan. In turn such growth will help sustain and grow local services and facilities. Such benefits are apparent in other parts of the County which have experienced past housing growth (for example the regeneration of Consett town centre). The plan is long term, reflecting the government's growth housing agenda to meet the needs of the population up to 2030. A key objective of the Plan is to improve the County's economy. The scale of growth across the County is fully evidenced, is considered to be proportionate to the level of economic growth the plan seeks and the distribution of development accords with the Spatial Strategy of the plan which reflects a range of matters including previous consultation findings, the availability of suitable, deliverable land, market factors and infrastructure requirements. The housing market requires a degree of vacancy for it to operate. Deliverability of sites has been a key consideration when preparing the plan . Delivery will be highly dependent upon market factors and it is not common practise for house builders to build homes where there is low demand.

44 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H44 - Rear of High West Road

A detailed Transport Assessment will be required to support any forthcoming planning application for the site. As part of the site suitability assessment conducted as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) the Highway team confirmed that suitable access arrangements could be achieved and no unacceptable cumulative impact upon the road network was anticipated. The Supplementary Planning Document prepared for the site recognises the importance of establishing pedestrian linkages through the site to the surrounding area in the interests of public amenity, connectivity and integrating the site with the existing built up area. The cumulative impact of the development of the site on local services and facilities has been assessed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and can be mitigated at planning application stage. The developer will be required through any subsequent planning application to address any deficiencies identified at the time of determination in accordance with Policy 5 (Developer Contributions) The impacts of the development of this site upon a wide range of matters including biodiversity, flood risk, the character of the village and the wider landscape have been fully assessed through the SHLAA process and are considered to be acceptable in principle. Where mitigation is required this is identified in the SHLAA and would need to be adequately addressed by the developer at detailed planning application stage to accord with the Plan. The suitability of all sites within the Strategic Housing land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for housing purposes has been consistently and comprehensively assessed and the SHLAA forms a 'library' of sites from which this site has been selected from having had regard to the full range of alternatives. Devaluation of property prices is not a material planning consideration. It is the intention of the Plan to secure a high quality, sustainable and attractive environment. There is scope for concerns relating to residential amenity can be mitigated at detailed planning application stage by, for example, the appropriate positioning of housing units and landscaping. The suitability of this site has been reviewed as part of the annual review of the SHLAA and in the knowledge of the objections previously raised. The site itself has been the subject of two rounds of consultation which has been carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement.

H45 West of Crook Primary School

H45 - West of Crook Primary School

Number of representations to this allocation. 5

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 5 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Concern is raised that there is a lack of proposals to secure employment opportunities which are need to support housing growth. There is no need for additional housing as vacant units exist and house builders are having difficulty in selling new homes being built.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 45 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H45 - West of Crook Primary School

Concerns are raised about the proximity of the proposed housing to the fire station. It is considered that the proposed allocation is an inexpensive way for the Council to overcome the lack of available council owned properties for rent in the area. As there are limited employment opportunities in the town the development will increase the number of people travelling on already busy roads. Concern is raised that the site includes a playing pitch and its loss has not been justified through the Playing Pitch Strategy. It is considered that the development of the site will increase the incidence and scale of flooding which has previously occurred. Concern is expressed that the lack of primary school places in the town has not been taken into account. There is a view that the development of the site will exacerbate existing residents ability to access local health care facilities. It has been stated that the site is capable of being delivered in the short term. It is considered that the site has capacity to deliver more homes than the plan proposes. It is argued that the site comprises of two separate parcels of land that could and should be developed independently from one another. The reference to th retention of the existing recreational area is relevant only to the northern portion of the site.

Response to main issues:

The Plan's Spatial Strategy directs the majority of housing and employment growth to the most sustainable locations across the County i.e. the Main Towns and Smaller Villages & Larger Towns. Crook is considered capable of sustaining the level of housing growth planned over the lifetime of the Plan. In turn, such growth will help sustain and grow local services and facilities. Such benefits are apparent in other parts of the County which have experienced past housing growth (for example the regeneration of Consett town centre). The Plan supports the retention of existing employment areas and identifies additional employment sites in those areas which will be most attractive to investors to maximise the potential of delivery. The Plan alongside other Council activity makes provision to encourage sustainable transport opportunities and improvements. The plan is long term, reflecting the government's growth housing agenda to meet the needs of the population up to 2030. A key objective of the Plan is to improve the County's economy. The scale of growth across the County is fully evidenced, is considered to be proportionate to the level of economic growth the plan seeks and the distribution of development accords with the Spatial Strategy of the plan which reflects a range of matters including previous consultation findings, the availability of suitable, deliverable land, market factors and infrastructure requirements. The housing market requires a degree of vacancy for it to operate. Deliverability of sites has been a key consideration when preparing the plan. Delivery will be highly dependent upon market factors and it is not common practise for house builders to build homes where there is low demand. It is considered that an acceptable relationship can be achieved with the fire station. The plan seeks to provide a range of new homes in terms of type and mix, a proportion of which will be affordable to rent, to buy or for shared equity. This will enhance the current range and choice for existing and future residents and provide greater opportunity for home ownership. As part of the site suitability assessment conducted as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) the Highway team confirmed that suitable access arrangements could be achieved and no unacceptable cumulative impact upon the wider road network was anticipated particularly in light of the proposed western relief road.

46 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H45 - West of Crook Primary School

The cumulative impact of the development of the site on local services and facilities has been assessed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and can be mitigated at planning application stage. The developer will be required through any subsequent planning application to address any deficiencies identified at the time of determination in accordance with Policy 5 (Developer Contributions). The need to retain pitch provision within the site is reflected by the site yield set out in the plan. Any loss of pitch provision would need to be evidenced by the Playing Pitch Action Plan for Crook in respect to such provision. To accord with the Plan the developer will be required to mitigate against any flood risk as part of the detailed planning application. The cumulative impact of the development of the site on local services and facilities has been assessed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and would be mitigated at planning application stage. The developer will be required through any subsequent planning application to address any deficiencies identified at the time of determination in accordance with Policy 5 (Developer Contributions). The phasing of sites within the Plan (short, medium or long term) is indicative and is merely intended as a guide to when it is envisaged that the sites will come forward, based upon an assessment of the market; infrastructure constraints; any issues which may affect viability; and other relevant issues. It is not intended to be a definitive and inflexible rule as to when sites will be developed. There is no reason why a site which is phased as later in the Plan period could not be developed earlier if it becomes clear that the site can be viably developed sooner and any constraints overcome.

It is considered appropriate to consider the development of the area as a whole given its location within the built up area, recreational provision and in the context of the new fire station.

H46 - Low Copelaw

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to representations made to Policy 11: Other Strategic Sites and the relevant SPD. Support for the inclusion of Low Copelaw as an urban extension to Newton Aycliffe to assist with meeting the housing need over the coming years. Opposition to the loss of productive farmland to development. A high pressure gas pipeline (FM07 Bishop Auckland to Sutton Howgrave) runs beneath the North West corner of the proposed allocation. No permanent structures should be built over or under the pipeline or within the zone specified in the agreement. Materials or soil must not

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 47 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H46 - Low Copelaw

be stacked or stored on top of the pipeline route and unrestricted and safe access to the pipeline must be maintained at all times.

Response to main issues:

Support noted - Site will be developed as a sustainable urban extension to the settlement, which due to flatness of terrain and shallowness of views could be accommodated with relatively low landscape and visual impact. Scale of site will deliver critical mass to deliver additional facilities on site. Site is located close to town centre, although separated by A167. Severance issues with Newton Aycliffe can be overcome by improved crossing facilities to promote sustainable modes of transport and pedestrian access from the site.

The land is not classified as the best and most versatile agricultural land on account it is not land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.

The existence of the gas pipeline is noted, and development in the vicinity of the pipeline will need to respect any easements that exist and be undertaken in conjunction with and following discussions with National Grid and their agents. The 'Constraints and Opportunities' plan in SPD for Low Copelaw takes account of the pipeline, with the 'Development Framework Plan' showing no proposed development in its vicinity.

H47 - South of Agnew Plantation

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H48 - Congreve Terrace

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

48 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H48 - Congreve Terrace

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable.

