Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: DM/15/03912/OUT
Outline application with all matters reserved (except for access details of roundabout and internal distributor road) for a maximum of the following; 270 dwellings (class C3), a 70 bed hotel (class C1), a 60 bed residential care home (class C2/C3), a 3.96ha solar farm, change of use of 710m2 of agricultural land to residential FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: garden space, 170,859m2 of general industrial, storage and distribution (class B2/B8), 1,858m2 of restricted goods retail (class A1), 409m2 restaurant/café/takeaway (class A3/A5), 613m2 public house (class A4), 450m2 childrens nursery (class D1), 400m2 GP surgery (class D1) and 1860m2 car showroom (class sui generis)
NAME OF APPLICANT: Citrus Durham Ltd
ADDRESS: Land South of Bowburn and West of the A688, Bowburn
ELECTORAL DIVISION: Coxhoe
Henry Jones, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER: 03000 263960 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The Site
1. The application site comprises approximately 83 hectares of arable fields and pasture and is located to the immediate south of Bowburn. It includes the buildings of Peat Edge Farm, together with two residential properties located towards the eastern side of the site. The site excludes the Northumbrian Water Sewage Treatment works located within the application site towards the Leamside Line and would remain in situ.
2. The eastern boundary of the site follows the A688, with the exception of a small parcel of land that lies to the east of the A688, adjacent to Durham Services. The site is bounded to the north by the Bowburn Industrial Estate and to the south by the Tursdale Industrial Estate. The western boundary of the site generally follows the disused Leamside Railway line, with the exception of a small parcel of agricultural land lying to the west of the Leamside line. 3. The site is located on land which was identified in the City of Durham Local Plan, under Policy EMP7, as a Prestige Industrial site/Rail Freight Interchange facility. The site contains no statutory or locally designated landscape, ecological sites or designated heritage assets, although Peat Edge Farm and one of the vacant residential properties (Crow Trees), located within the site, are considered to be non- designated heritage assets. Tursdale Local Wildlife Site lies adjacent to the southern site boundary. There are some listed buildings and Conservation Areas located in Bowburn and the surrounding area.
4. Bridleway No. 36 (Cassop cum Quarrington Parish) runs westwards from Bowburn along the northern boundary of the woodland and into the countryside to the west of the disused railway line. Footpaths No.s 1 and 10 (Cassop cum Quarrington) run through the site. Footpath No. 10 runs diagonally through the site from Bowburn towards the sewage works, it then crosses the railway line to the south of the sewage works. This route is joined by Footpath No. 1, which runs east-west across the site from Durham Services towards the sewage works where it joins the other footpath.
The Proposal
5. Planning permission is sought in outline with all matters reserved (except for access details of the roundabout and one internal distributor road) for a maximum of the following; 270 dwellings (class C3), a 70 bed hotel (class C1), a 60 bed residential care home (class C2/C3), a 3.96ha solar farm, change of use of 710m2 of agricultural land to residential garden space, 170,859m2 of general industrial, storage and distribution (class B2/B8), 1,858m2 of restricted goods retail (class A1), 409m2 restaurant/café/takeaway (class A3/A5), 613m2 public house (class A4), 450m2 children’s nursery (class D1), 400m2 GP surgery (class D1) and 1860m2 car showroom (class sui generis). It is assumed that delivery of the site would be over three phases and take ten years to be fully occupied,
6. Access would be taken from the A688, approximately 0.5km south of the A1 (M) roundabout. The roundabout would have an inscribed circle diameter of 70 metres and will have two lane approaches on the north and south and A688 approaches and the main exit from the proposed development. The fourth arm that would serve the residential and mixed retail uses would be a single lane approach. The internal access roads would be developed to adoptable standards with a main access road taking a dual carriageway format complete with central verge and footway/cycleway provision on both sides. The remaining access roads would be single carriageways with footway cycleway provision throughout.
7. Pedestrian access from the north of the development to the A177 and Bowburn village would be achieved at two locations; approximately 100m and 400m west of the A1 (M) roundabout. The latter being on the alignment of the existing PROW. An additional footway connection would be provided to the Leamside line south of the sewage works on the alignment of the existing PROW. There would be improvements to the existing footpath network outwith the application boundary, including a new shared use footway/cycleway running from the development adjacent to the A688 to the A1 (M) junction. Within the proposed development site, an alternative route for the existing right of way would be provided. There would also be a number of other footpath/cycleway links within and into the site.
8. As the application is in outline it is accompanied by a series of parameter plans and an indicative layout plan. The parameter plans set out details in relation to the extent of development, land use zones, access arrangements, maximum building heights, dark zones and green infrastructure. The land use plan shows the residential areas, doctors surgery and residential care home would be located to the north and east of the site, adjacent to the existing settlement of Bowburn. The bulky goods retail uses, pub/restaurant, separate restaurants and cafes, nursery and car show room are proposed in the ‘hub’ area near the site entrance. The employment (B2\B8) uses would occupy the majority of the site and be located to the south, north and north west of the main entrance. A solar farm is proposed to the west of the disused railway line which in part could serve an energy user on site. The existing woodland in the north of the site would be retained and structural planting is proposed around the majority of the site boundaries.
9. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). This report has taken into account the information contained in the ES and subsequently submitted details and that arising from statutory consultations and other responses.
10. This planning application is being reported to County Planning Committee as it is a major development of over 4 hectares.
PLANNING HISTORY
11. The application site has a complex planning history and there are three planning permissions of relevance to the application proposals, which relate to approximately 30 hectares of the 83 hectare application site.
12. Outline planning permission (4/06/00746/OUT) was approved in October 2006 for a Business Park (Use Class B1) with associated site access arrangements to include works to A1 (M) motorway junction 61, A688 road and motorway service area. This remains an extent planning permission.
13. Outline planning permission (4/09/00071/OUT) was approved in May 2009 for an application for a business and employment park to include use class B1 (65030sqm gross internal floor area), B2 and B8 (27870sqm gross internal floor area), with associated site access arrangements to include works to A688, motorway service area link and works to A1(M) junctions 60, 61 and 62. The time limit to implement this application was subsequently extended through an application to renew the outline permission (CMA/4/78) in August 2012. This permission has not been implemented.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
14. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
15. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.
16. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.
17. NPPF Part 2 – Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres. A sequential test should be applied to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Such planning applications should also be required to provide an impact assessment, which considers the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of defined retail centres and investment in these centres.
18. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
19. NPPF Part 6 - Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes. To boost significantly the supply of housing, applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
20. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.
21. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities and planning policies and decisions should achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments. This includes the development and modernisation of facilities and services.
22. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
23. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land. 24. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf
25. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this application is the practice guidance with regards to; air quality; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; design; ensuring the vitality of town centres; environmental impact assessment; flood risk; health and wellbeing; land stability; light pollution; natural environment; noise; open space, sports and recreation, public rights of way and local green space; planning obligations; renewable and low carbon energy; travel plans, transport assessments and statements; use of planning conditions and; water supply, wastewater and water quality.
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
LOCAL PLAN POLICY:
The City of Durham Local Plan (May 2004) (CDLP)
26. Policy E3 - World Heritage Site Protection. Protection seeks to safeguard the site and setting from inappropriate development that could harm its character and appearance.
27. Policy E7 – Development Outside Settlement Boundaries – seeks to protect the countryside, a finite resource, from inappropriate development and guide new development towards sites within existing settlements in order to meet social and economic needs over the Plan period. Accordingly, development outside settlement boundaries will not normally be allowed
28. Policy E10 - Areas of Landscape Value: Is aimed at protecting the landscape value of the district's designated Areas of Landscape Value as well as landscapes outside of the designation.
29. Policy E14 – Protection of Existing Trees and Hedgerows – seeks to protect Ancient Woodland, designate Tree Preservation Orders where necessary, and safeguard important trees and hedgerows, requiring tree surveys where appropriate
30. Policy E15- Provision of New Trees and Hedgerows. States that the Council will encourage tree and hedgerow planting in major development sites.
31. Policy E16 – Protection and Promotion of Nature Conservation seeks to protect and promote nature conservation.
32. Policy E18 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – seeks to safeguard all sites of nature conservation importance. 33. Policy E21 – Conservation and Enhancement of the Historic Environment – states that the historic environment will be preserved and enhanced by minimising adverse impacts by development proposals.
34. Policy E22 – Conservation Areas – seeks to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas.
35. Policy E23 – Listed Buildings – seeks to safeguard listed buildings and their settings.
36. Policy E24 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Remains – seeks to protect such heritage assets by precluding development that would damage them. Pre- application evaluation or an archaeological assessment should be carried out, and where present such assets should be either preserved in situ or investigated and recorded.
37. Policy H3 – New Housing Development within the Villages – permits new housing development within settlement boundaries of villages.
38. Policy H5 – New Housing in the Countryside – permits new housing development in the countryside only where specific criteria is met and primarily has an agricultural or forestry justification.
39. Policy H12 – Affordable Housing – states that on sites of 25 or more dwellings or 1 ha or more in size a fair and reasonable proportion of affordable housing will be provided.
40. Policy H12A – Type and Size of Housing. States that the type and size of dwellings will be monitored with where appropriate negotiation.
41. Policy H13 – Residential Areas – Impact upon Character and Amenity – protects residential areas from development that would have a significant adverse effect on their character or appearance, or the amenities of residents within them.
42. Policy EMP7 – Prestige Industrial Development/Rail Freight Terminal, Tursdale. Allocates 52 hectares of land south of Bowburn south industrial estate for the development of a prestige industrial and business site (Class B1, B2 and B8). Part of the site, abutting the Leamside Line will be reserved for the development of a regional inter modal rail freight interchange facility. It also allocated 136 hectares of land for further development of the rail freight facility beyond the current plan period. In this area of reserved land permission will only be granted for employment uses which require a direct rail link or proximity to the rail terminal. No other use will be permitted on this site other than those which are ancillary and appropriate to the occupiers of the site.
43. Policy T1 – Traffic Generation – General – states that development proposals which would result in a level of traffic generation detrimental to highway safety should not be granted planning permission.
44. Policy T9 - Movement of Freight. Supports the re-opening of the Leamside Line for the movement of freight by rail and supports the development of a rail freight terminal at Tursdale.
45. Policy T10 – Parking – General Provision. States that vehicle parking should be limited in amount, so as to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the land-take of development. 46. Policy T19 – Cycling – Development of Cycle Routes. The Council will seek to ensure the development of a safe, attractive and convenient network of cycle routes.
47. Policy T20 – Cycling – Provision of Cycle Parking. Sets out a requirement to encourage the provision of facilities for parking cycles in the city centre and at other appropriate locations.
48. Policy T21 – Walking – states that existing footpaths and public rights of way should be protected.
49. Policy S1a – Retail Hierarchy. Seeks to protect and promote the vitality and viability of all centres within the local retail hierarchy.
50. Policy S9B – Major out of Centre Proposals. Sets out the retail hierarchy for site preference for large scale retail and leisure development, and sets out where such uses cannot be accommodated in designated areas the specific criteria against which such proposals should be judged in any event.
51. Policy S11 – Miscellaneous Sales. Permits the sale of motor vehicles within General Industrial Estates. Elsewhere within settlement boundaries such a proposal will be permitted if it is not contrary to another policy in the plan; it is not within a predominantly residential area; and there is no adverse effect on amenities of nearby occupiers or on the character or visual amenity of an area or highway safety.
52. Policy R2 – Recreational and Amenity Space in New Residential Developments. Seeks to ensure that the provision of open space for outdoor recreation is evenly distributed and is maintained at a level that meets the needs of its population. A minimum overall standard of 2.4 hectares of outdoor sports and play space per 1,000 population will be sought.
53. Policy R11 – Public Rights of Way and Other Paths. This policy states that public access to the countryside will be encouraged and safeguarded by protecting the existing network of public rights of way and other paths from development which would result in their destruction or diversion unless a suitable alternative is provided and the proposal accords with Policy T21.
54. Policy V7 – Visitor Accommodation – In the Countryside. States that planning permission for new visitor accommodation in the countryside will be granted if it is an extension to an existing establishment catering for visitors; or it involves the conversion of an existing building or it would not be contrary to other local planning policies.
55. Policy C2: Health Centres, Surgeries and Clinics. States that permission will be granted for the development of health centres, doctors and dental surgeries and other clinics within settlement boundaries provided that the proposal is well related to residential areas; would not have a detrimental affect on the amenity of neighbouring properties or highway safety; would be close to public transport routes and accessible by a choice of means of transport; and allows level access for pedestrians with disabilities.
56. Policy C8 – Community Facilities – Provision of New. States that planning permission will be granted for community facilities such as community centres where, amongst other things, they are within existing settlement boundaries and are well- related to residential areas, are capable of serving a number of uses, and would not adversely affect residential amenity. 57. Policy Q1 – General Principles Designing for People. Requires the layouts of developments to take into account the requirements of users including: personal safety and security; the access needs of people with disabilities and the elderly; and the provision of toilets and seating where appropriate.
58. Policy Q2 – General Principles Designing for Accessibility. The layout and design of all new development should take into account the requirements of users and embody the principle of sustainability.
59. Policy Q4 - Pedestrian Areas. Requires public spaces and such areas to be well designed and constructed with quality materials. Public realm and lighting to ensure community safety are referred to.
60. Policy Q5 – Landscaping – General – requires all new development which has an impact on the visual amenity of the area in which it is located to incorporate a high level of landscaping in its overall design and layout.
61. Policy Q6 – Structural Landscaping. Development located on the edge of settlements or in exposed sites will be required to use peripheral structural landscaping in order to minimise the impact of the development
62. Policy Q7 – Layout and Design Industrial and Business Development. Requires such development to be of a standard appropriate to the area within which it is located and to have regard to the requirements of Policies Q1 and Q2.
63. Policy Q8 – Layout and Design Residential Development. Sets out the Council's standards for the layout of new residential development. Amongst other things, new dwellings must be appropriate in scale, form, density and materials to the character of their surroundings. The impact on the occupants of existing nearby properties should be minimised.
64. Policy Q15 – Art in Design. Encourages the provision of artistic elements within new developments.
65. Policy U5 – Pollution Prevention – General. Planning permission for development that may generate pollution will not be granted if it results in; an unacceptable adverse impact upon the quality of the local environment; the amenity of nearby and adjoining land and property or; will unnecessarily constrain the development of neighbouring land.
66. Policy U7 – Pollution Prevention – Development Sensitive to Pollution. Developments which are sensitive to pollution will not be permitted on land which is subject to unacceptable levels of contamination, pollution, noise or vibration.
67. Policy U8A – Disposal of Foul and Surface Water. Requires all new development to have satisfactory arrangements for foul and surface water disposal.
68. Policy U9 – Watercourses. States that development which may affect watercourses will only be permitted provided that they do not result in flooding or increase flood risk elsewhere; or they do not result in the pollution of the watercourse; or they do not adversely affect nature conservation interests; or they do not adversely affect the visual appearance of the landscape; and their environmental impact is properly assessed.
69. Policy U10 – Natural Flood Plains. Proposals for new development shall not be permitted in flood risk areas or where development may increase the risk of flooding elsewhere unless it can be demonstrated by means of a flood risk assessment and sequential test that certain criteria is met. 70. Policy U11 - Development on Contaminated Land. Sets out the criteria against which schemes for the redevelopment of sites which are known or suspected to be contaminated. Before development takes place it is important that the nature and extent of contamination should be fully understood.
71. Policy U13 - Development on Unstable Land. This policy states that development will only be permitted if it is proved there is no risk to the development or its intended occupiers, or users from such instability, or that satisfactory remedial measures can be undertaken.
72. Policy U14 - Energy Conservation – General. States that the energy efficient materials and construction techniques will be encouraged.
73. Policy U15 – Energy Conservation- Renewable Resources. Supports proposals for renewable energy generation, subject to protection of landscape, nature conservation, amenity, noise and heritage impacts being acceptable.
RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:
The County Durham Plan
74. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 18 February 2015, however that report was Quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. As part of the High Court Order, the Council is to withdraw the CDP from examination, forthwith. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at:
http://www.durham.gov.uk/ldf (City of Durham Local Plan)
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES:
75. Coxhoe Parish Council – Supports the proposals for business, retail and industrial elements as they add to the local economy but expresses concern about impact on school places. Suggests that the application site could provide an ideal location to locate both a new infant and senior school serving Bowburn and Coxhoe.
76. Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish Council – Raise objections. Support is offered to the principle of the development of the site for business and employment purposes. However, concerns are raised with regards to the residential element of the development. Housing would be contrary to the CDLP, would lead to pressure for further housing development, place pressure on local services including schools and the GP surgery whilst local retail outlets are inadequate. Recreational facilities are located east of the A177 with no appropriate crossing facility and in general the proposed residential estates are detached from the community and this conflicts with the Bowburn and Park Hill Masterplan. Objections are raised to the highways and traffic implications of the development. Should planning permission be granted conditions are recommended relating to: A177 pedestrian crossing; a financial contribution towards school accommodation and transport for secondary school pupils; an extension to the road within the development so as to provide the route for the Bowburn bypass; apprenticeship and training requirements; traffic calming measures on the A688; measures to reduce the nuisance of HGVs parking in the Tursdale lay-by; phasing so as to ensure the GP surgery is constructed as early as possible and that the first business premises are occupied before construction commences on one of the residential estates; a percentage for art contribution; recreational space contribution; landscaping and environmental improvements on Durham Road to create an inviting link for the development; financial contributions towards Bowburn Community Association and the DJ Evans Youth Club.
77. Cornforth Parish Council – Object on the grounds that the A688 is already heavily trafficked and inadequate to cope with the flows of traffic likely to be generated by a development of this size.
78. Highway Authority – Raise no objection subject to conditions. Initial concerns related to a correct assessment of the base line situation and determination of current queues and delay. Appropriate junction modelling has been undertaken by consultants and assessed by County Highways officers on the key junctions in the vicinity of and associated with the proposed development. It is recommended that mitigation measures to increase capacity and ensure safe operation are implemented and conditions are imposed to secure safe operation of the proposed A688/ Pub restaurant/ New site access. In addition to a traffic analysis impact, the applicant’s consultant has also undertaken an analysis of all modes and produced a travel plan for the development. Highways officers are satisfied that the impacts of the development traffic have been satisfactorily assessed by the applicant’s transport consultant and that subject to conditions raise no objection to the proposal. It would be necessary for the applicant to enter into an agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, in order to ensure the adoption of the proposed new highways, particularly noting that to serve the residential areas and the potential Bowburn relief road. In addition a combined S38/ section 278 agreement with the Highway Authority would need to be secured before any development commence in relation to the proposed A688/ New site access roundabout junction. Proposed works at Junction 61 A1 (M) roundabout would require the applicant to enter into an agreement with Highways England to secure works within its network.
79. Highways England – Raise no objection subject to agreement on the staged highway mitigation works to Junction 61 and the A1(M).
80. Northumbrian Water – Raise no objections. Bowburn Sewage Treatment Works (STW) is located adjacent to the site. The layout of the development appears to have taken into account the potential for noise and odour to emanate from the STW with the more sensitive residential receptors located away from the STW. The STW has capacity to cater for the foul water discharge of the development. There are no existing sewer flooding issues in Bowburn, for which it is the responsibility of NWL to resolve. Existing sewers are located within the site boundary and NWL do not permit building over or close to such sewers. An agreement must be reached with the applicant to resolve this such as via diversion of the sewers. The development should be implemented in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment in relation to foul water disposal.
81. Environment Agency – Raise no objections subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside Bowburn Beck so as to prevent development encroaching onto the watercourse. The bridge crossing location is also shown to be in an area at risk from flooding. Any crossing of the watercourse should take this risk into account and suitably sized structures put in place to allow conveyance of floodwater and be shown not to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
82. Drainage and Coastal Protection – Raise no objections. The proposal indicates the surface water would be discharged via traditional infrastructure drainage systems to large attenuation structures at strategic locations throughout the development which is not a preferred method of control. Whilst the Flood Risk Assessment states that further SUD’s systems may be applied, they are not evident in the application. The proposal should incorporate surface water management trains, applying sustainable source control methods within each development site. Details of all surface water drainage proposals should be discussed with officers prior to submission of a full application.
83. Natural England – Raise no objections. Implementation of the development in accordance with the submitted details would result in no adverse impact upon statutory nature conservation sites. Standing advice is provided with regards to protected species. The site contains priority habitat and the impact of the development upon this should be considered. General advice on the potential of the site to deliver biodiversity and landscape enhancements is provided.
84. Historic England – State that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of Local Authority specialist conservation advice.
85. Coal Authority – Raise no objections. The application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application. The Coal Authority records indicate that there are coal outcrops on the site and these may have been subject to historic unrecorded workings at shallow depth. The Coal Authority considers that the content and conclusions of the submitted Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system and meets the requirements of the NPPF in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. The Coal Authority therefore has no objection to the proposed development. However, further more detailed considerations of ground conditions and/or foundation design may be required as part of any subsequent building regulations application.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:
86. Spatial Policy – Raise no objection. Officers consider that there is a case for supporting the principal of the scheme when assessed against local and national policy. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF set clear tests for assessing if adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. There are clear benefits in bringing jobs, the development of a site that is well located but difficult to deliver, and a mix of other uses including boosting housing supply that can be delivered in accordance with national policy guidance. Should the application be ultimately approved, the importance of the industrial element should not be lost. It would be necessary for robust delivery mechanisms to be conditioned that would ensure that the industrial units are constructed and the scheme is not just partially implemented without the delivery of the industrial uses. In addition, strict conditions should be placed on the type of goods sold within the retail element. This should restrict goods to only those that are considered ‘bulky’. 87. Landscape – Raise no objection. The site lies within the Lowland Valley Terraces character area and is typified by pastoral farmland. The site area is not covered by any statutory landscape designations. The proposals are for a large development of a strategic scale which would inevitably have some significant effects on the character of the landscape at the site and local level which will need to form part of the balance of planning considerations. The proposals would not affect landscapes designated locally or nationally for their value and would be generally consistent with policies dealing with landscape matters. Should the proposals be considered acceptable in principle the masterplan and parameters plans produced as part of the outline applications should form a sound basis for detailed proposals coming forward.
88. Design and Conservation – Raise no objections. The principal of large scale mixed used development has previously been considered and approved in outline form most recently in 2012 for a proposed business park, housing and rail freight terminal. The proposed impact of the development in terms of Heritage significance is assessed as less than substantial and therefore the impact needs to be weighed against Public benefit. If this scheme move forwards as a full planning application then the maters of details design would be assessed as part of an internal design review based on Building for Life 12 which should set the benchmark for the quality of new development.
89. School Organisation Manager – No objections are raised. Sufficient capacity exists within Bowburn Junior School to cater for the development but not within Bowburn Infant School. There would be a shortfall of 34 places as a result of the development and therefore a financial contribution is requested to address this shortfall amounting to £397,970.
90. Employability – Raise no objections. The Council has an aspirational target of 10% of any labour requirement to be offered as new employment opportunities or training. With regards to this application, based on a total investment of £166m over a 10 year period officers would expect a development of this size would provide a significant economic impact on the local economy by creating jobs both directly in the construction industry and indirectly in the supply chain as well as creating jobs for local residents. Submitted documentations identifies the potential to create between 185 and 264 construction jobs per year as well as 3,781 FTE jobs from the commercial space. A breakdown of the investment between the residential and commercial elements is not yet available to enable calculation of a suitable level of new employment and skills outcomes. It is requested that Targeted Recruitment and Training is included as a condition or within a S106.
91. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) – Raise no objections, however, a condition requiring further investigation with regards to contaminated land is requested.
92. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Noise, Dust and Odour) – Raise no objections subject to conditions being imposed on any planning permission. With regards to noise the application site is located within a high noise area. The development could potentially result in significant night-time HGV movements. A noise mitigation strategy would be required to a number of the proposed properties including the use of mechanical ventilation. The proposed warehouse unit adjacent to the proposed housing has been orientated so as to reduce the potential for noise disturbance, however, it would be preferable for this unit to be in office rather than industrial use and some general concerns are raised with regards to the proximity of commercial units to residential property. A condition to agree the final lighting scheme is requested. The proposed industrial uses have the potential to cause dust and odour emissions though it is acknowledged that there is potential that these uses would be subject to further controls under an environmental permit. The application includes an odour assessment with regards to the existing sewerage treatment works. The housing development is significantly removed from the odour source and no objections are therefore raised. There is the potential for noise, dust and light from the construction works and therefore a construction management plan should be agreed under condition.
93. Environment Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – Raise no objections. The application is accompanied by an air quality assessment which identifies that predicted levels of air quality pollutants are well below the air quality objectives and the magnitude of change is negligible. A condition to ensure the implementation of an agreed Dust Action Control Plan should be attached so as to control the potential for dust during the construction phase of the development. A travel plan should be implemented so as to reduce the use of private motor vehicles.
94. Ecology – Recommends all mitigation measures detailed in the ES Ecology Chapters should be conditioned. The proposed 1m wide strip of habitat to be maintained on either side of Bowburn beck at the bridge crossing point should be extended to 2m on either side. Compliance with the requirements of the light and darkness plans should also be conditioned. This would provide acceptable mitigation for most of the negative impacts on biodiversity. However full mitigation is not possible for some farmland bird species and for barn owl which use the site. Similarly there would be significant loss of badger foraging territory.