H49 - Eldon Whins

Number of representations to this allocation. 3

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Objection to the revised site boundary which excludes the land parcel to the west, and request that the boundary be amended to that shown in the 'Preferred Options' (September 2012) on the basis that the overall housing target for the County is too low and more land is needed. Inclusion of additional land would result in an increase yield of 500 homes. Site represents a more sustainable location for development than the strategic allocation (H46 - Low Copelaw). Land is in agricultural use and forms part of the delineation between Newton Aycliffe and Middridge. Development should be resisted to prevent urban sprawl and seen small villages enveloped by larger conurbations. Phasing of the site should be moved from 'medium' to 'short' term. Distinct lack of services in the northern part of Newton Aycliffe and many services such as doctors and dentists are very oversubscribed. Similarly, local centres developed as part of Cobblers Hall are insufficient for the amount of development proposed. There would be an increase in traffic numbers both through Middridge and toward Rushyford, exacerbated by any potential development at Woodham Golf Course. This will lead to serious congestion and increase the risk of accidents. There are other areas of brownfield and scrubland within the current town footprint that ought to see development first, rather than developing on greenfields. There would be a detrimental impact on the Cobblers Hall Plantation, an important local green space well used by dog walkers which would in this case be surrounded by high density housing rendering it nothing more than a haven for antisocial behaviour.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 49 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H49 - Eldon Whins

Response to main issues:

The boundary of the site was amended to prevent coalescence issues with Middridge. It was also revised to reflect that only 350 houses are required on this site to meet the housing distribution for the settlement, therefore inclusion of the additional land parcels would either lead to a far greater level of housing coming forward, or potentially lead to an inefficient use of land if 350 homes were developed across a much larger area of land. An Appendices containing a plan for each site was produced alongside the "Preferred Options", but not for the "Pre-Submission Draft". In the absence of appendices showing the level of structural planting required on the western boundary in this version of the Plan, it was necessary to amend the site boundary to indicate where housing will be built.

Phasing for this site reflects that the sewage treatment works (STW) that serves Newton Aycliffe are nearing capacity, and NWL have advised that they will only permit a further 500 new homes to be built prior to investment in the STW being carried out. This is scheduled to be complete by 2020.

This site is in close proximity to facilities at Cobblers Hall Local Centre, but is severed from Newton Aycliffe by Middridge Way/Greenfield Way. Improved crossing facilities to promote sustainable modes of transport and pedestrian access from the site will be a requirement of development.

Highways Authority have confirmed that the surrounding road network can accommodate the scale of development proposed for this site.

A detailed assessment of available land (including previously-developed land) greater than 0.4ha (12 units) has been undertaken through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which indicates that there is limited PDL within Newton Aycliffe.

H50 - North of Travellers Green

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

50 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H50 - North of Travellers Green

The site is a suitable location for new development and that there are no significant physical constraints that would preclude the development of the site for housing.

Allocation is supported, but site is readily available, suitable and achievable and can be brought forward for residential development within the next five years, therefore contributing to the Councils five year supply of deliverable sites, Request that the table at Policy 30 is amended so that the site is phased to deliver in the 'Short' term.

Response to main issues:

H51 - Site N Cobblers Hall

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H52 - Site O Cobblers Hall

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 51 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H52 - Site O Cobblers Hall

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H53 - Woodham Community College

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Concern is raised because the land in question is, or includes, in whole, part, land this used or was last used as playing field, and its loss has not been specifically justified by the County PPS or the respective Playing Pitch Action Plan (PPAP) for that area. The site is noted to be a school site where the Council will receive a capital receipt for their disposal for residential purposes.

Response to main issues:

The land adjacent to Woodham Community College which is identified as a housing allocation was declared surplus to DCC requirements on 3rd June 1994. The land was fenced off at the same time and it has not been formally used as playing fields since then. The land is fully fenced off to prevent public access although at times sections of fence have been removed and access has been taken but DCC has reinstated the fence whenever this has happened. The land has not been used as playing fields for a significant period of time.

H54 - West Chilton Farm

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

52 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H54 - West Chilton Farm

Summary of main issues raised:

The reasoned justification for the allocation of only 4.5ha and 118 homes is unsound and unjustified by the available background information and evidence. The SHLAA is unsound in that it does not take account of the market conditions, demand and availability in the local housing market. Additional land to the north of the allocation should also be included as it is both available and developable within the required timetable to meet the projected needs of the county. Further evidence has been provided that the development would be cost effective and sustainable having regard to the availability of services and infrastructure.

Response to main issues:

The additional land located to the north of the allocation (7/CH/078a) is not required to meet the housing allocation for the settlement of Chilton (270 houses) as it will be met by existing commitments and the allocated site itself. Windlestone sewage treatment works that serves Chilton is nearing capacity and the additional housing that 7/CH/078a) could deliver would near prior investment in the STW. The landscape impact of developing the additional land to the north would be significant adverse on account it would represent a large incursion into countryside poorly related to existing built form of Chilton. ESH proposals for 7/CH/078a included the provision of employment premises, but due to weak demand in the area (as evidenced by the ELR) there is uncertainty whether the business units would actually be delivered.

H55 - South of Dean Road

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The proposed allocation is supported and considered sound

The site has good accessibility to local shops and services

It is available and suitable for residential development and can come forward for development: contributing to the Council's maintenance of a defensible housing land supply

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 53 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H55 - South of Dean Road

However, the proposed yield of 200 dwellings is considered too low in comparison with the SHLAA figure of 250 dwellings

Concern that Policy 30 states that an application in advance of phasing will only be approved if the release of the site is required to maintain a five year supply of deliverable sites. It is considered that this criterion is inflexible, contrary to the effective delivery of the Plan's overall objectives, and is unsound, so should therefore be removed.

Response to main issues:

This site is considered to offer a developable extension to a small town in a consolidated manner. The highway access is achievable and the landscape impact can be mitigated providing existing mature trees are retained as part of the development. The site has good public transport links and as the site is located on the east of the A167, this busy road does not need to be crossed to get to the town centre to access shops, services and facilities. The indicative yield set out in Policy 30 does not represent a ceiling figure, so development comprising a higher figure will be considered acceptable at planning application stage provided the scheme accords with other policies of the Plan (Policy 16 - Sustainable Design; Policy 18 - Local Amenity; Policy 20 Green Infrastructure).

H56 - Newcomen Street

Number of representations to this allocation. 3

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Since the demolition of the Praxis factory the area has been grassed over and plants around the periphery. Its original development was part of the regeneration of the whole area, which was shelved due to recent financial problems. From the start there were objections to this area being developed, as it opened up an otherwise oppressive group of terraced streets. Dean Bank does not have the advantage of small gardens, they are long terraced streets with walled in yards, allowing for no open spaces between the streets. In another part of Dean Bank houses have actually been demolished and a green cultivated to give an open space amidst the terraces. There is currently no demand for housing in the area, it having been neglected over the years and is showing signs of serious decay. There is a parking problem around plot H56, would it not make more sense to provide parking around the periphery of the green area, but leave the bulk of the space open. It has been cared for in the time it has existed, and it has been used by the young people particularly in the summer. It has been kept tidy, no litter or rubbish left on it. There are far too many empty houses in the surrounding streets which could be regenerated without using this lovely area.

54 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H56 - Newcomen Street

Response to main issues:

The former Praxis site has been identified for housing redevelopment for a long time, and planning approval to build houses on the land was actually granted in 2006. The site is seen as an important element of the regeneration of this area. New private sector housing will provide a new produce and tenure which will assist the long term sustainability of the investment that has already been made. It is felt that new housing will also provide further confidence to the area and be a catalyst for further improvement to the footpaths and general environment. The County Durham Plan allocates the site for 12 units only, which means that open space in part of the site will be retained and enhanced as part of the development which eventually takes place.

H57 - South of Eden Drive

Number of representations to this allocation. 24

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 23 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The number of houses proposed on the site is too large, suggestion that the site only has capacity for 300 dwellings. The responses given to previous consultations on the site and the Plan have not been considered. The development of this site alongside the proposed development at Wynyard will impact the existing transport infrastructure. The development of the site would have an adverse impact on the existing infrastructure within the village, notably sewage capacity, schools, health facilities. There is insufficient parking within the village centre, development of the site will worsen this problem. There are concerns that the site is at risk from flooding. Development of the site would impact on the character of the village, in relation to the landscape and historic environment. Question over the need for housing within Sedgefield when a number of properties are currently vacant or have been on the market for a considerable period of time. Development would see the loss of a greenfield site. Concern as to why brownfield sites in the village (former hospital site) have not been considered. Concern over the ecological impact of developing the site.

Response to main issues:

The site area is 17.1ha, it is considered that the site is suitable to accommodate 450 houses. This would create a relatively low density scheme of 26 houses to the hectare.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 55 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H57 - South of Eden Drive

The plan has been subject to extensive consultation, the previous objections to the site have been considered but they have been balanced against the need to identify the most suitable sites for housing. Discussions with the Highways Agency and also the Highways Authority has suggested that the impact of development on the road network would be acceptable. Development of site will be required to provide a financial contribution to any shortfalls in the local infrastructure. The site location is within walking distance of the village centre, this will allow the village centre to be accessible by foot reducing the pressure for parking within it. The site is not situated within the Environment Agency (EA) floodzones and the EA have not objected to the site allocation. Small areas of the site are subject to surface water flooding, however with appropriate mitigation, the site is considered developable for housing. Development of the site will need to accord with relevant policies in the Plan, in relation to incorporating a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) to manage surface water drainage. While its is acknowledged that development of the site would incur some impact on the character of the settlement it is also recognised that development of the site could be a logical urban extension in terms of overall settlement morphology. Impact on the landscape and historic landscape can be reduced by appropriate mitigation. While there are vacant properties within Sedgefield, a certain percentage of empty homes is always needed to allow for churn in the housing market which would otherwise be blocked by no movement possible. The County Durham Plan has identified a need for 31,400 houses, this number includes existing sites with permission for housing. Sedgefield has been identified as a suitable settlement for growth and therefore a site has been allocated in the village to meet housing need. There are limited brownfield opportunities available for development within Sedgefield. Whilst the former hospital site is a brownfield site, it is detached from the built up area and is therefore not suitable for housing. The site south of Eden Drive provides the most logical development site within the village. There are no local, national or international wildlife sites on the site. A County wildlife site lies 1.3km from the site. Impact on ecology would not be unacceptable.

H58 - Fishburn Hall Farm

Number of representations to this allocation. 2

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

There are concerns regarding the access to the development as it is thought that there may be financial complications regarding the access through Greenside Close and an alternative route may be sought which could involve disruption or serious implications to the Youth & Community Centre.

56 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H58 - Fishburn Hall Farm

It is considered that an increase in traffic and pollution will be exacerbated by limited bus services to surrounding settlements.

It is argued that there are many houses for sale and available for rent within the village and therefore additional houses are not required.

There is a view that limited services exist to support additional housing.

Response to main issues:

The site assessment carried out through the SHLAA process has confirmed that suitable access can be achieved to the site and that the development will not have an unacceptable impact upon the wider road network. Precise details of access will be confirmed at planning application stage. Any impacts upon the youth and community centre in question would be considered in detail at planning application stage and where appropriate mitigated for the scheme to be acceptable.

The Spatial Strategy directs the majority of housing growth to the most sustainable locations across the County i.e. the Main Towns and Smaller Villages & Larger Towns. Ferryhill is considered capable of sustaining the level of housing growth planned over the lifetime of the Plan. In turn such growth will help sustain and grow local services and facilities. Such benefits are apparent in other parts of the County which have experienced past housing growth (for example the regeneration of Consett town centre).

The plan is long term, reflecting the government's growth housing agenda to meet the needs of the population up to 2030. A key objective of the Plan is to improve the County's economy. The scale of growth across the County is fully evidenced, is considered to be proportionate to the level of economic growth the plan seeks and the distribution of development accords with the Spatial Strategy of the plan which reflects a range of matters including previous consultation findings, the availability of suitable, deliverable land , market factors and infrastructure requirements. The housing market requires a degree of vacancy for it to operate.

H59 - North East Industrial Estate

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Main issues raised against this site MUST be cross referenced to the representations relating to Policy 11 (Other Strategic Sites) and the relevant SPD.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 57 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H59 - North East Industrial Estate

Concern expressed over the sites location directly behind the gardens of Smillie Road and the development of the site in proximity to the existing properties. This area should remain undeveloped.

Response to main issues:

The site boundary indicates the full extent of the site including the existing trees. The supplementary planning document for this site has identified that the existing tree belt and landscaping should be retained in order to maintain appropriate separation distances between the proposed development on the site and properties on Smillie Road. The precise location of the dwellings will be confirmed at planning application stage.

H60 - Adjacent to Shotton School

Number of representations to this allocation. 2

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound. Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Objection is raised as the land in question is, or includes, in whole, part, land this used or was last used as playing field, and its loss has not been specifically justified by the County Playing Pitch Strategy or the respective Playing Pitch Action Plan for that area.

Response to main issues:

The site is considered suitable for housing development, being a well located previously developed site and considered deliverable. Development on this site will need to be justified in accordance with the Peterlee Playing Pitch Action Plan.

H61 - Dene House School

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

58 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H61 - Dene House School

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Objection is raised to the housing allocation because the land in question is, or includes, in whole, part, land this used or was last used as playing field, and its loss has not been specifically justified by the County Playing Pitch Strategy or the respective Playing Pitch Action Plan for that area.

Response to main issues:

H62 - North Blunts

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H63 - South of Edenhill Community Centre

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 59 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H63 - South of Edenhill Community Centre

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H64 - South of Passfield Way

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The site is in use as open space for recreational purposes. Concern over the loss of this in terms of its value to the community and also its impact on local amenity. The number of houses proposed on the site is excessive. If the site was developed for housing, a lower number of houses would be more appropriate. Suggestion that there is a restrictive covenant on the site. This restricts the site to public open space use only. Concern over the loss of trees on the site.

Response to main issues:

The site is designated as amenity open space. There is however a considerable surplus of open space within this ward. The loss of a small area of amenity open space is considered acceptable. The site is 1.0ha in size, the policy proposes 35 houses on the site. This is not considered to be an excessive level of housing or a particularly high density scheme. The existence of a restrictive covenant (limiting use of the land for public open space) has been brought to the Council’s attention by the applicant. This is currently being investigated by the Council, if the covenant is in place it may influence timescales for delivery of housing on the site.

The site has a limited number of trees on the site, these front Oakerside. Any opportunities for retention of these trees will be explored through the planning application stage.

60 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H65 - East of Milton Close

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H66 - North of Portland Avenue

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H67 - Lawnside

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 61 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H67 - Lawnside

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H68 - Parkside

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H69 - Seaham Colliery Site

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

At a consultation event officers could not explain where new school and playing fields were to be located. The plan is being put in place before a study of the scope of the area for sports and associated facilities is published.

62 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H69 - Seaham Colliery Site

Response to main issues:

The new Seaham School of Technology and associated school playing fields are to be situated in their entirety on the western part of Seaham Colliery.

Plans for Seaham Colliery and other strategic housing sites are being developed. Current plans take into account the recommendations of the OSNA and analysis of current provision. A Playing Pitch Action Plan for the area is in preparation and will inform development in the future.

H70 - Seaham School

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Response to main issues:

The new Seaham School of Technology and associated school playing fields are to be situated in their entirety on the western part of Seaham Colliery.