95. Sustainability – Raise no objections. Concerns are expressed with regards to the connectivity with the village to the east. Reference is made to a previous sustainability appraisal for the site, however, this was conducted on the basis of employment uses only. The outcome of that appraisal resulted in generally positive outcomes in terms of social and economic determinants though more concern was raised regarding environmental determinants. Further information is requested with regards to the embedded sustainability measures that the scheme would include and a condition is recommended to this end.
96. Archaeology – Raise no objections subject to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work including trial trenching, a building recording of the farm complexes and strip, map and sample of the area of the former tileworks.
97. Access and Public Rights of Way – Raise no objections. The development would directly affect two recorded public rights of way (Footpaths 1 & 10 Cassop-cum- Quarrington Parish) and diversion orders would be necessary. The proposed diversion of Footpath No. 10 is on the roadside and it would be preferred if it were diverted through a landscape corridor.
98. Business Durham – Supports the development. It is considered that there is currently a lack of availability facilities which are being proposed by Integra 61 and this development would also attract much needed investment and new employment opportunities to the local community, to County Durham and the wider North East. Business Durham is of the opinion that high quality large scale developments of this nature would help both existing and new businesses to expand and believed this could be a really important development which would bring lasting economic benefits to all.
99. Regeneration and Economic Development – Supports the development. It is noted that this application proposes to extend the area of land that has previously had planning consent for commercial development, close to Junction 62 of the A1 (M). The focus is this application is to provide Use Class B2/B8 space instead of the previously approved B1, and for this development to be supported by a range of other uses (including residential). Monies generated from the construction of these other developments would be used to cross-subsidise the construction of the Industrial units. Therefore, it would be important that any planning consent provides sufficiently robust mechanisms to ensure that the industrial units are constructed and the scheme is not just partially implemented. The 270 residential dwellings and 60- bed residential home are located in close proximity to the existing settlement. To ensure that the new residents of these properties can access existing services and facilities in Bowburn in a safe and accessible way, it would be important that better pedestrian access routes are established by the developers. The creation of new construction jobs as well as longer term permanent employment opportunities should be supported. The location of the site in such close proximity to the motorway should be a competitive advantage.
100. Assets – Raise no objection. Officers consider that the majority of concerns and issues surrounding the viability report appear to have been addressed sufficiently by the applicant. In general officers are satisfied that a robust viability case, appropriately evidenced where necessary has been provided to justify a recommendation of approval.
PUBLIC RESPONSES:
101. The application was advertised within the press, on site and letters were sent to neighbouring properties. 11 representations have been received from members of the public which include 10 objections, 1 in support. The matters raised are summarised below.
Objection
Principle of the Development Local services and infrastructure will be unable to cater for the development The development lacks the ambition of redeveloping the whole site including the rail freight facility as referenced in existing and emerging Development Plans. This development in isolation will prejudice the land west of the Leamside Line from being developed as there will be no land available for further cross subsidising uses such as residential development to fund the necessary infrastructure costs. Existing hotels, restaurants, cafes and public houses already exist and are struggling and there is no requirement for further ones. Other locations with the infrastructure in place are more suited to the development. Overdevelopment of the site. Loss of greenfield land when brownfield is available. Similar developments have been permitted nearby and have not been completed and there is no need to repeat this.
Character, Landscape and Visual Impacts The proposed solar farm would have a significant impact on the countryside.
Flood Risk/Drainage Tursdale Beck is continually contaminated with sewerage and is prone to flooding. Highways Issues Bowburn suffers from traffic congestion at present without the impact of the development. The A1(M) Junction 61 roundabout is poorly designed in terms of its lane layout and signage resulting in both queues and dangerous vehicular movements at the roundabout itself. The new bypass road has resulted in increasing traffic congestion issues in Bowburn. Access onto the A688 is dangerous and the increase in traffic as a result of the development would exacerbate this. Drivers use country lanes around Hett as a rat run to avoid the traffic and congestion. Speeding is a problem along the A688.
Residential Amenity Disturbance and vibration as a result of HGVs servicing the warehouses at anti- social hours.
Ecology The contamination of Tursdale Beck has resulted in the destruction of wildlife.
Other Issues There is an oversupply of purpose built elderly person care homes in the region and a feasibility study is requested with regards to such a proposal. A public bridleway is incorrectly annotated on plan as a footpath. The scheme should include provision for horse riding access and any footpaths should be upgraded to bridleways. DCC are unable to provide the community with basic services such as refuse/recycling and road maintenance and it is aggrieved that DCC would provide this development with those services. Takeaways in the area result in lots of rubbish, similar development within this scheme will exacerbate this.
Support
If the residential home is a supported housing scheme for residents with lower acuity then this is supported. The development will attract much needed investment and new employment opportunities.
102. Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer – Raises no objection. The overall crime risk assessment for the development is considered moderate. From a Design out Crime perspective there are no issues with the overall layout however, detailed design advice is provided.
103. Durham Badger Group – Raise objection. The badger survey work is considered to have been undertaken at the wrong time of year and includes inadequate investigation into badger foraging areas and disused setts. Badger foraging space within the development site is inadequate whilst the suggestion that off-site foraging is available is not fully investigated as an appropriate solution. An increased buffer from the main sett is required. Traffic calming measures to reduce the potential for road kills should be incorporated into the scheme. 104. Bowburn Junior School – Object to the proposal. The investment and employment opportunities that the development would bring are welcomed. However, concerns are raised with regards to the potential impact on education provision in the village. It is considered that Bowburn requires a new primary school to replace the Junior and Infant schools. Bowburn Junior School suffers from maintenance problems and investment in the current building is probably not best value. Physically, the teaching spaces within the school are full.
105. Network Rail – Raise no objection. Provide a detailed schedule of requests and requirements to be accounted for in connection with their land. Requests are made in relation to drainage including ensuring that all surface and foul waters are directed away from Network Rail land/structures and specific separation distance requirements to water attenuation and drainage features are prescribed. Requirements are raised with regards to the construction phase of the development including that works are undertaken, agreement reached on the use of some machinery that the mutual boundary is secure and trespass proof. Landscaping and lighting requirements are raised. A glint and glare study is requested in relation to the proposed solar farm. It is confirmed that the disused level crossing to the north- west of the site is not to be reinstated.
106. Durham Bicycle Users Group –Raises a number of observations: main access roads should amended to segregate pedestrians and cycle paths; direct cycle access should be provided to Bowburn Village; and the entrance roundabout should provide signalised crossings.
107. Bowburn Local History Society – No observations on merits of application but suggest conditions relating to archaeological recording and public rights of access.
108. CPRE Durham – Expresses concern about the residential proposal for the same reasons as Bowburn and Parkhill Community Association but does not oppose the principle of the remainder of the development. Expresses the view that solar panels should where possible be placed on roofs. Questions whether the proposed cycle routes are extensive enough.
109. Bishop Auckland Cycling Club – No objection but suggests further consideration be given to adequacy of cycle routes.
110. Durham Bird Club – No objection but suggests greater emphasis needs to be given to new habitat creation.
111. Bowburn and Parkhill Community Partnership - Generally supports the scheme but wishes to see that, if it does proceed, it does bring benefits to the community in terms of infrastructure, environment and employment. Remain concerned about school capacity.
112. British Horse Society – No objection but seeks confirmation that the surface of the bridleway which would provide access to the solar farm will be retained as one suitable for horse use (ie non hard surface). Also specifies that rider safety is taken into consideration in choice of fence design and that opportunities are taken to upgrade footpaths to bridleways.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT: 113. As the applicant and owner of the Integra 61 site, Citrus are hugely excited by the prospect of realising the full potential of a site that the Council, and many others before it, have attempted to bring forward for development over the past 15 years or more. The site has however been blighted by incredibly complex land ownership, legal, technical, viability and other issues. It was for these reasons that Hitachi quickly dismissed the site several years ago.
114. Having assembled a first class team, we have worked incredibly hard over the past 2 years, alongside the officers of the Council, to address the plethora of issues affecting the site and have produced a high quality master plan that is appropriate, ambitious, robust and deliverable. We have also consulted widely with all the key stakeholders, including the local community and taken on board their comments wherever possible in the evolution of the scheme.
115. Our aim is simple: to see Integra 61 become the premier industrial and logistics location in the North East, with the ability to satisfy the large-scale requirements of major national and multi-national companies with individual buildings of up to 750,000sq ft or more, in a high quality landscaped and managed environment immediately alongside the A1(M). There are few, if any, other schemes in the region that can meet these requirements, so Integra 61 will help to attract inward investment and will create over 4,000 jobs when completed. It also paves the way for a longer term extension involving the Safeguarded land to the west of the Leamside Line and a potential rail freight facility if this long held ambition can eventually be realised.
116. The master plan also provides for up to 270 houses, ancillary retail, restaurants, hotel, nursery, care home and a GP surgery. Not only will these elements help the scheme become a vibrant, sustainable mixed- use working and living environment, they will also assist in cross- funding the massive infrastructure costs that have prevented the site from being delivered in the past.
117. The time is now right to take make this long awaited project a reality. There are some very sizeable requirements from major companies in the market right now that we are in danger of losing to other regions if we cannot offer certainty of delivery at Integra 61. We have the right scheme and the right team to deliver this development and meet the aspirations of the County and create the benefits we set out to provide.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at: http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
118. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that if regard is to be had to the development plan, decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the policies contained therein are material considerations that should be taken into account in decision-making. Other material considerations include representations received. In this context, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: principle of the development including general industrial, storage and distribution uses, the loss of employment land, viability assessment, acceptability of town centre uses, principle of car show room, care home, nursery and surgery, principle of housing, affordable housing, layout and design, principle of a solar farm, sustainability, education, landscape and visual impact, heritage, sustainable transport and highway safety, connectivity, flood risk and drainage, ecology, residential amenity, trees and hedgerows, ground conditions and mining and other matters.
The Principle of the Development
The Development Plan
119. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material planning consideration. The City of Durham Local Plan (CDLP) remains a statutory component of the development plan and the starting point for determining applications as set out at paragraph 12 of the NPPF. However, the NPPF advises at paragraph 215 that local planning authorities (LPAs) should give due weight to relevant policies in existing Local Plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
120. Furthermore, paragraph 14 of the NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means :
- approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
- where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:
i) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
ii) specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Neighbourhood Plan
121. The site is within the area of Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish where the Parish Council is preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and has a defined Neighbourhood Area including the site. The Parish is currently working on a draft Plan but has not yet commenced consultation so in accord with guidance in PPG it is not yet material. The proposal is on the CDLP Policy EMP 7 allocation/reserved site which in the context of the Local Plan would be considered a strategic policy. In this context the NP would need to be in general conformity with that policy so that would limit the ability of the NP to make changes to the intention to bring the site forward as a strategic employment/railfreight site. As such, it is not considered that appropriate development of this site would undermine the NP going forward as it would have limit scope to influence it as an employment site.
General Industrial, Storage and Distribution Uses
122. The application is in outline and detailed design taking into consideration the quality of development and requirements of CDLP Policies Q1, Q2 and Q4 will be considered at the reserved matters stage.
123. The northern part of the application site is allocated as a prestige industrial and business site under Policy EMP7 of the CDLP (considered compliant with the NPPF). The employment uses proposed in Phase 1 and Phase 3, as shown on the Indicative Phasing Plan and Land Use Parameter Plan, comprise B2 and B8 uses and therefore accord with the CDLP.
124. The Phase 2 employment (B2/B8) uses, located to the south of the site as shown on the Indicative Phasing Plan and Land Use Parameter Plan, lie within an area safeguarded for the development of a rail freight facility and associated ancillary uses beyond the plan period, also under Policy EMP7. This element of the development is therefore contrary to the CDLP Policy EMP7.
125. The storage and distribution uses alongside their associated ancillary officing are consistent with Policy EMP7 as it allocates 52 hectares for these uses at the north end of the site. The remainder of the site is not subject to an allocation but was reserved for rail freight activities and thus the storage and distribution uses proposed by this application in this area are contrary to the Local Plan. The other residential, retail, hotel and restaurant uses are also contrary to the Local Plan and are discussed further below.
The Loss of Employment Land
126. Phase 2 of the employment uses and the residential, hotel, residential care home, solar farm, bulky goods retail, restaurant/café/takeaway, public house, nursery, GP Surgery and car showroom elements of the proposed development, as shown on the Land Uses Parameter Plan are all contrary to the CDLP Policy EMP7 in that they fall out with the uses specified in the Policy.