H71 - Former Council Offices

Number of representations to this allocation. 24

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 63 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H71 - Former Council Offices

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 3 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 21 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Concern that development of this site on its own, in combination with a recently granted planning permission at nearby Lowhills, Peterlee for 900 houses or/and in combination with Housing Allocation H/73 on the Village Club site and H/72 at Fennel Grove would give rise to significant traffic problems and a related increase in accidents - particularly at the villages 5 exit/entry points which are already extremely busy. Also concern that limited parking outside local amenities such as the village shop and post office will give rise to more car parking and decrease visability. Concern about impact of development of this site on its own or in combination with Housing Allocation H/73 on the Village Club site and H/72 at Fennel Grove on primary school capacity at Easington Church of England School, Easington Colliery, and Easington Academy. Issues raised about the cost of expanding schools and implications in relation to dropping off and picking up children, with this already causing acute problems on adjoining streets at the Church of England School. Concern that the development of this site in combination with other allocated sites in Easington Village and the recent grant of planning permission of 900 houses at nearby Lowhills would change the character and scale of this historic village, by significantly increasing its population. Also concern that existing permissions combined with new allocations are very disproportionate when compared to the surrounding areas, with some parishes having no or comparatively little land designated for housing. Concern there are insufficient services like restaurants and social/entertainment facilities to support this and other allocated sites in the village. A lack of any dentists, doctors or banks is specifically highlighted. Public Transport links to Easington are considered poor, and insufficient to support further housing development. Concern that facilities such as proper drainage are not in place to provide adequate means of sewage disposal or water management for this and other allocated sites. Some parts of Easington are already subject to flooding and this would be compounded with more traffic and houses. This site is described as brownfield but around a third of the site is currently a well used and loved green space within the village, which consists of mature trees and lawn. The current planning application for the site includes development of an area of mature trees and bushes and this will detract from residential amenity and environment of the village. There is no demand for new housing in Easington Village with many of the new houses recently built yet to be sold. In particular, new properties on the Kings Head Development have failed to sell for a prolonged period. The colliery area should be developed instead of this site. It is pointed out that there are a number of empty houses and shops in the area which could be converted/uopgraded or even knocked down to build new ones Concern that there were already few jobs in Easington and this worsened after the closure of the former Easington District Council Offices. It is thought that job opportunities in nearby Peterlee are also decreasing with N Power at Peterlee, a relatively large employer in the area recently announcing that it is closing 2 of its 3 sites and relocating jobs out of the area. The

64 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H71 - Former Council Offices

majority of residents in Easington already commute out of the area for employment using private, rather than public transport and this will only intensify. It is highlighted that nearby residents use this site for off road parking, and this parking will be displaced onto nearby roads giving rise to highway safety issues. Support from the developer of the site but concern that yield given for this and other sites should be clearly labelled as indicative as not every site will deliver exactly the yield specified within the policy. Also concerned that the phasing that appears next to each site should be clearly labelled as indicative as the current approach lacks the kind of flexibility which the NPPF seeks to encourage. A number of specific objections are made to a recent planning permission for 900 houses at nearby Lowhills relating to the size of the development, its impact on traffic through Easington Village, its impact on the capacity of schools in Easington Village and its detrimental impact on historic Easington Village, and the reduction of the strategic gap between Easington and Peterlee.

Response to main issues:

The impact of proposed allocations on the scale, character and environment of the settlement was assessed before allocations were made in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and was considered to be acceptable. Accessablility and availability of public transport was considered as part of the assessment process in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and was considered sufficient to support the housing allocations made. Easington Village/Colliery are defined as a 'Local Service Centre' in the County Durham Settlement Study. All 'Local Service Centres' across the County are considered to have a sufficient range of existing services to support new housing development. All housing allocations in the plan have been assessed in relation to flood risk and have only been allocated where there is no identified risk or where the risk can be acceptably mitigated by the developer. The capacity of Waste Water Treatment Facilities is also sufficient to support the development of housing allocations over the plan period. The site is not a designated car park. The issue of nearby residents using this site for personal parking is not, therefore, a relevant planning consideration. The most significant areas of landscape significance and mature tree planting within the site will be retained in the context of any proposed development scheme. Market conditions have been assessed in relation to housing sites allocated in the plan for the full plan period to 2030. Market conditions dictating supply and demand for housing will inevitably change over this period and cannot be taken to necessarily reflect immediate market circumstances. Moreover, current developer interest in allocated sites in Easington suggest there is immediate demand for the right type of housing product. All sites proposed by landowners for housing development in Easington Colliery and Easington Village have been assessed in the Councils 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment'.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 65 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H71 - Former Council Offices

After all relevant factors were considered, the proposed housing allocations defined in the Plan in Easington were considered the most appropriate to meet housing needs over the plan period. Access to employment was considered as part of the assessment process when allocations were made. Centres of employment which are within reasonable proximity to Easington include Peterlee and Sunderland. The proposed yield and phasing for allocated sites is intended to be indicative All relevant impacts of the recently approved scheme at Lowhill's were considered before planning permission was granted for this development.

H72 - West of Fennel Grove

Number of representations to this allocation. 32

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 31 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The character of the village would be diminished by the inappropriate development of this prominent site which is steep, well vegetated and serves as an attractive backdrop to the village. The nature of Fennell Grove, which is currently a semi-rural cul-de-sac, will change to that of merely an entrance to a larger estate. Upwards of 100 cars will use this access. There is a bat colony in or close to the site and it is understood that bats are a protected species. A wide range of other species like kestrels, coal tits, skylarks, gold crests, lesser red poll, robins, wrens, linnets, swallows, stoats, weasels and squirrels. Granting planning permission will set a precedent for other fields in the village to be seen as potential building plots resulting in the loss of agricultural land At the present time young children can enjoy playing relatively safely outside their homes. A further 120 cars will create a serious threat to their safety. The green area between number 9 and 10 would be lost to the access road leaving no safe area for children to play It would be more appropriate to allocate housing on the site of the dis-used primary school in the heart of Easington Colliery.Concern that development of this site on its own, in combination with a recently granted planning permission at nearby Lowhills, Peterlee for 900 houses or/and in combination with Housing Allocation H/73 on the Village Club site and H/72 at Fennel Grove would give rise to significant traffic problems and a related increase in accidents - particularly at the villages 5 exit/entry points which are already extremely busy. Also concern that limited parking outside local amenities such as the village shop and post office will give rise to more car parking and decrease visability. Concern about impact of development of this site on its own or in combination with Housing Allocation H/73 on the Village Club site and H/72 at Fennel Grove on primary school capacity at Easington Church of England School, Easington Colliery, and Easington Academy. Issues raised about the cost of expanding schools and implications in relation to dropping off and

66 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H72 - West of Fennel Grove

picking up children, with this already causing acute problems on adjoining streets at the Church of England School. Concern that the development of this site in combination with other allocated sites in Easington Village and the recent grant of planning permission of 900 houses at nearby Lowhills would change the character and scale of this historic village, by significantly increasing its population. Also concern that existing permissions combined with new allocations are very disproportionate when compared to the surrounding areas, with some parishes having no or comparatively little land designated for housing. Concern there are insufficient services like restaurants and social/entertainment facilities to support this and other allocated sites in the village. A lack of any dentists, doctors or banks is specifically highlighted. Public Transport links to Easington are considered poor, and are not sufficiently adequate to support further housing development. Concern that facilities such as proper drainage are not in place to provide adequate means of sewage disposal or water management for this and other allocated sites. Some parts of Easington are already subject to flooding and this would be compounded with more traffic and houses. There is no demand for new housing in Easington Village with many of the new houses recently built yet to be sold. In particular, new properties on the Kings Head Development have failed to sell for a prolonged period. Some consider that the colliery area should be developed instead of this site. It is pointed out that there are a number of empty houses and shops in the area which could be converted/upgraded or even knocked down to build new ones There is concern that there were already few jobs in Easington and this worsened after the closure of the former Easington District Council Offices. It is thought that job opportunities in nearby Peterlee are also decreasing with N Power at Peterlee, a relatively large employer in the area recently announcing that it is closing 2 of its 3 sites and relocating jobs out of the area. The majority of residents in Easington already commute out of the area for employment using private, rather than public transport and this will only intensify. Support from the developer of the site but concern that yield given for this and other sites should be clearly labelled as indicative as not every site will deliver exactly the yield specified within the policy. Also concerned that the phasing that appears next to each site should be clearly labelled as indicative as the current approach lacks the kind of flexibility which the NPPF seeks to encourage. A number of specific objections are made to a recent planning permission for 900 houses at nearby Lowhills relating to the size of the development, its impact on traffic through Easington Village, its impact on the capacity of schools in Easington Village and its detrimental impact on historic Easington Village, and the reduction of the strategic gap between Easington and Peterlee.