127. CDLP Policy V7, considered partially consistent with the NPPF permits new visitor accommodation in the countryside subject to specific criteria applicable to this application would be that the proposal is not contrary to CDLP Policies E10 and E24 as discussed elsewhere in this report.
128. Whilst the CDLP remains a statutory component of the development plan and the starting point for determining applications as set out at paragraph 12 of the NPPF, the NPPF further advises at paragraph 215 that local planning authorities (LPAs) are only to afford existing Local Plans material weight insofar as they accord with the NPPF.
129. The NPPF advises at paragraph 22 that the long term protection of sites for employment use should be avoided where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Alternative land uses on such land should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.
130. The CDLP was adopted in 2004. Over the last 12 years there have been a number of planning applications submitted to develop the site for employment purposes, as outlined in the Planning History section of this report. However, none of the approved schemes have ever been implemented.
131. The planning statement accompanying the application highlights that no rail freight development has come forward at the site. It states that the outline permissions for a Business Park at the site have not been implemented, on the grounds that they were heavily office-based at a time when demand for office development in the North East had tailed off significantly and this approach combined with significant infrastructure costs and overly complex package of land ownerships and contractual restrictions, have meant that the previous consents were very unlikely to be delivered. 132. The applicant acquired the site from administration and it is understood to have taken nearly two years to resolve the legal and land ownership constraints out with planning. This supports the perceived difficulties in delivering the site and the view held by Officers that despite being in discussions with various other parties over several years, no one has actually brought together a deliverable, holistic scheme of development.
133. The submitted planning statement concludes that it is highly unlikely that a bespoke rail freight facility will occupy the site from the outset on the grounds that rail freight is inter-modal and requires significant road infrastructure and critical mass of established development to support the activities of rail freight. The development of rail freight in this location is also tied to the capacity of the East Coast Mainline and the reopening of the Leamside Line, which creates greater uncertainty and less likelihood of attracting rail freight development from the outset. Given the exacting requirements for rail freight it is likely given the proximity to the mainline and topography that this would come forward on the land to the west of the Leamside Line. However, this application to the east has been masterplanned in such a way that it can connect in with land to the west at the appropriate time.
134. Given that in the intervening time between the approval of the second outline application for business and employment park at the site there have been no reserved matters or detailed applications to develop the site, Officers do not dispute the fact that the site is unlikely to come forward for rail freight related uses.
135. Further compounding the practical deliverability issues is the significant infrastructure that the site requires to become a serviced business park before consideration is even given to any future potential rail freight infrastructure on the adjoining safeguarded land to the west of the Leamside Line ,outwith the application site.. A confidential detailed financial appraisal has been submitted including a breakdown of infrastructure costs which total circa £18m on top of the cost of site acquisition and going through the planning process.
136. The general viability of the scheme is discussed below, but Officers can conclude that in accordance with the NPPF there is no reasonable prospect of the application site coming forward with a rail freight facility, and therefore as Policy EMP7 is not considered fully compliant with the NPPF the introduction of alternative uses on this site is acceptable in principle, subject to the other material considerations set out in this report.
137. Although the majority of site are not within Use Class B it is the case that the proposed uses would still serve to create employment both during the construction and operational phases, thus providing a variety of job creation opportunities.
Viability Assessment
138. The delivery of the site is assumed to be over three phases and is on the basis that it will take ten years to be fully occupied, depending on the rate of take-up. Of the circa £18m infrastructure costs, approximately half is required in Phase 1. It is estimated that 150 of the residential units would be delivered in Phase 1 but the further 120 are unlikely to come forward until Phase 2. This is largely because of the anticipated build out and sale rate of dwellings in the area. The land receipt from the housing would be used to help cross-subsidise the capital cost of the infrastructure, however the applicant has demonstrated in the cash flow appraisal that whilst the housing helps it does not fully fund the infrastructure costs, so there is still a substantial net deficit until the commercial development comes forward. In this context there would be no incentive to deliver the residential development only, as has been the concern of some objectors.
139. The Council’s Assets Team has critically evaluated the financial appraisals submitted and the assumptions which have been prepared that underpin them. Whilst having requested various revisions and enhanced appropriate market evidence to support the viability case officers are now satisfied that a stage has been reached where a robust viability case, appropriately evidenced where necessary has been provided.
140. The other cross funding uses within the hub area would also be delivered in in stages, as occupiers are attracted to the site, it is unlikely that the hub uses would develop out fully without the critical mass of people provided by the employment uses. Taking the overall viability into account, the Council’s Assets Team is broadly satisfied with how the cross-funding case has been presented and proposed phasing of income within the development appraisal cash flows.
Acceptability of Town Centre Uses
141. In accordance with the NPPF paragraphs 24 and 26, planning applications for main town centre uses (such as retailing) which are not in a defined centre and do not accord with an up-to-date development plan should be subject to a sequential test (paragraph 24). Such uses should be located in town centres, followed by edge-of- centre locations and, only if suitable sites are not available, should out-of-centre sites be considered. When considering edge-of-centre and out-of-centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.
142. In addition to the above when assessing planning applications for retail use, outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with the local development plan, an impact assessment should be required if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (or a default threshold of 2,500 sqm where none exists).
143. The applicant has submitted a sequential and impact test for the main town centre uses to be provided within the ‘hub’ as outlined on the parameter plans. These uses are as follows: 1,858 sqm of bulky goods retail warehousing floorspace (Class A1); 409 sqm Restaurant and Café (Class A3/A5); 613 sqm Family Pub/Restaurant (Class A4); and 70 bed hotel.
144. The site is outside of any defined centre as detailed within the Retail Hierarchy established by the CDLP Policy S1a (considered compliant with the NPPF). It is also noted that Policy S9b of the Local Plan directs new large scale retail and leisure schemes sequentially to the centres identified within the hierarchy. This follows a similar approach to the NPPF (paragraphs 24-26), which provides more up to date guidance. Therefore as these main town centre uses are proposed in an out of centre location, in accordance with paragraphs 24-26 of the NPPF, a sequential and impact test is required.
145. The sequential analysis considers the centres of Durham City, Arnison, Sherburn Road, Ferryhill and Bowburn. Whilst these locations are sequentially preferable they have been discounted on grounds of suitability and availability. It is also accepted that the restaurant\cafe and hotel elements and to some extent the Pub are located on the basis of serving the new businesses and workers on site. However, the ‘bulky’ goods retail elements are not considered to rely upon the wider scheme and could become destinations in their own right.
146. A retail impact assessment has been undertaken of the proposal on potential schemes at Claypath and North Road in Durham City along with Festival Walk in Spennymoor and the committed supermarket scheme in Bowburn. Officers agree that these schemes are unlikely to be negatively impacted upon by the proposals put forward.
147. With regard to the impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres the same centres have been assessed that formed part of the sequential test. Each centre has been assessed on the impact on local consumer choice and in centre trade/turnover. With regard to consumer choice the pub/restaurant facilities would support the wider site and the hotel would serve the business community. It is also acknowledged that a business park of this scale would always attract other ancillary uses which in themselves are beneficial in reducing travel times for workers to reach these facilities.
148. The principle of ‘bulky’ goods retail is accepted on the basis that they would not have a significant adverse impact on comparable locations that have been considered as part of the assessment. It is also recognised that any trade diversion is likely to be widely spread and therefore reducing any impact to less than significant, in centre uses are also not likely to be in direct competition. The retailing of ‘bulky’ goods can be controlled via condition.
149. The proposal offers a mix of uses which would serve to create a vibrant mixed use development providing a variety of job creation opportunities. In addition it can be argued that the bulky good uses would enhance consumer choice within the immediate surrounding area.
Principle of Car Show Room, Care Home, Nursery and Surgery
Car Showroom
150. A car showroom is proposed within the entrance hub, adjacent to the A688. CDLP Policy S11 states that the sale of motor vehicles will be permitted within general industrial estates or elsewhere within settlement boundaries subject to the proposal meeting 4 criteria. The supporting text to this policy clarifies that car show rooms have locational requirements that cannot normally be met within existing shopping centres, needing large prominent frontage sites along major highways. The criteria proposed in Policy S11 are designed to ensure that such outlets do not dominate their surroundings or have adverse effects on residential or other amenities.
151. The proposed car showroom would lie within a site designated for Strategic Employment Allocation and beyond Bowburn’s settlement limits. However, it would be located on a prominent frontage, adjacent to a major road, within a large site capable of providing an open sales area and customer parking. Given the surrounding proposed uses the car showroom would not dominate its surroundings and its location will ensure it would not affect existing or proposed residential properties in the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that whilst therefore the proposal is not in strict accordance with CDLP Policy S11, as it does not lie within a general industrial estate or within settlement boundaries, it is clear that the proposed car show room can accord with the criteria defined in Policy S11 and the meet the aims of the Policy and is therefore considered acceptable in principle. Policy S11 is not considered compliant with the NPPF as there is no specific reference to retailing on industrial estates. Although the proposal is located outside of the settlement boundaries it is considered that the location would be located away from residential areas and is unlikely to have other adverse impacts. In that regard there are no concerns in principle to such a use.
Care Home
152. The applicant is proposing a residential care home to be located adjacent to the proposed Doctors Surgery and the existing residential area of Bowburn within the north-east of the application site.
153. NPPF paragraph 50 notes that LPAs should plan for a mix of housing to meet the needs of different groups in the community including older people. The proposed residential home would meet the requirements of paragraph 50 of the NPPF by catering for the needs of elderly people in Bowburn and the surrounding area.
154. CDLP Policy H16 permits the development of new residential institutions and care homes within settlement boundaries provided that they meet four criteria. The new residential care home does not lie within the existing limits of Bowburn and as such does not strictly accord with Policy H16. However, Officers consider that the weight that can be given to the existing settlement limits is limited and in reality the proposed Care Home will form part of the Bowburn settlement, being surrounded by existing and proposed residential properties. The Care Home will be well related to local shops, community and social facilities and public transport. The ILP shows the Care Home located within its own landscaped grounds with a landscape buffer to the rear of the building and car parking to the front. As such Officers are confident that satisfactory standards of amenity and open space for new residents can be provided and that the new Care Home will not detract from the character and appearance of the surroundings or the amenities of existing residents. Officers therefore consider that the proposed Care Home is acceptable having regard to the NPPF and CDLP Policy H16.
Nursery
155. A nursery is proposed within the entrance hub to the proposed development. Such a use is not specifically referred to in the NPPF or the CDLP. However, paragraph 72 of the NPPF confirms that LPAs should take a proactive and positive approach to development which will widen choice in education and paragraph 37 notes the requirement to minimise journey lengths for, inter alia, education. A nursery within the proposed development will widen the choice of nurseries for parents within the Bowburn area and given its location close to existing and proposed residential properties and significant employment opportunities, will minimise the length of travel or promote linked trips in accordance with national policy.
156. CDLP Policy C8 does not specifically relate to nurseries, but provides guidance for the provision of new community facilities and could therefore be relevant to the proposed development of a nursery. Policy C8 encourages the development of new facilities, provided that it meets six criteria. The development of a nursery in the entrance hub would meet criteria set out in the Policy requiring that the use is located within an existing settlement boundary and is well related to residential areas and local facilities. Whilst the nursery would not lie within the existing Bowburn settlement limits, it would be in close proximity to existing and proposed residential areas and would clearly serve to make the employment element of the application proposals more sustainable by providing childcare options within walking distance of places of work. The proposed nursery would be in broad accordance with CDLP Policy C8 which is considered to be NPPF compliant and therefore all can be afforded weight in the decision making process. Surgery
157. A doctor’s surgery is proposed in the north east of the site, immediately adjacent to the existing residential area of Bowburn. The Planning Statement states that the applicant has worked closely with the local medical practice to understand its current and future requirements. The local GP surgery has identified that it has plans to expand but cannot meet these needs on its existing site.
158. CDLP Policy C2 states that that planning permission will be granted for the development of health centres, doctors and dental surgeries and other clinics within settlement boundaries provided that such a proposal is well related to residential areas, would not have a detrimental effect upon the amenity of properties in the vicinity or on highway safety, is located close to public transport and allows level access in accordance with the requirements of CDLP Policy Q1.
159. Whilst the proposed GP surgery would lie just beyond the existing settlement boundary, it would be related to existing and proposed residential areas and as noted above Officers consider the weight that can be given to the existing settlement boundary is limited. The submitted Land Use Parameter Plan and ILP shows a landscape buffer between the surgery and existing residential properties. It is considered that the amenity of existing and proposed residents would not be detrimentally affected by the development of the surgery. No concerns have been raised in terms of highways access or highways safety. Various options have been proposed for a pedestrian route through from the doctor’s surgery to the existing residential area of Bowburn, as discussed elsewhere in this report, and it is therefore considered that users of the surgery would have easy access to the existing public transport network. s such the Doctors surgery element of the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the aims of Policy C2 which is considered ot compliant with the NPPF.
160. The development of Doctors’ Surgeries is not specifically mentioned in the NPPF, although paragraph 156 of the NPPF requires LPAs to deliver the provision of health facilities and paragraph 171 notes that local planning authorities should work with public health leads and health organisations to take account of the health status and needs of the local population. The NPPF clearly encourages the development of health facilities and therefore the development of a GP surgery on the application site, to meet local health facility requirements, is in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF.
Principle of Housing
161. The NPPF seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and requires applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF Paragraph 49).
162. The application site lies adjacent to but outside of any settlement boundary as identified by CDLP Policies E7 and H3. Policy E7 lists a number of policies with which the proposal must comply. A primary purpose of the Policy is to limit housing supply. The direction of Policy H3 is that housing may only be approved where it lies inside of the settlement boundary, to help to contain settlements and prevent sprawl into the surrounding countryside, so not directly relevant to this application. Additionally, CDLP Policy H5 is also a general policy covering development in the countryside that is broadly consistent with the NPPF, which resists isolated homes in the countryside. As this proposal abuts the village it cannot be considered isolated so will have to be judged against National guidance and NPPF consistent CDLP policies rather than E7 or H5. The proposal, seeking a residential estate beyond the settlement boundary of Bowburn is therefore in conflict with CDLP Policies E7 and H5.
163. Nationally, recent planning case law has found that policies within existing Local Plans that refer to settlement boundaries can be considered to be policies for the supply of housing. However, settlement boundaries perform other functions as well as limiting housing supply and in a recent appeal decision at Shadforth, the Inspector, in assessing housing development outside the settlement boundary and on the edge the village considered that Policy E7 was consistent with the NPPF “…in directing development to more sustainable locations..”. Shadforth is a small village with few facilities so in that case the Inspector’s view is logical. For a large village such as Bowburn, however, a development of this nature is unlikely to be considered unsustainable, particularly in relation to the other uses proposed as part of this scheme.
164. However, paragraph 49 of the NPPF directs local authorities that their relevant policies affecting the housing supply are out of date where the authority cannot (as here) demonstrate a 5 year housing supply against objectively assessed needs. Additionally, in relation to this case, policies for the supply of housing within the CDLP, which includes Policies H5 and E7, were based upon housing supply figures derived from the former County Structure Plan which considered housing need only up to 2006 and are outdated for that reason.
165. The housing requirement identified within the CDLP found that 3000 new dwellings were required in the period 1991 – 2006. By the time of the plan’s adoption in 2004, the vast majority of this requirement had already been achieved, and as a consequence, only one housing allocation was proposed for the entire former district. As a result, the settlement boundaries within the CDLP are drawn very tightly around settlements. Where there was an allocation, at West Rainton, the settlement boundary was expanded to include the allocated site.
166. Therefore, housing supply policies within the CDLP do not reflect an up to date objective assessment of need. Having regard to paragraphs 49 and 215 of the NPPF these policies must now be considered “out-of-date”, for the purposes of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and very limited weight can be afforded to Policies E7 and H5 in relation to their advice on housing supply.
167. Consequently, it is considered that in this instance, the proposal should not be assessed against its compliance with CDLP Policies H5 and E7 but instead should be subject to the planning balance test as contained within Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and NPPF consistent CDLP policies. Clearly, whether any adverse impacts of approving the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether there are any specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted can only be considered following an examination of all of the planning issues. Subject to other material considerations the location is well located to Bowburn and is considered a sustainable site for housing.
Housing Land Supply
168. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines the Government’s objective of ensuring that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land. The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to maintain a five- year supply of deliverable sites (against housing requirements) thus boosting the supply of housing. 169. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In turn where a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated then paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged and an application is to be assessed in this context. However, paragraph 14 of the NPPF is, irrespective of the position on housing land supply, relevant to this application as policies for the supply of housing within the CDLP are out-of-date as outlined above.
170. The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that if the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, housing policies in a Local Plan cannot be considered up to date. The housing trajectory associated with the withdrawn CDP is no longer relevant and similarly the CDP Objectively Assessed Need (OAN - for housing) figure no longer exists. This raises the issue of what is the requirement against which the supply is to be measured in order to calculate whether or not 5YHLS exists.
171. In the period until a new Local Plan OAN figure can be established, the Council has sought to accord with advice in the Planning Practice Guidance regarding OAN (PPG Revision date: 06 03 2014 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 3-031-20140306): ‘Where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight, information provided in the latest full assessment of housing needs should be considered. But the weight given to these assessments should take account of the fact they have not been tested or moderated against relevant constraints. Where there is no robust recent assessment of full housing needs, the household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should be used as the starting point, but the weight given to these should take account of the fact that they have not been tested (which could evidence a different housing requirement to the projection, for example because past events that affect the projection are unlikely to occur again or because of market signals) or moderated against relevant constraints (for example environmental or infrastructure).’
172. The household projections published by the DCLG give a starting point for a housing requirement of 1,308 dwellings per annum. When calculating the five year requirement on this basis, the under delivery which has occurred in previous years and the appropriate buffer have been applied to the appropriate 5 year pro rata DCLG projection figure. This calculation suggests a total annual requirement of 1,764 units (i.e. 8,821 units over the 5 year period). The assumptions made to calculate the supply position have been made to present the most exacting requirements (with the application of a 20% buffer, a ‘Sedgefield’ rather than ‘Liverpool’ approach to delivering the shortfall, and applying a buffer to the pre-plan backlog as well as to the shortfall and the annual requirement). Even so, when the identified supply is assessed against the requirement derived from the DCLG household projections it suggests the existence of at least a 5.75 year supply of deliverable housing land.
173. In undertaking this assessment the Council fully recognises that the DCLG requirement figure referred to above cannot be regarded as representing the OAN as it does not take into account market signals, and nor has it been publicly tested. However, it is considered that this serves as a ‘proxy’, providing a context to quantify the supply position. The exercise indicates that there is no pressing need to support unsustainable housing proposals, where adverse impacts may be considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of an additional contribution to the housing supply.
174. Bearing in mind that the key settlement boundary policy is not up-to-date and the above comments, paragraph 14 of the NPPF has to be taken into account: “...planning authorities should: “where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of this Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.
175. It is therefore considered that whilst the Council accepts it is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply based on an up-to-date OAN, it can nonetheless demonstrate a robust and significant supply of housing land equivalent to 5.75 years when measured against ONS household projection statistics. Accordingly, it is considered that less weight should be afforded to the benefits of delivering new housing than would otherwise be the case if such a healthy land supply was not demonstrated. Nevertheless, the presumption in favour of sustainable development will only be rebutted where a proposal would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, both in the form of a contribution to housing supply and any other benefits.
176. Taken in the context of the above as housing in its own right and the aforementioned role of the housing in cross-subsidising the infrastructure costs it is considered that housing development on the site is acceptable in principle.
Affordable Housing
177. CDLP Policy H12 (considered partially compliant with the NPPF) requires schemes of 25 units or more to provide a fair and reasonable proportion of affordable housing. NPPF paragraph 159 requires that local planning authorities have a clear understanding of housing need. A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) should identify full housing need including affordable housing. CDLP Policy H12 is not fully compliant with the NPPF having regard to its expectation that an unspecified element of affordable housing should only be expected on sites of a threshold which is not supported by an up-to-date evidence base. The County Durham SHMA in support of the emerging County Durham Plan is more up to date than CDLP Policy H12 and provides the robust objective assessment of need for affordable housing across the County. The SHMA identifies that on developments of 15 dwellings or more 20% affordable housing provision is required within the central delivery area within which the application site is situated. In accordance with CDLP Policy H12A (NPPF complaint), at the reserve matter stage the type and size of housing would be discussed having regard to the context of the total housing stock at that time.
178. In the context of the overall scheme viability as summarised above, paragraph 173 of the NPPF requires careful consideration of viability and the burden of obligations in decision taking. As aforementioned considerable viability evidence has been provided by the applicant and has been assessed by the Council’s Asset’s Officer and found acceptable. Given the overall need to cross-subsidise infrastructure through the other uses like the housing and the overall return of the investment over a significant period of time it is not considered that the development can support any affordable housing, or other planning obligations other than education. Layout and Design
179. The application is in outline with matters relating to layout and design reserved. However, the applicant has submitted an Illustrative Layout Plan (ILP) which shows how the site could be laid out within the parameters defined on the submitted Parameter Plans. A Design and Access Statement (DAS) has also been submitted, which explains the design evolution process that has been used to prepare the ILP and Parameter Plans. It also clarifies the principles that will be used to inform the detailed layout and appearance of the development. Visualisations have been submitted to show how the development once constructed will look from various viewpoints.
180. The DAS sets out the principles that would be applied to the detailed design of the development to ensure inclusive access. The DAS confirms the approach that would be taken to pedestrian and cycle access, noting that the estate road infrastructure would provide 3m combined footway/cycleways throughout the site and that these footways /cycleways would be overlooked where possible to provide an element of safety and security to the users. The approach that will be taken to public transport accessibility and car and cycle parking is also set out in the DAS. By applying these principles the layout and design of the proposed development would meet the requirements of CDLP Policy Q1, Q2 and Q4.
181. Design principles that should be considered to inform the detailed design of the development are set out in the application. Those along with the proposed approach to the internal access roads and the use of a landscaped boulevard would ensure that the development meets the requirements of CDLP Policy Q7, which requires new industrial and business development to be of a standard appropriate to the designated area within which it is located.
182. CDLP Policy Q8 relates to the layout and design of new residential areas. Details submitted with the outline application indicate how the residential layout could come forward within the parameters of the submitted Parameters Plans. These show the residential areas lying adjacent to the proposed residential care home, Doctors Surgery and existing residential properties in Bowburn. Landscape buffers between the residential development and the Bowburn Industrial Estate, the new employment uses and the A688 and A177 are indicated. In terms of the other detailed criteria listed in Policy Q8, Officers consider that the ILP shows that a development which meets these criteria is capable of coming forward within the parameters defined on the submitted Parameter Plans and using the principles set out in the DAS. Through sensitive positioning and scale, combined with perimeter landscaping, direct impact on existing adjacent properties can be minimised. It is considered that in principle, the residential development of 270 dwellings could be accommodated on the site without adversely impacting upon the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by residents of properties in close proximity to the site, and the occupiers of the properties proposed. At the reserved matter state adequate separation distances that comply with CDLP Policy Q8 could be achieved.
Principle of a Solar Farm
183. A solar farm is proposed as part of the development. It would be located on a parcel of land to the West of the Leamside Line, therefore separated by the former railway from the built development.
184. Policy U15 of the CDLP supports energy generation from renewable sources. National planning policy is supportive of energy generation by renewable means, and this includes solar energy development. Therefore there is a presumption in favour of such planning applications. Part 10 of the NPPF states that such proposals should be approved if impact is, or can be made, acceptable. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes dedicated guidance with regards to renewable energy and in principle also supports renewable energy development considering that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable.
185. On the basis that the solar farm is being used to enhance the sustainability of the site and support potential power users it is broadly considered acceptable. Solar Farms are considered to be 25-30 year installations and are not therefore permanent. Sequentially the solar farm would be located because it is close to the ‘new’ grid connection that would be provided by the development proposal and therefore is reliant upon it. The agricultural land classification has been established as 3b and therefore the land use of a solar farm can be supported in this instance. There have been no objections on landscape grounds to the solar farm.
Sustainability
186. The NPPF considers three principle areas of sustainability these are, economic, environmental and social.
187. The economic benefits of the scheme as outlined in the applicant’s socio economic chapter of the Environmental Statement are summarised as follows:
- The proposal represents a £166m investment in the area, which would deliver a £161.1m increase in local GVA per annum throughout the build period;
- It would support up to 264 direct construction jobs per annum and 398 indirect and induced jobs per annum in the wider construction supply chain;
- The development of 180,617m2 of new commercial floor space would create 4,138 gross jobs on site of which 3,781 would be full-time equivalent positions. Taking account of displacement there would be up to 2,836 FTE net new permanent high quality jobs provided by the development and 1,276 FTE indirect/induced jobs as an anticipated spin-off from the scheme.
- The scheme would contribute just over £380,000 in increased annual Council Tax revenue, £2.1m in New Homes Bonus payments and £14.2m of additional Business Rates per annum.
188. Socially the 270 dwellings would help to meet the housing needs of County Durham and the new community hub and other uses would support the well-being of Bowburn. The significant social benefit would be the employment opportunities that the scheme would bring to the area both at construction stage and once operational. The layout of the development, the proposed location of the community facilities and housing would ensure that the development can be easily accessed.