Response to main issues:

The ecological impact of development was considered in the course of assessing all allocated sites through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. It was found to be acceptable on all allocated sites, sometimes in the context of necessary mitigation by the developer. A protected species survey will be required with any planning application for development of this site. If any protected species are identified (including bats), development would only be allowed to proceed in the context of a licensing process, managed by Natural England. Development on other greenfield sites beyond the edge of Easington Colliery/Village will be controlled by Policy 35 which controls Development in the Countryside. Most housing

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 67 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H72 - West of Fennel Grove

development will generally be considered unacceptable when assessed against the criteria in this policy The traffic impact related to each individual site and to their collective impact has been assessed by the Council's Highways Team and has been found to be acceptable. A Transport Impact Assessment was submitted with the planning application for Lowhill's and was found to be acceptable before planning permission was granted. The former primary school in Easington Colliery is protected as a 'Listed Building'. It is, therefore, appropriate to allocate this land for housing which would involve the demolition of this listed building. A sensitive conversion of this building to residential may, however, be acceptable consistent with the policies of the plan. Education provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by the Pupil Place Planning Team of Durham County Council, where supply and demand issues have been identified. As a result of new development the Council will work with developers to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan). The Open Space Needs Assessment for County Durham suggests that that there is sufficient open space in Easington for childrens play. The developer will also be required to make a financial contribution towards the enhancement of play facilities as a requirement of any planning permission. The impact of proposed allocations on the scale, character and environment of the settlement was assessed before allocations were made in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and was considered to be acceptable. Accessiblility and availability of public transport was considered as part of the assessment process in the Strategic housing Land Availability assessment and was considered sufficient to support the housing allocations made. Easington Village/Colliery are defined as a 'Local Service Centre' in the County Durham Settlement Study. All 'Local Service Centres' across the County are considered to have a sufficient range of existing services to support new housing development. All housing allocations in the plan have been assessed in relation to flood risk and have only been allocated where there is no identified risk or where the risk can be acceptably mitigated by the developer. The capacity of Waste Water Treatment Facilities is also sufficient to support the development of housing allocations over the plan period. Market conditions have been assessed in relation to housing sites allocated in the plan for the full plan period to 2030. Market conditions dictating supply and demand for housing will inevitably change over this period and cannot be taken to necessarily reflect immediate market circumstances. Moreover, current developer interest in allocated sites in Easington suggest there is immediate demand for the right type of housing product. All sites proposed by landowners for housing development in Easington Colliery and Easington Village have been assessed in the Councils 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment'. After all relevant factors were considered, the proposed housing allocations defined in the Plan in Easington were considered the most appropriate to meet housing needs over the plan period Access to employment was considered as part of the assessment process when allocations were made. Centres of employment which are within reasonable proximity to Easington include Peterlee and Sunderland. The proposed yield and phasing for allocated sites is intended to be indicative All relevant impacts of the recently approved scheme at Lowhill's were considered before planning permission was granted for this development.

68 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H73 - West of Petwell Crescent

Number of representations to this allocation. 17

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 16 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Concern that development of this site on its own, in combination with a recently granted planning permission at nearby Lowhills, Peterlee for 900 houses or/and in combination with Housing Allocation H/73 on the Village Club site and H/72 at Fennel Grove would give rise to significant traffic problems and a related increase in accidents - particularly at the villages 5 exit/entry points which are already extremely busy. Also concern that limited parking outside local amenities such as the village shop and post office will give rise to more car parking and decrease visibility. Concern about impact of development of this site on its own or in combination with Housing Allocation H/73 on the Village Club site and H/72 at Fennel Grove on primary school capacity at Easington Church of England School, Easington Colliery, and Easington Academy. Issues raised about the cost of expanding schools and implications in relation to dropping off and picking up children, with this already causing acute problems on adjoining streets at the Church of England School. Concern that the development of this site in combination with other allocated sites in Easington Village and the recent grant of planning permission of 900 houses at nearby Lowhills would change the character and scale of this historic village, by significantly increasing its population. Also concern that existing permissions combined with new allocations are very disproportionate when compared to the surrounding areas, with some parishes having no or comparatively little land designated for housing. Part of the site was refused planning permission in 2011 for 43 houses because the site was outside the Settlement Boundary defined in the Easington Local Plan. Now the site has been increased by two thirds and extends onto greenfield land. Housing developments will remove natural habitats and food sources for of birds and wildlife and have a detrimental effect on green space, fields and hedges in the area. Concern there are insufficient services like restaurants and social/entertainment facilities to support this and other allocated sites in the village. A lack of any dentists, doctors or banks is specifically highlighted. Public Transport links to Easington are considered poor, and are not sufficiently adequate to support further housing development. Concern that facilities such as proper drainage are not in place to provide adequate means of sewage disposal or water management for this and other allocated sites. Some parts of Easington are already subject to flooding and this would be compounded by more traffic and houses. This site is described as brownfield but around a third of the site is currently a well used and loved green space within the village, which consists of mature trees and lawn. The current planning application for the site includes development of an area of mature trees and bushes and this will detract from residential amenity and the environment of the village.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 69 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H73 - West of Petwell Crescent

There is no demand for new housing in Easington Village with many of the new houses recently built yet to be sold. In particular, new properties on the Kings Head Development have failed to sell for a prolonged period. Some consider that the colliery area should be developed instead of this site. It is pointed out that there are a number of empty houses and shops in the area which could be converted/uopgraded or even knocked down to build new ones There is concern that there were already few jobs in Easington and this worsened after the closure of the former Easington District Council Offices. It is thought that job opportunities in nearby Peterlee are also decreasing with N Power at Peterlee, a relatively large employer in the area recently announcing that it is closing 2 of its 3 sites and relocating jobs out of the area. The majority of residents in Easington already commute out of the area for employment using private, rather than public transport and this will only intensify. Support from the developer of the site but concern that yield given for this and other sites should be clearly labelled as indicative as not every site will deliver exactly the yield specified within the policy. Also concerned that the phasing that appears next to each site should be clearly labelled as indicative as the current approach lacks the kind of flexibility which the NPPF seeks to encourage. A number of specific objections are made to a recent planning permission for 900 houses at nearby Lowhills relating to the size of the development, its impact on traffic through Easington Village, its impact on the capacity of schools in Easington Village and its detrimental impact on historic Easington Village, and the reduction of the strategic gap between Easington and Peterlee.

Response to main issues:

The traffic impact related to each individual site and to their collective impact has been assessed by the Council's Highways Team and has been found to be acceptable. A Transport Impact Assessment was submitted with the planning application for Lowhill's and was found to be acceptable before planning permission was granted. Education provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by the Pupil Place Planning Team of Durham County Council, where supply and demand issues have been identified. As a result of new development the Council will work with developers to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan). The impact of proposed allocations on the scale, character and environment of the settlement was assessed in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment before allocations were made and was considered to be acceptable. The previous settlement boundary in the Easington Local Plan is no longer relevant. Sites proposed for development by landowners through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment have been assessed in the context of new estimates of housing requirements to 2030. This was considered an appropriate site, relative to others, in context of that assessment. The ecological impact of development was considered in the course of assessing all allocated sites through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. It was found to be acceptable, sometimes in the context of necessary mitigation by the developer. Accessibility and availability of public transport was considered as part of the assessment process in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and was considered sufficient to support the housing allocations made. Easington Village/Colliery are defined as a 'Local Service Centre' in the County Durham Settlement Study. All 'Local Service Centres' across the County are considered to have a sufficient range of existing services to support new housing development.

70 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H73 - West of Petwell Crescent

All housing allocations in the plan have been assessed in relation to flood risk and have only been allocated where there is no identified risk or where the risk can be acceptably mitigated by the developer. The capacity of Waste Water Treatment Facilities is also sufficient to support the development of housing allocations over the plan period. The most significant areas of landscape significance and mature tree planting within the site will be retained in the context of any proposed development scheme. Market conditions have been assessed in relation to housing sites allocated in the plan for the full plan period to 2030. Market conditions dictating supply and demand for housing will inevitably change over this period and cannot be taken to necessarily reflect immediate market circumstances. Moreover, current developer interest in allocated sites in Easington suggest there is immediate demand for the right type of housing product. All sites proposed by landowners for housing development in Easington Colliery and Easington Village have been assessed in the Councils 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment'. After all relevant factors were considered, the proposed housing allocations defined in the Plan in Easington were considered the most appropriate to meet housing needs over the plan period. Access to employment was considered as part of the assessment process when allocations were made. Centres of employment which are within reasonable proximity to Easington include Peterlee and Sunderland. The proposed yield and phasing for allocated sites is intended to be indicative All relevant impacts of the recently approved scheme at Lowhill's were considered before planning permission was granted for this development.