189. It is considered that the development accords with the CDLP Policies T1, T10, T19, T20, T21 and R11. With the exception of T10 all these Policies are considered to be either partially (Policy T1) or fully (remaining policies) NPPF compliant and therefore all can be afforded weight in the decision making process. The proposal also accords with Part 4 of the NPPF in that the level of predicted traffic can be safely accommodated by the local road network.
190. The Environmental Statement and accompanying technical reports demonstrate that environmentally the development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the natural environment following mitigation as set out in the subsequent sections of this report.
Education
191. The Council’s School Organisation Manager has identified a need for 34 infant school places arising from the proposed 270 housing units. This equates to a financial contribution of £397,970 and is considered to accord with the principle of supporting health communities as outlined in paragraph 70 of the NPPF. In considering the aforementioned viability case for the overall scheme the applicant has obligated from the start of the project to meet this need, recognising the pressures on primary school places in Bowburn. Education is considered a priority obligation but as aforementioned the scheme cannot support further obligations, such as open space and public art. Although the proposals would not accord with CDLP Policies R2 and Q15, which are partially compliant with the NPPF, it is considered that in this case it is justified given other wider public benefits which would be provided. However, it is the case that through condition an artistic element could be required.
Landscape and Visual Impact
192. The application site is not covered by any landscape related designations. As such the proposed development is out with paragraph 109 of the NPPF, which requires the protection and enhancement of ‘valued landscapes’. However, given the location of the application site adjacent to an existing settlement and the scale of the industrial buildings proposed, the impact of the development on landscape character and visual environment is an important consideration.
193. The impact of the proposed development on the character of the landscape and the visual environment is considered in the ES based upon the entire development being built out. The ES considers the impact of the development having regards to the temporary effects arising from the construction process and the operational scheme itself. In addition consideration is given to cumulative impacts of ten nearby schemes, which were agreed between the applicant and Officers as requiring consideration.
194. The application site lies within The Bowburn –Coxhoe sub character area, which comprises a gentle undulating area between the Wear Valley and the rising ground to the east and south. In terms of the visual environment, the proposals are theoretically visible within a 2-3 km area, with some slightly longer, middle distance views possible from the rising ground approximately 4km to the south and 5-7km to the north and west of the site.
195. The ES notes that potential significant adverse effects were identified early in the design process and these effects informed the design development process, allowing mitigation to be embedded within the design of the scheme and the Parameter Plans. During the construction phase there would be some adverse effects perceived by particularly sensitive receptors, such as the residents and walkers on the local footpath network in and around the site. However, these effects are temporary and will therefore not give rise to permanent harm.
196. In terms of landscape character the ES accepts that the proposals woud result in a degree of change, a loss of agricultural land, a loss of some internal vegetation and the extension of Bowburn south towards Tursdale and a result there will be a degree of harm in the short term. However, given that the site is located within a settled landscape with the urban areas of Bowburn and Coxhoe and the transport networks of the A1, A688 and the mainline railway characterising the immediate setting of the site, the ES concludes that the adverse effects would not be significant and the proposals can be integrated within this landscape context.
197. With regards to the visual environment, the ES identifies that there are likely to be significant adverse effects at localised viewpoints in the short term, but these effects would reduce over time as the landscaping matures and integrates the proposed built form into the localised visual environment. Some middle distance views will experience a degree of change, but given the proposed elevational treatments for the larger buildings, which would be considered at the reserved matter stage, it is considered that the proposals can be integrated into these views without significant harm. The intervening topography, vegetation and built form create a degree of separation from the development and the wider setting and help to integrate the proposals. The ES concludes therefore that the proposals can be integrated without significant, long term harm to the receiving visual environment. The detailed design will be considered at the reserved matters stage but information submitted with the current application indicates that an acceptable development can be delivered.
198. The ES has also considered the visual effects of the development upon residential receptors. It notes that many of the properties within Bowburn and Coxhoe will have a degree of separation from the proposed development as a result of intervening topography, built form and vegetation structure. For those properties closer to the site, the ES concludes that the high quality approach to the design of the layout and built form, together with the associated landscape treatment would reduce opportunities for significant adverse effects. Overall the ES concludes that the proposals can be integrated without long term significant adverse effects upon the residential amenities of residential receptors.
199. The submitted Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan shows the location of proposed structural planting around the majority of the site boundaries, it also shows the significant existing planting which is to be retained in the north of the site. The Land Use Parameter Plan clarifies that residential, community and commercial uses would be located within the north east area of the site, providing separation from the existing residential area and the proposed employment uses.
200. Having reviewed the ES, Officers accept that whilst the proposed development, given its scale, would give rise to some adverse landscape and visual effects, these effects would reduce over time, as the proposed structural planting matures. The applicant has provided visuals showing the development after 15 years with the mature landscaping; these visuals demonstrate that whilst the buildings are visible, the visual impact has been limited by good design and structural planting.
201. The adverse landscape and visual effects need to be balanced against the public benefits of the proposals, including the creation of jobs, the positive impact on the economy. They also need to be considered in the context that the landscape has not been identified as a valued landscape and does not lie within a designated landscape area and that the application site has been an allocation in the Local Plan for more than 10 years and therefore there has been an expectation that this site will be developed for large scale buildings which inevitably would have a landscape and visual effect. The outline proposals have been designed to reduce impacts on the character of the landscape (in terms of siting, design, scale, materials, landscaping and protection of existing features) to some degree but, inevitably for development of this type and strategic scale, there would be some substantial residual harm at a site and local level. 202. In terms of landscape and visual impact, on balance it is considered that these impacts are acceptable and that the proposals landscape and visual effects would not conflict with CDLP Policies E10 (partially compliant with the NPPF), Q5, Q6 and Q7 considered compliant with the NPPF and therefore all can be afforded weight in the decision making process and paragraphs 109 and 113 of the NPPF.
Heritage
203. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a statutory duty, when considering whether to grant planning permission for a development which affects a listed building or its setting, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. If harm is found any such harm must be given considerable importance and weight by the decision-maker.
204. The submitted ES assesses the effects of the proposed development on above ground heritage assets during construction and once the development is operational. An Archaeological Desk Top Assessment and Geophysical Assessment have been submitted to consider the impact of the development on below ground heritage assets.
205. The ES confirms that there no designated heritage assets within the application site boundaries. There are two buildings, Peat Edge Farm and Crow Trees that lie within the site boundaries have been identified as non-designated heritage assets As part of the proposed development these would be demolished.
206. The application site lies within the setting of a number of designated heritage assets, including Bowburn and Hett Conservation Areas and a number of listed buildings, including a Wesleyan Methodist Church, Tursdale House, Croxdale Hall, Byers Garth and Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site.
207. Other non-designated heritage assets in close proximity to the development site include a Railway Siding dated 1908 from the Newcastle, Leamside and Ferryhill Railway and Hett Mill/Mill Race approximately 320metres to the west at Tursdale Beck.
208. Both the ES and Design and Conservation Officers conclude that the effect of the development on the setting of Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site would be negligible, given that it would still be seen within the context of the existing settlements.
209. The ES demonstrates; and Design and Conservation Officer’s concur that the effect of the proposed development on designated heritage assets is considered to be less than substantial harm. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF it is therefore necessary to consider whether the public benefits of the development would outweigh the identified harm to the heritage assets. Officers have had regard to the fact that the development would deliver a number of key economic, social and environmental benefits, including £166m investment in the area, support for 264 direct construction jobs per annum through the build-period and 398 indirect and induced jobs in the wider supply chain, 2,836 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) net additional permanent direct jobs and 1,276 FTE indirect/induced jobs as a result of the commercial floorspace. 210. The most significant Heritage impact would be upon the non-designated assets of Peat Edge Farm and Crow Trees where the effect of their loss is assessed as being will be moderate adverse. Likewise, the effect of the development on the setting of the Conservation Areas and other designated assets is described as negligible to minor adverse.
211. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF provides guidance on assessing the effect of an application on non-designated heritage assets. It requires the when assessing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. The demolition of the non-designated heritage assets provides an opportunity to redevelop the site holistically. With the benefits of redevelopment considered to outweigh the total loss of significance of these assets.
212. The Archaeology Desk Based Assessment and Geophysical Report confirm that the site does not lie within an area of archaeological priority and that it can be considered that the application site is likely to have a generally low archaeological potential for all periods of human activity, in this context below ground heritage was scoped out of the ES. As the bulk of the site has remained largely unaffected by previous development throughout its documented history, there is likely to be a requirement for evaluation trenching prior to construction.
213. Archaeology officers note that desk-based research and geophysical survey has been used to assess the archaeological potential of the site. The geophysics has not suggested a significant archaeological resource is present, however it is considered that this data cannot be relied upon entirely until it has been sampled through trenching. Officers therefore recommend conditions to require trial trenching to test the geophysics results prior to the submission of reserved matters. The results of this will be used to inform any further mitigation measures necessary, which will also include building recording of the farm complexes, and a strip, map and sample of the area of the former tileworks.
214. No objections to the proposals have been raised by Historic England, the Design and Conservation Officers and Archaeology Officers. Historic England has requested that the development is to be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance.
215. No objections are raised by Design and Conservation or Archaeology officers subject to appropriate conditions. When considering the application regard has been had to the statutory duties imposed by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In terms of the CDLP heritage policies, the mitigation measures proposed to minimise the effects of the development on heritage assets are deemed to be sufficient to address the requirements of CDLP Policy E21 and E3 in respect of the World Heritage Site, both Policies considered compliant with the NPPF. Further archaeological work would be required through condition along with the production of a mitigation strategy as well as a scheme for recording and publication. It is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with CDLP Policy E24, considered compliant with the NPPF. As there would be some harm to the setting of the Conservation Areas and listed buildings, the development is not in complete accordance with CDLP Policies E22 and E23, considered compliant with the NPPF, however, having regard to guidance in Part 12 of the NPPF, these impacts are not considered to be substantial and on balance are justified given the other material planning benefits of the development. Sustainable Transport and Highway Safety
216. CDLP Policy T1, partially compliant with the NPPF, precludes development proposals that would result in a level of traffic detrimental to highway safety or which would have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property. The NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
217. As the application is in outline with all matters reserved except access but with details of the roundabout and internal distributor road.
218. The ES includes a Transport Chapter which assesses the potential effects of the proposed development on a number of transport related issues, including severance, road safety, pedestrian and cyclist movement, driver delay and increases in traffic flows on the roads and junctions within the vicinity of the application site. The ES draws on the findings of a Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan, which have also been prepared to accompany the application. The TA has been undertaken on a cumulative basis and takes into account the impacts on the local road network not just for traffic generated by the application site, but also committed developments in the vicinity.
219. The ES Transport Chapter baseline assessment highlights that the site is located in a reasonably sustainable location and will further benefit from proposed improvement measures. An analysis of collision data for the local road network confirms that there are no existing road safety issues that will be exacerbated by the development.
220. The assessment identifies the effect of the construction phase of the development on severance, driver delay, pedestrian and cycle amenity and accidents and amenity as ‘minor’ and not significant in terms of the EIA regulations. Notwithstanding this, mitigation measures are proposed to further reduce any effect, including a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). This plan would identify how vehicle, pedestrian and cycle traffic would be managed throughout the duration of the construction period, clarify parking arrangements and could limit the routes used to deliver materials to the site.
221. The ES Transport Chapter concludes that the effect of the proposed development once operational on severance, pedestrian and cycle amenity and accidents and amenity is assessed as being of minor significance. The effect of the operational development on driver delay, without any mitigation, is assessed as ‘moderate’ due to the increased traffic volume on the surrounding network and subsequent impacts on junctions. Mitigation schemes have therefore been proposed for those junctions where the effects of the development are considered to be of moderate significance. The implementation of these junction improvements, along with the introduction of a Framework Travel Plan, would minimise the impact of the development on the road network resulting in a residual effect considered to be ‘minor’ and not significant in terms of the EIA regulations.
222. Highways England has raised no objection subject to agreement on the staged highway mitigation works to Junction 61 of the A1(M). The detail of the mitigation and its timing are to be agreed.
223. The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposed development provided that the mitigation as put forward by the applicant, including the junction improvements and the Framework Travel Plan and further detail on the construction and design of the A688 roundabout works are conditioned and/or incorporated in the Section 106 Legal Agreement.
224. The proposed mitigation works Include full signalisation of the Jct 61 roundabout and widening of junction approaches; Mitigation works to the A688/A177 roundabout, and Jct 61 A1(M) widening of northbound slip road merge.
225. The exact timings and implementation of the above will be determined by monitoring of the traffic flows associated with the development and reported to the Highway Authority. At appropriate trigger points the implementation of the works would commence to avoid a situation where the junctions are over capacity. The trigger points and timings will be agreed between the applicant, Highway Authority and Highways England.
226. Given the proposed access arrangements are considered safe and the residual transport impacts of the development are less than severe, the development is considered compliant CDLP Policies T1, T21 partially and fully considered compliant with the NPPF respectively and therefore all can be afforded weight in the decision making process and with Part 4 of the NPPF, specifically paragraph 32.
Connectivity
227. Given the size of the application site, its location adjacent to Bowburn and the fact that there are public rights of way within the site boundaries, connectivity is considered to be a material consideration in the determination of the planning application.
228. The submitted Design and Access Statement sets out the proposed developments approach to accessibility and the Access Parameter plan defines corridors within which the vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access routes will be located and the point at which these join the existing highways network.
229. The Access and Public Rights of Way Officer has confirmed that the development would directly affect two recorded public rights of way (Footpaths 1 & 10 Cassop- cum-Quarrington Parish) and notes that diversion orders would be necessary. The Access and Public Rights of Way Officer notes that the proposed diversion of Footpath No. 10 is on the roadside and it would be preferred if it were diverted through a landscape corridor, however overall raises no objections to the proposed development.
230. Officers have not sought the applicant to amend the proposed diversion of Footpath No. 10. The Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that for ecological reasons it would preferable to keep the public right of way away from the landscape corridor. Subject to appropriate conditions, the Officer concludes that the proposed development’s approach to existing public rights of way is acceptable and in accordance with CDLP Policies T21 and R11.
231. The Sustainability Officer has raised no objections to the application, however, did raise concerns with regards to the connectivity from the eastern part of the site to Bowburn Village. Options available to improve pedestrian access from the proposed Doctors surgery and new residential area into Bowburn and to ensure that there is an emergency vehicle access possible in this location have been considered. The applicant has submitted a “Bowburn Connections” drawing which is an indicative drawing showing 4 possible routes for this pedestrian and emergency vehicle access. Officers are satisfied that there are a number of feasible options to improve connectivity from the eastern part of the application site to Bowburn (Durham Road). In this context subject to an appropriate condition it is considered that the application proposals accord with CDLP Policy T21.
Flood Risk and Drainage
232. The NPPF part 10 requires development to minimise flood risk to be steered towards areas with the lowest probability of flood risk.
233. The majority of the site lies within Flood Zone 1, with a small section of the site principally land adjacent to Bowburn Beck within Flood Zones 2 and 3.
234. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application. Officers agreed with the applicant that there were unlikely to be any significant flood risk and drainage effects.
235. The FRA confirms the flood zones within the site, as set out above and clarifies the land use vulnerability. It confirms that the proposed layout has had regard to the requirement to apply a sequential test to the location of uses, directing development away from areas at high risk of flooding. A road crossing over Bowburn Beck is proposed. This would lie within Flood Zone 3 but is considered an acceptable form of development within the flood zone subject to suitable design and is required to serve the north west area of the development site.
236. In terms of flood risk, the assessment within the FRA confirms that there is low risk of flooding from all sources. Once developed the increase in impermeable area, if left unmanaged could impact on fluvial flows in the adjacent ordinary watercourse, and could lead to an increased risk of surface water flooding. Mitigation measures are proposed to manage runoff from the site to pre-development rates, meaning that there would be no increase in volumes up to and including the 1% (1 in 100) annual exceedance probability event.
237. Given the outline nature of the proposals, mitigation is not fixed. However, the FRA provides guidance as to the likely mitigation required including geo-cellular below ground storage and porous paving, which is to be located in the car parks of the employment units and ponds/detention basins, which are proposed to the west of Bowburn Beck.
238. No objections have been received from Northumbrian Water, the Environment Agency and Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers to the proposal.
239. Northumbrian Water confirms there are no existing sewer flooding issues in Bowburn. They are satisfied that the layout of the development would not affect the ongoing operation of the Sewage Treatment Works (STW), by locating the sensitive residential receptors away from the STW. The STW has capacity to cater for the foul water discharge from the development. No sewers within the site should built over or close to. However, they are satisfied that mitigation exists in the form of sewer diversions to address this issue. This can be conditioned.
240. The Environment Agency does not object to the development subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside Bowburn Beck. The Agency also notes that the design of the Bowburn Beck crossing would need to take into account that it would lie within an area at risk of flooding. Suitable sized structures would therefore need to be put in place to allow the conveyance of floodwater and evidence provided to confirm that this will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. This requirement can be addressed via a condition. 241. Drainage Officers note that formal permeability test results have not been submitted to demonstrate that infiltration techniques cannot be utilised on site. It is advised that alternative drainage solutions be considered to the proposed discharge to large attenuation structures. A s the application is in outline and the proposed drainage mitigation is indicative at this stage, Officers consider that this requirement can be dealt with via condition.
242. Having regard to the consultation responses and evidence presented in the FRA, with appropriate conditions imposed, the development meets the requirements of CDLP Policies U8a, considered compliant with the NPPF, U9 considered partially compliant with the NPPF and U10 considered compliant with the NPPF and part 10 of the NPPF.
Ecology
243. The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System). In addition under the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 it is a criminal offence to (amongst other things) deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb a species protected by the legislation. It is possible to carry out works which may impact adversely on European Protected Species under licence from Natural England. Regulation 9 the Habitats Regulations requires local planning authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising its functions. Case law has established that local planning authorities must consider whether the applicant might obtain a protected species license from Natural England if there the application is likely to have a significant effect on a European Protected Species. This requires an examination of the derogation provisions provided within the legislation. These state that the activity must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety, there must be no satisfactory alternative, and that the favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.
244. The submitted ES assesses the impact of the proposed development on ecology. The assessment has been informed by a number of habitat and protected species surveys, including habitat and hedgerow surveys and surveys for breeding birds, barn owls, wintering birds, bats, badgers, great crested newts, red squirrel, otters and water voles.
245. The ES confirms that there are no statutory or non-statutory nature conservation sites within the site boundary. Within a 2km radius of the site there are 3 statutory and 8 non statutory nature conservation sites. Tursdale West Ponds Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is located adjacent to the southern boundary and is the only conservation site with potential to be adversely impacted by the proposed development. Mitigation measures are proposed to minimise the effects on this LWS and with this mitigation in place there would be no significant harm to the site.
246. The ES confirms that 10 habitats have been recorded on site, with the most notable being the hedgerows and plantation woodland. The site is dominated by improved and semi-improved grassland and arable land; other habitats included built environment, ephemeral / short perennial grassland, a small pocket of reedswamp, scattered trees and scrub. The development will result in the loss of a large proportion of all habitats apart from the plantation woodland and running water which the scheme has been designed to retain and protect. However, as these habitats are of local ecological value, residual effects are of negligible to minor adverse significance. During operation, with mitigation in place, effects of negligible and minor adverse significance on retained and created habitats are anticipated, apart from plantation woodland whereby the implementation of a Woodland Management Plan is anticipated to result in effects of minor beneficial significance.
247. The ES clarifies that the site was being used by eight species of commuting and foraging bats. Two common pipistrelle bat roosts were found in the Garthside and Crowtrees buildings. The site was also found to support a range of breeding birds, including species contained on the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern. Three badger setts were found on the site. A variety of effects on these species is likely as a result of the development during construction and operation. However, assuming that the proposed mitigation is implemented, it is considered that the residual effects of the development on these species would be of negligible to minor adverse significance.
248. A range of ecological mitigation measures are proposed in the ES Chapter, including the preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); the construction of fencing to deter access to the LWS and Plantation Woodland; wildflower grassland planting; appropriate reinstatement/replacement of hedgerows; a woodland management plan; translocation of orchid spikes; protection of retained trees.
249. The ES identifies measures to protect badgers including traffic calming, CEMP, exclusion zones around badger holes; provision of new native hedgerows around the site boundaries and works within 30m of a badger site to be undertaken under a licence from Natural England.
250. ES Mitigation in relation to bats, include provision of alternative roosting locations, under licence from Natural England, production of a method statement and presence of qualified ecologist to supervise the destruction of existing roosts, a CEMP, planting of new hedgerows and wildflower grassland buffers and a lighting strategy to limit lighting along areas likely to be used by bats for foraging and commuting.
251. The ES confirms that breeding birds would be protected by controlling the timing of vegetation clearance, the planting of the wildflower grassland, management and monitoring of grassland and other habitats to ensure that they reach their biodiversity potential, the provision of bird boxes and nests within the site.
252. The ES identifies that the potential for commuting otters and water voles will be encouraged via creating a dark corridor along Bowburn Beck and measures to further protect, enhance and manage the watercourse habitat will be outlined in a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan.
253. The Green Infrastructure, Dark Zones and Lighting Levels Parameter Plans incorporate some of the mitigation measures identified in the ES.
254. Natural England raises no objections to the development proposals, subject to the development being implemented in accordance with the submitted details. They clarify the issues that should be taken into account when determining the application.
255. The Council’s Ecology Officer accepts the mitigation measures detailed in the ES Ecology Chapter and requires that the mitigation and the relevant Parameter Plans should be conditioned. The Ecology Officer has also suggested that the Bowburn Beck bridge crossing point should be extended to accommodate a 2m buffer on either side, rather than the 1m as the applicant has proposed. This issue can be addressed via a condition relating to the bridge design. Ecology officers have highlighted that full mitigation is not possible for some farmland bird species and for barn owls which use the site. Similarly there would be significant loss of badger foraging territory.
256. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF sets out the principles that should be applied to the determination of planning application with regard to ecology matters. Officers are satisfied that the application proposals have maximised opportunities to incorporate biodiversity within the application site and will not have significant adverse effects on a SSSI, irreplaceable habitats or designated wildlife sites, thereby meeting all but one of the relevant principles defined in paragraph 118. Paragraph 118 also states that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or as a last resort compensated for then planning permission should be refused. The ES and the Council’s Ecology Officer agree that full mitigation is not possible for some farmland birds, barn owls and badgers and there would therefore be some residual adverse impact on these species. The ES states that this adverse impact would not result in significant harm and therefore the proposed development, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the proposed mitigation measures outlined in the ES and the Parameter Plans is in accordance with and CDLP Policies E16 and E18 (considered compliant and partially compliant with the NPPF respectively) and paragraph 118 of the NPPF.
257. As a Natural England licence would be required for the development to proceed, it is necessary for the derogation tests to be considered prior to the granting of planning permission. The Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that the development meets a purpose of “preserving public health, public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance to for the environment”, and furthermore that there is no satisfactory alternative, and that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The tests are applied on a proportionate basis, thus the justification required would increase with the severity of the impact on the species or population concerned. In this case, the residual effects of the proposed development on bats, following the implementation of mitigation measures, is of negligible significance.
258. Officers consider that the significant economic benefits discussed above and the delivery of social benefits, including new housing and community facilities represent an overriding public interest sufficient to justify the negligible adverse effect on bats as a result of the development, thus meeting the first test.
259. The second test relates to satisfactory alternative developments. In this regard, given the site’s allocation within the CDLP and the historic permissions relating to the site, it is not considered to be appropriate to look for an alternative site for the entire development. Furthermore, Officers were involved in the iterative design process that the applicant has undertaken and are of the view that a comprehensive and appropriate development, incorporating the buildings of the scale proposed, cannot be achieved without having to demolish the existing buildings on the site and move the bat roosts. The mitigation measures proposed and incorporated into the proposed development would therefore ensure that the impact on bats is negligible and acceptable.
260. The third test requires evidence to demonstrate that the actions proposed won’t be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned. The mitigation measures proposed in the ES Ecology Chapter, including new bat roosts and the creation of darkened foraging routes, would ensure the favourable Conservation Status of the bats given the negligible impact identified. 261. In this context, it is considered likely that Natural England would grant a European Protected Species Licence.
Residential amenity
262. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings, Parts 7 and 8 encourage the development of safe and accessible environments whilst Part 11 seeks to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of pollution.
263. The noise and air quality impacts of the proposed development are assessed in the ES submitted with the application. The assessments consider the effects of the proposed development during construction and once operational on both existing sensitive receptors and newly introduced sensitive receptors.
264. The ES clarifies that the proposed development would introduce new noise-sensitive receptors (residents, hotel, nursery and residential home) and would generate road traffic and industrial noise. Construction noise is considered to have a potential negligible to minor adverse effect on sensitive receptors, which can mitigated by way of a Section 61 application by the developer to the Council under the terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
265. Once operational the ES has assessed that the residual effects on newly introduced sensitive receptors, with mitigation implemented, would be negligible and not significant. Mitigation would include careful design of internal room layouts and garden areas, acoustic screening/fencing for garden areas, designing ventilation so that windows facing noise sources do not have to be open for prolonged periods of time; and high acoustic performance double glazing.