H74 - East of Martindale Walk

Number of representations to this allocation. 9

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 9 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

No more new houses are needed in the village. There has been an extensive amount of new build in recent years. Many houses have been available for sale or rent for long periods without interest from purchasers or those seeking to rent.

The proposed housing site will unacceptably increase traffic and traffic related accidents, along with parking adjacent to services in the village. Parking and Highway issues are already an issue along Front Street which is already congested with cars forced to park on footpaths.

The proposed housing site will put additional strain on existing Schools and Doctors which is already operating at or beyond capacity.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 71 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H74 - East of Martindale Walk

There is a public footpath, cycle route and bridlepath across this site which is also a wildlife corridor to Castle Eden Dene. This will be lost as a result of the proposal.

This site and other sites being allocated have not been properly assessed in accordance with the SEA Regulations 2004. In particular, it is difficult to ascertain how judgements were about allocations by reference to the criteria in the SEA Regs.

The SHLAA wrongly rules out the nearby site (SHLAA Ref 5/WI/12) due to the existence of a restrictive covenant even though the SEA score is significantly higher for this site. Section 237 of the TCPA 1990 allows such rights to be overridden if planning permission is granted and this is frequently used with the assistance of local planning authorities to enable development to proceed notwithstanding apparently conflicting third party rights.

The evidence base in the SHLAA is flawed and has no credible basis for assessing allocated sites or rejecting alternatives. In particular, the constraints of the location of the site has not been considered no clear assessment seems to have been made, of the implications of extending the built development of Wingate into open countryside. There is no clear boundary proposed for the southern edge of the site putting obvious pressure on land to the south which would represent a major eastwards extension of Wingate.

There is no reason why the nearby SAC should be excluded by the plan since (a) any risk e.g. From recreational pressure requires an appropriate assessment under reg. 61 of the 2010 Regulations and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and (b) since this site is impacting on countryside recreation by urbanising a right of way etc it is difficult to understand how the creation of alternative green space will be capable of mitigating recreational pressure.

The medium time frame proposed for the development of the site should be short as there is a planning application pending and there is immediate developer interest in the development of the site.

We were advised that the plan proposed 300 new houses in Wingate, but it is only estimated that this site will deliver 161. There is no clear rationale for this.

It is understood that the Council has an Empty Homes Strategy and could utilise its powers to bring these existing empty homes into use if the need were evident. This would avoid ghettos of new build homes being created.

Local amenities are not sufficient to service the village as it is and the village does not have a dentist, an optician or a cemetary.

The bottom of Wellfield road and the slip road from the A19 are subject to excessive surface water. The development will only add to the problem of drainage and as parts of Wingate are on a flood plain, we should not want further areas affected.

There is currently an application for 900m homes near to Wingate. If planning permission is granted then the need to develop further land at Wingate is redundant.

A development on this land will rob people of picturesque countryside.

72 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H74 - East of Martindale Walk

Active interest from a developer has resulted in this site being allocated rather than objective assessment of the situation as a whole.

Why is development being proposed in Wingate instead of other settlements like Trimdon and Castle Eden.

Response to main issues:

The traffic impact related to this site and its collective impact with other allocated sites an commitments has been assessed by the Council's Highways Team and has been found to be acceptable.

Education provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by the Pupil Place Planning Team of Durham County Council, where supply and demand issues have been identified. As as a result of new development the Council will work with developers to secure to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan).

Local medical / GP facilities provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by NHS Property Services Ltd, where supply and demand issues have been identified. As a result of new development the Council will work with developers and partners to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan).

The impact of proposed allocations on the scale, character, ecology and landscape setting of the settlement was assessed in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment before allocations were made and was considered to be acceptable, subject to appropriate mitigation.

Wingate is defined as a 'Secondary Settlement' in the County Durham Settlement Study. All 'Secondary Settlements' across the County are considered to have a sufficient range of existing services to support new housing development.

All housing allocations in the plan have been assessed in relation to flood risk and have only been allocated where there is no identified risk or where the risk can be acceptably mitigated by the developer. The capacity of Waste Water Treatment Facilities is also sufficient to support the development of housing allocations over the plan period. Market conditions have been assessed in relation to housing sites allocated in the plan for the full plan period to 2030. Market conditions dictating supply and demand for housing will inevitably change over this period and cannot be taken to necessarily reflect immediate market circumstances. Moreover, current developer interest in this site suggests there is immediate demand for the right type of housing product. The proposed yield and phasing for allocated sites in Policy 30 is intended to be indicative Sites have been assessed in line with the SEA Regulations 2004 and this included a comprehensive assessment of proposed sites and alternatives. The Council understands that it can appropriate land for planning purposes under section 226 and 227 of the TCPA Act 1990, and that the Council (or a person deriving title from the Council) can carry out development on the land if it is done in accordance with planning permission. It is understood that this can be done notwithstanding that it interferes with private rights such as restrictive covenants and subject of course to payment of compensation. However, the Council does not have the resource to achieve housing development in this way. Moreover,

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 73 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H74 - East of Martindale Walk

the land referred to was also protected through the original planning permission for the housing scheme and the reasons for this are still considered relevant. Section 5.82 of The County Durham Plan, Pre-Submission, Habitat Regulations Assessment Report (October 2013) makes clear that Natural England confirmed that recreational pressure on Castle Eden Dene SAC is unlikely to be unmanageable given the existing management procedures and the nature of the SAC itself in limiting off-track activities. This issue was therefore screened out meaning that no further assessment (appropriate assessment) of the issue is required.

Policy 4 of the Submission Plan identifies a housing requirement of 300 houses in Wingate. It is estimated that around 160 of these will be delivered on H74. The remaining houses will be delivered through existing committed housing sites which already have planning permission.

A planning application for 900 houses has recently been granted in nearby Peterlee at Lowhills. This has been taken into account in calculating the amount of new housing needed over the plan period and in allocating sites.

Land to the south of the site has been considered through the SHLAA process and has been dismissed as unsuitable. Any proposed development of this site would be contrary to Policy 35 of the Plan which only permits Development in the Countryside under the very limited circumstances specified in the criteria of this policy.

The site was put forward by the landowner for consideration through the SHLAA process. It was assessed objectively in this context, regardless of interest from a developer.

H75 - Dunelm Stables

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Support from the developer of the site but concern that yield given for this and other sites should be clearly labelled as indicative as not every site will deliver exactly the yield specified within the policy. Also concerned that the phasing that appears next to each site should be clearly labelled as indicative as the current approach lacks the kind of flexibility which the NPPF seeks to encourage.

74 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H75 - Dunelm Stables

Considered that the site should be developed in the 'short' rather than the 'medium' term. A developer has immediate interest in the site and the current approach is not sufficiently flexible to respond to the market in a way that delivers the housing numbers identified in the plan. Considers that the suggested yield on the site should be increased from 115 to 140, to reflect master-planning work carried out by an interested developer

Response to main issues:

H76 - North of Hartlepool Street

Number of representations to this allocation. 0

Number of comments setting out the allocation is sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

None raised.

Response to main issues:

Not applicable

H77 - West of Bevan Crescent

Number of representations to this allocation. 210

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 209 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 75 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H77 - West of Bevan Crescent

There are concerns over the procedure and how the site allocation has been included within the Plan at this 'late' stage of the process. The site was not included within previous drafts of the plan. Question the need for new housing as there are many empty houses in the area. There is a need for regeneration of the brownfield sites in the centre of Wheatley Hill, not on greenfield/green belt sites on the edge. Development of this site would increase the pressure on the local infrastructure, notably doctors, dentists, schools, sewerage / drainage. Concern over the impact on the local roads in relation to increased traffic particularly Wingate Lane with the potential to result in more accidents. There are concerns that the site is at risk from flooding. Development of the site would impact on the local landscape and character of the village. Development would impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents.

Response to main issues:

The site was not identified previously, following further detailed consideration of the site it was put forward within the Pre-Submission draft of the County Durham Plan. Its inclusion was a result of the overall requirement for housing increasing following the release of updated population projection figures. This along with the loss of some sites after the Preferred Options, meant that further allocations were required. It was also acknowledged that Wheatley Hill was in need of regeneration and that following the SHLAA process it was considered that this site was the most deliverable. The Pre-Submission Draft consultation is the statutory consultation stage. The opportunity provided at this stage is sufficient to enable those representatives to have a right to appear and to be heard at the Examination in Public.

While there are vacant properties within Wheatley Hill, a degree of vacant units is always needed to allow for churn in the housing market which would otherwise be blocked by no movement possible. The County Durham Plan has identified a need for 31,400 houses and this site has been identified to meet this need.

A full assessment of brownfield sites within the County has been undertaken and suitable, available sites have been allocated whenever possible, subject to deliverability. This site, although greenfield is not green belt and was felt to represent the best opportunity to deliver new housing in Wheatley Hill.

Development of site will be required to provide a financial contribution to any shortfalls in the local infrastructure. Local medical / GP facilities provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by NHS Property Services Ltd, where supply and demand issues have been identified as a result of new development the Council will work with developers and partners to secure appropriate levels of provision. Education provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by the Pupil Place Planning Team of Durham County Council, where supply and demand issues have been identified as a result of new development the Council will work with developers to secure appropriate levels of provision. It should also be noted that development of the site for housing was assessed as being within the sewage headroom

The Highways Authority have confirmed that the surrounding road network can safely accommodate the scale of development proposed for this site.

76 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H77 - West of Bevan Crescent

The site is not situated within the Environment Agency (EA) floodzones and the EA have not objected to the site allocation. Small areas of the site are subject to surface water flooding, however with appropriate mitigation, the site is considered developable for housing. Development of the site at the planning application stage will need to accord with relevant policies in the Plan, in relation to incorporating a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) to manage surface water drainage.

Whilst the development of the site will incur some landscape impact, it is felt that it could be developed with lower impact subject to substantial perimeter planting.

It is considered that a scheme could be designed on the site that would not significantly impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents.

H78 - Auction Mart

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 4 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Site is only significant opportunity for retail in the town centre, suggest mixed retail and housing. Concern all sites in Barnard Castle will be developed in the short term, with no land available in longer term The deliverability of the site given the cost to relocate the Auction Mart is questioned.

Response to main issues:

The Highways Authority advise that given the access constraints to wider highway network residential use is acceptable whereas to retail development is not.

The site has been assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and the site offers a logical brownfield infill opportunity in a highly sustainable location. No unresolvable constraints to development have been identified.

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 77 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H78 - Auction Mart

H79 - North of Bowes Road

Number of representations to this allocation. 8

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 8 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Startforth is a separate settlement. Housing proposals will more than double the size of Startforth; with little employment in the area residents will need to commute; the site 'North of Bowes Road' should be discounted with the much smaller site 'Land west of Startforth Memorial School' site reinstated, subject to planning issues being resolved. Furthermore, there are many properties for sale in the area, therefore question need? Whereas the deliverability of the North of the Bowes Road Site is questioned, the site known as 'Land west of Startforth Memorial School' is sustainable, available and deliverable and the reasons for discounting this site in the SHLAA process is questioned There is no guarantee that Startforth will get affordable housing. Development would lead to an extra 300 / 800 cars so a new bridge over the Tees will be required for access to services and facilities, as well as a bypass for heavy lorries to preserve the existing bridge and town centre; there will be an adverse impact on parking in the town centre, on pollution and on the local highway network, especially the A67; also, where will visitors to HM Young Offenders Institution park other than residential streets? More people in need of jobs will have a detrimental impact on the local economy. Community Facility: the area is a well used community facility, recreational area of green parkland with ancient oaks. The site has historical links to the military going back to Napoleonic times. Public transport, medical, fire, police, leisure and community facilities are already limited. Sites in the Barnard Castle area should be medium to long term rather than short term. The site is sustainable, suitable, available and deliverable and positively contributes towards meeting housing needs, consistent with national policy and it should be brought forward in the short term, not in the medium term.

Response to main issues:

78 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H79 - North of Bowes Road

consultation findings, the availability of suitable, deliverable land, market factors and infrastructure requirements. The Spatial Strategy directs the majority of housing growth to the most sustainable locations across the County i.e. the Main Towns and Smaller Villages & Larger Towns. In regards to the County Durham Settlement Study Startforth is clustered in with Barnard Castle along with Stainton Grove and therefore for the purposes of the Plan it is appropriate to allocate land within it to meet the future needs of Barnard Castle. The area is considered capable of sustaining the level of housing growth planned over the lifetime of the Plan. In turn such growth will help sustain and grow local services and facilities. The site at Startforth Memorial School was discounted given significant adverse residual visual and landscape impacts, significant impact on landscape designation, coalescence issues. Policy 31 requires a 15% rate of affordability, unless viability constraints can be demonstrated. The Highways Authority advise that in principle a highway access for residential can be formed, the most obvious being from the existing B6277 access. The employment land allocation in the Western Delivery area is greater than recommended in the Employment Land Review, while some sites allocated in the Teesdale Local Plan have dropped out given they do not have the requirements of modern businesses. Policy 23 'Employment Land' provides an employment allocation of 12.84 ha (existing and proposed extensions) in the Barnard Castle area, with proposed Policy 17 'Exception Sites' allowing employment related development which for one reason or another cannot be located within employment allocations. The development of the site would not result in the loss of land identified in the Open Space Needs Assessment. There is a PROW which would need to be retained. There is also a shortfall of parks & gardens, natural green space and allotments within the wider ward which would need to be considered should the site be developed for housing. The site would need to be researched and assessed prior to determining any planning application. No known infrastructure deficiencies. Development of the site would be within STW headroom. The phasing of sites within the Plan is indicative and is merely intended as a guide to when it is envisaged that the sites will come forward, based upon an assessment of the market; infrastructure constraints; any issues which may affect viability; and other relevant issues. It is not intended to be a definitive and inflexible rule as to when sites will be developed. There is no reason why a site which is phased as later in the Plan period could not be developed earlier if it becomes clear that the site can be viably developed sooner and any constraints overcome.

H80 - Grove Works

Number of representations to this allocation. 1

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 1 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 79 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H80 - Grove Works

Allocation supported

Response to main issues:

Support noted

H81 - Rear of High Riggs

Number of representations to this allocation. 4

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 4 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

The plan should identify land over the whole 20 year period, with medium and long term phasing. Concern raised by operators of adjoining businesses in case their businesses give rise to amenity issues which in their view raise questions as to the long term viability of these businesses. An alternative approach would be expand H81 to include the adjoining business sites for housing. It is considered that the development will result in loss of views, privacy and impact on value of properties. Concern is raised that steep slopes would make it difficult for elderly people to get access to services. Will put pressure on existing services, roads, parking (and in-turn local shops), sewerage, schools, doctors etc It is argued that new housing will not bring employment

Response to main issues:

The compatibility of the site for housing in respect of adjoining uses has been formally assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and found to be acceptable. However, should any amenity issues arise at application stage these may be addressed through amenity mitigation measures.

80 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H81 - Rear of High Riggs

The determination of any future planning applications will assess issues relating to amenity of existing and future residents. The value of dwellings and right to a view are not material planning considerations. In consideration of representations the Council can only take into account material planning considerations. An indication of the sort of issues that may or may not be relevant is provided on the Council’s web site: http://content.durham.gov.uk/PDFRepository/MaterialPlanningConsiderations.pdf Barnard Castle is a main town with a good range of services and facilities. The town centre provides access to local facilities including shops and bus services.

Development will be within sewage headroom. Local medical / GP facilities provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by NHS Property Services Ltd, where supply and demand issues have been identified as a result of new development the Council will work with developers and partners to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan). Education provision relating to future housing growth has been assessed by the Pupil Place Planning Team of Durham County Council, where supply and demand issues have been identified as a result of new development the Council will work with developers to secure appropriate levels of provision (details are available within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan).

The employment land allocation in the Western Delivery area is greater than recommended in the Employment Land Review. Some sites allocated in the Teesdale Local Plan are proposed for deallocation given they do not have the requirements of modern businesses. Policy 23 Employment Land provides an employment allocation of 12.84 ha (existing and proposed extensions) in the Barnard Castle area, with proposed policy 17 Exception Sites allowing employment related development which for one reason or another cannot be located within employment allocations.

H82 - South of Green Lane

Number of representations to this allocation. 2

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 2 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

It is considered that sites should not be identified as short term otherwise there will be no available land in years 5 to 20, which is contrary to the aims of the plan. No evidence is provided to justify increase in density and associated impact on access to school / nursery, parking and local highway network, and the amenity of those living nearby.

Response to main issues:

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 81 Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H82 - South of Green Lane

The Highway Authority raises no objections, although this is subject to 3rd Party Land issues being resolved. The increase is not considered significant enough to adversely impact upon residential amenity of existing residents.

H83 - Rear of Bridge Inn

Number of representations to this allocation. 5

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 5 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised:

Questioning the demand for new housing within Middleton in Teesdale and therefore the inclusion of this site in the plan. Concerns over highways access to the site and the prominence at the entrance to the village.

Response to main issues:

The impacts of the development of this site upon a wide range of matters including access and impact upon the wider landscape have been fully assessed through the SHLAA process and are considered to be acceptable in principle. Where mitigation is required this is identified in the SHLAA.

Highways have confirmed that an access is achievable, and any new junction with Bridge Street must be located towards the north of the site, further in the 30mph section and avoiding visibility splays crossing the bridge parapet or intervening land between it and the subject land.

82 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Pre-Submission Draft Housing Sites

H84 - East of Leekworth Gardens

Number of representations to this allocation. 18

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 0 sound.

Number of comments setting out the allocation is 18 not sound.

Summary of main issues raised: Concern over Highways issues relating to the potential development with regard to access and congestion along Leekworth Gardens. The need for more new housing within Middleton in Teesdale and if required why are alternative brown field sites not utilised. Flooding issues, surface water drainage problems and the flooding of the actual site

Response to main issues:

The sites in the area have been re-assessed as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment update and the allocations in the Plan are considered to be the most suitable to meet the Distribution of Development (Policy 4) housing requirement. The impacts of the development of this site upon a wide range of matters including access, biodiversity, flood risk, and the wider landscape have been fully assessed through the SHLAA process and are considered to be acceptable in principle. Where mitigation is required this is identified in the SHLAA. The suitability of this site has been reviewed as part of the annual review of the SHLAA and in the knowledge of the objections previously raised. Material planning considerations will be taken into account when considering any application As set out in the Plan, to support the population, migration and job growth set out in the chosen scenario and promote sustainable living sufficient housing land needs to be identified to accommodate future households, including those than move into the County. Using the mid-range projections to calculate objectively assessed need and with the allowance for economic growth the requirement is 31,400 new homes by 2030. The number of units proposed on each site are, in most cases, an indicative figure that will meet the housing requirement as set out in the Plan. It is accepted that the 31,400 is a minimum requirement. Exact numbers will be considered as part of a planning application. There will be some sites which will not support a higher number due to factors such as the site layout or surrounding densities A full assessment of brownfield sites within the County has been undertaken through the SHLAA process and suitable, available sites have been allocated wherever possible and appropriate. The determination of any future planning applications will assess issues relating to amenity of existing and future residents. The value of dwellings and right to a view are not material planning considerations. In consideration of representations the Council can only take into account material planning considerations. An indication of the sort of issues that may or may not be relevant is provided on the Council’s web site: http://content.durham.gov.uk/PDFRepository/MaterialPlanningConsiderations.pdf

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 83 Objections to non-allocated sites

1/LA/07 Cadger Bank HA/17

5/DH/01 - Land at Deaf Hill

2/RI/01 - Land at Picktree Lane HA/54

7/SH/119 - Land north of Fulton Court HA/101

2/BO/03 - Land at Castlefields, Bournmoor

6/GF/03b & 03a - Land at Neville Close HA/114

HA/47 South of Wellfield Road

HA115- 6/MT/09 South of Pennine Cottage

HA104 Opposite West Road

4/LA/01 - Land East of Langley Park

5/PE/27 - Land at Lowhills

1/CO/13 - South of Berry Edge Farm

HA111 West of Startforth Morritt Memorial School

5/SE/23 - Land at New Drive Seaham

4/DU/73 - Sniperley Park

84 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Additional Housing Sites submitted at the Pre-Submission Draft stage

Presser Pumping Station

Sacriston Pumping Station

5/HW/01 - Land at Hawthorn

5/SE/25 - Land at Seaham Grange

Land to the west of the A694, East Law

7/NA/079 - Former Elmfield Primary School

5/SE/26 - Land North of Seaton Lane

4/BS/07 - Land at Brasside Stores

5/MU/22 - Land South of Station Road

5/SH/14 - Land to the West of B1280

4/KE/02 - Land North of Woodland Crescent

4/CO/03c - Land at Coxhoe Industrial Estate

3/SP/19- Shittlehopeburn Farm

Canney Hill

HA43 Land behind Burns Tce & Swan Castle Farm

Land west of Station Road West Rainton

3/WO/11- Land rear of Durham Road

1/TL/03- Tanfield Lea Industrial Estate

3/BA/01 - Land North of High Bondgate

Land at Flint Hill

Land at Laundry Cottage

Land to rear of Durham City Retail Park-off Eden Terrace

Land at Eldon

5/SE/15 - Land at Dalton Heights

7/CH/118 - Land South of Chilton

4/DU/59- Land at Ustinov College-Kepier House

4/BH/01- Land South of Station House

Land to South West of West Auckland

5/WH/05- Wheatley Hill Dog Track

4/PA/02- Land east of Parkhill

4/DU/18- Blagdon Depot

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 85 Additional Housing Sites submitted at the Pre-Submission Draft stage

Land at Waldridge

Land at Whitwell Acres

3/WI/03- Lowfield Farm House

Land at Former Sawmills Site

5/PE/26 Andrews Hill

Land adjacent Harmire Enterprise Park

Land at Seaham Grange

Land West of Howlish Hall

7/SP/101-Land West of Attwood Terrace

7/SP/135-Wider Tudhoe Colliery Site

7/CH/062 - Land to the South of Chilton Cemetery

7/CH/078a - Land North of West Chilton Farm

4/BE/02 - Land at Waterworks, Bearpark

7/BM/061 - North of Stoneybeck

2/FE/02 - Land North of Morton House

2/CH/07 - Land between Waldridge Lane & Road

2/CH/08 - Land between Waldridge Road & Castle Farm

Land at Haswell

2/BO/06 - Bournmoor Cricket Club

2/BO/10 - Whitehall Farm

Land at Coundon

1/DI/07b- North Road Harelaw

Land at Durham Gate

7/SP/331- Land at Grayson Road

7/KM/036- South of Merrington Road

7/KM/037- South of Merrington Road

3/TR/02- Land to the South of Addison Road

7/SF/123- Land east of Stockton Road

3/WI/01- Land Opposite West Road

3/SB/03-Opposite Hunwick Lane

86 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report Additional Housing Sites submitted at the Pre-Submission Draft stage

3/SS/06- Land Rear 54-57 Front Street

7/SH/053- North of Shildon Leisure Park

7/SH/317- Land East of Primrose Drive

Land on the North side of Escomb Road, BA

7/SF/124 - Land at Stockton Road

Plawsworth Reservoir

4/BR/05 - Land at Brandon Lane

3/BA/28 - Land North of Etherley Moor

1/LA/12 - Herdsman Close

3/CR/37 - Land at the former Crook Works

3/HU/02 - Dyson Thermal Technologies

4/DU/107 & 4/DU/106 & 4/DU/105

3/BA/42 - Land South of Durham Road

4/SB/02 - Land East of Forster Avenue

Land at Low Farm, Bradbury

4/DU/129 - Passport Office, Framwellgate Peth

Fernhill, Newcastle Road, Durham

7/KM/034 - South of Primary School

Pre-Submission Draft Consultation - Housing Allocations Feedback Report 87