266. The ES confirms that predictive modelling of road noise on the basis of traffic data suggests that existing residents fronting the A177 in Bowburn could currently be subject to noise levels at or in excess of modern benchmark standards. These existing noise levels are considered to cause negligible to slight adverse harm, but is not above the significance threshold for Environmental Impact Assessment. Given that the future changes in noise climate are unlikely to be discernible, the overall impact on existing residents is considered to remain as negligible to slight adverse, but with no associated significant effects.
267. Air quality is assessed in the ES and confirms that the key impact of the proposed development during the construction phase would be the generation of dust. Mitigation measures have been proposed for the different stages of construction, including good planning, minimising dust generation, suppressing dust at source and regular inspection/monitoring. These would be documented in a Dust Management Plan, which could be conditioned. With mitigation in place the residual effects of the development on sensitive receptors during the construction period would not be significant. Once operational the increase in traffic and its impact on air quality as a result of the development has been modelled. The modelling shows that the change in air pollutant concentrations as a result of the proposed development would be negligible at the majority of the modelled receptors and the overall effect of the proposed development on air quality is not significant.
268. In terms of the layout of new residential development CDLP Policy Q8 requires such development to provide adequate amenity and privacy for each dwelling and minimise the impact of the proposal upon the occupants of existing nearby and adjacent properties. Through sensitive positioning and scale, combined with perimeter landscaping, direct impact on existing adjacent properties can be minimised. At present only limited, indicative details are available with regards to layout and design, with the application being in outline form only. However, it is considered that in principle, the residential development of 270 dwellings could be accommodated on the site without adversely impacting upon the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by residents of properties in close proximity to the site, and the occupiers of the properties proposed. At the reserved matter state adequate separation distances that comply with CDLP Policy Q8 could be achieved.
269. An odour impact assessment has been undertaken as part of the ES. The assessment undertaken as part of t for the scheme. The assessment reviewed processes at the Sewage Treatment Works and records the findings of an odour survey. The odour survey confirms that no odours were noted during the survey and there is no history of complaints associated with the Sewage Treatment Works. Based on the findings of the odour impact assessment the ES concludes that the risk of odour impacts on the proposed development is considered to be low and not significant.
270. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers have raised no objection to the application, with regard to noise, air quality and dust, odour and lighting, subject to suitable mitigation measures and conditions being imposed on any planning permission. These conditions would, amongst other matters, include the submission of a final lighting scheme, the requirement for a construction management plan and specific noise levels. It is also noted that the proposed industrial uses would require an Environmental Permit thus imposing further controls on those uses.
271. The development is considered compliant with CDLP Policies H13, Q8, U5 and U7. These policies are considered partially NPPF compliant and can be afforded some weight in the decision making process. The proposals are also considered compliant with Part 11 of the NPPF and specifically paragraph 123 which requires decisions on applications to avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life.
Trees and Hedgerows
272. An Arboricultural survey has been submitted with the application and is included in the ES. This survey identifies individual trees and groups of trees within the site boundary that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. It also clarifies that the most visually significant trees recorded were the mature specimens located close to the existing site entrance of the A688, along with the woodland plantations in the north-eastern and south-eastern corners of the site. Trees were categorised by their importance and health. Recommendations are made as which trees should be retained and a design guide is provided outlining how the trees to be retained should be protected.
273. A draft Arboricultural Impact Assessment has also been submitted, which assesses the impact of the illustrative masterplan on the existing trees within the site. This shows that the proposed development could result in the removal of twenty trees, eight groups of trees and twenty-one hedgerows, some of these trees would need to be removed due to their poor condition, others are considered to be of low retention value. Nine of the trees and four groups that are likely to require removal were considered to be of moderate retention value. The removal of these trees would have a localised visual amenity impact. However this impact would be limited given that the existing boundary planting would be retained. The report concludes that the proposed development would not have a significant impact upon the visual amenity of the local area as a result of the proposed tree removal necessary to implement it. Additionally the proposed works are unlikely to impact significantly upon the long- term health of retained trees.
274. The Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan clearly identifies the key vegetation and vegetation structures to be retained and areas of new structure planting including trees and proposed wildflower grassland.
275. It is considered that the effect of the development upon trees and hedgerows is acceptable subject to conditions requiring landscaping details at the reserved matters stage. The proposal accords with CDLP Policies E14, E15, Q5 and Q6 and therefore all can be afforded weight in the decision making process and paragraph 118 of the NPPF.
Ground Conditions and Mining
276. A Phase 1 Desk Study, Preliminary Geo-environmental Assessment and Ground Conditions Summary letter have been submitted with the application, along with a Coal Mining Risk Assessment.
277. The Geoenvironmental reports confirm that the site comprises poor to moderate quality agricultural land, with many areas used for rough pasture. Potential contaminants from historic uses have been identified including a tile works, disposal of colliery spoil and railway uses. However, preliminary investigations have not identified significant ground contamination in the made ground or natural ground and it is concluded that it is unlikely that soil contamination will require any site-wide remedial action. Preliminary gas monitoring has not identified any significant quantities of ground gas and therefore the proposed development is unlikely to need gas protection measures. Made ground has been identified in the north and south of the site, which could require some mitigation in the form of ground improvement and piles.
278. The Coal Authority states that the site is in the likely zone of influence from workings in four seams of coal at 60m to 190m in depth, which were last worked in 1967 and have clarified that any ground movement from these workings should have stopped by now. The Coal Minding Risk Assessment concludes that the risks to the proposed development from mine subsidence or mining related activities at the site are negligible.
279. The Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officer raises no objections to the proposed development, subject to a condition requiring further investigation with regards to contaminated land. The Coal Authority has raised no objections to the proposed development.
280. Officers in this context consider that in relation to ground conditions and coal mining risk the site is suitable for the proposed development taking into account proposed mitigation measures and that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable risk on soil pollution or land stability. The application proposals are therefore in compliance with CDLP Policies U7 partially compliant with the NPPF, U11 and U13 both fully compliant with the NPPF and paragraphs 109 and 121 of the NPPF.
Other matters
281. The Economic Development (Employability) Team note that the development could create both short term and long term apprenticeship or employment opportunities for local people. Consequently, a condition is suggested in order to secure Targeted Recruitment and Training measures.
282. Planning plays a key role in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Sustainability officers consider that information pertaining to the energy strategy of the development is lacking and requested that any planning permission be conditional on an embedded sustainability scheme being approved prior to development commencing. Having regards to CDLP Policy U14 a condition to ensure that energy reduction measures are incorporated into the proposed development can be added to any approval. The proposal would accord with the objectives of CDLP Policy U14, which is compliant with the NPPF, and Part 10 of the NPPF.
Planning Balance
283. Having regards to the policy situation, whereby relevant policies for the supply of housing and Policy EMP7 within the City of Durham Local Plan are now considered to be out of date, the acceptability of the application in principle now falls to be considered under the planning balance test contained within Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
284. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where policies relevant to the supply of housing are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
285. There are no specific policies in the NPPF indicating that development should be restricted and consequently, a balancing exercise of material planning considerations is required.
CONCLUSION
286. The adverse impacts arising from the development that could be considered significant amount to concerns over landscape and ecology. In landscape terms the site is not statutorily or locally designated and it is accepted that in more distant views the development will be mitigated by existing and proposed planting as well as the proposed parameter plans. In closer views the scale of development will be more apparent and the residual impact would be significant in comparison to the pastoral farmland that currently exists, however this has to be balanced with the view that development of this scale has always been envisaged for this site as supported by the City of Durham Local Plan (2004).
287. Ecologically there would be some residual significant impact on loss of badger foraging habitat and for bird species, as would be anticipated given the scale of redevelopment of the site. As much embedded ecological mitigation has been incorporated and the remaining residual adverse impacts must be balanced against the overall benefits.
288. In accordance with the NPPF the benefits of the development should be considered and weighed against the adverse impacts. The site, despite being part allocated previously and identified for employment uses has never come forward successfully, possibly due to a fluctuating market but as is apparent with this application the substantial infrastructure costs are a considerable challenge.
289. The scheme represents a £166m investment once built out into the area with the creation of up to 2,836 net new full time equivalent jobs (4,138 gross). During the construction phase the scheme will create up to 264 direct jobs per annum including local targeted employment and recruitment initiatives as secured through the Section 106 agreement.
290. Whilst the applicant has proven that the scheme is not viable and cannot deliver affordable housing, open space or public art the prioritising and securing of a full education contribution would meet the pertinent need for additional capacity.
291. Overall the realisation of a longstanding policy aspiration to deliver employment uses on this site and achieving a scheme which overcomes the significant infrastructure barriers is a very significant benefit to the County. The embedded mitigation within the parameter plans and control through subsequent reserved matters applications ensures that any adverse impacts are minimised. It is considered that the areas of adverse substantial impact do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and therefore the proposals are considered to accord with paragraph 14 of the NPPF and presumption in favour of sustainable development.
292. The proposal has generated some public interest. Concerns expressed regarding the proposal have been taken fully into account, and carefully balanced against the scheme’s wider social, economic and community benefits. However, they are not considered to raise issues that justify planning permission being withheld.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:
(i) A financial contribution of £397,970 towards local education capacity.
And subject to the following conditions:
1. Applications for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of ten years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Approval of the details of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and remaining access details not approved by this consent (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority before the commencement of each phase of development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation , services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works).
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 3. Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) a phasing plan setting out the proposed phasing of the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter each reserved matters application for a phase or part thereof submitted pursuant to Condition 2 above shall be accompanied by an updated phasing plan for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The updated phasing plan shall set out any proposed changes from the phasing plan previously approved pursuant to this Condition. For the purposes of this permission all references to a "phase" shall be interpreted as being a reference to a phase or part thereof as defined on the phasing plan approved pursuant to this condition.
Reason: To define the consent and ensure a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies U5, U7, U8a, U9, U10, U11, U13, U15, T1, T19, T20, T21, R11, Q5, Q6, Q7, E14, E16,E18 and E21 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
4. The site access details hereby approved shall be developed in accordance with the following approved plans:
- Site Access Roundabout (Dwg. Ref. No. NEA3122-P-GL02) - Site Access Dims and Heights (Dwg. Ref. No. NEA3122-P-GL05) - Zone A Road (Dwg. Ref. No. NEA3122-P-GL06) - On-site Highway Layout (Dwg. Ref. No. NEA3122-P-GL07)
Reason: To define the consent and ensure a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies T1, T19 and T21, of the City of Durham Local Plan.
5. All subsequent reserved matters shall be submitted in accordance with the following approved Parameter Plans:
- Parameters Plan 1: The Extent of Development (5658-109) - Parameters Plan 2: Access (5658-110) - Parameters Plan 3: Land Use (5658-125) - Parameters Plan 4: Landscape (5725/GIP 02 Rev H) - Parameters Plan 5: Building Heights (5658-112) - Parameters Plan 6: Dark Zones (5658-113) - Parameters Plan 7: Lighting Levels (5658 -126)
Reason: To ensure that the development accords with the basis for assessment of the environmental effects in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and is in accordance with Policies U5, U7, U8a, U9, U10, U11, U13, U15, T1, T19, T20, T21, R11, Q5, Q6, Q7, E14, E16, E18 and E21 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
6. No residential development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall take place until a detailed scheme of noise mitigation measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The aim of the scheme shall be to protect future occupiers from road traffic noise and should ensure the following noise levels are achieved:
35dB LAeq 16hr bedrooms and living room during the day-time (0700 - 2300) 30 dB LAeq 8hr in all bedrooms during the night time (2300 - 0700) 45 dB LAmax in bedrooms during the night-time 55dB LAeq 16hr in outdoor living areas The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the beneficial occupation of the development and shall be permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regard to policy U5 of the City of Durham Local Plan and parts 4 and 11 of the NPPF.
7. The rating level of the noise emitted from commercial operations shall not exceed the background (LA90) at noise sensitive receptors by more than 5dB LAeq (1 hour) between 07.00- 23.00 and 0dB 23.00-07.00. The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:2014.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regard to policy U5 of the City of Durham Local Plan and parts 4 and 11 of the NPPF.
8. No development shall take place until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The aim of the management plan shall be to protect local residents from environmental impacts and should include the following:
Hours of operation Noise mitigation measures Vibration mitigation measures Dust mitigation measures Artificial light mitigation measures Any specific operational matters i.e piling, demolition works
The approved construction management plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction phase.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and traffic management having regard to policies U5 and T1 of the City of Durham Local Plan and parts 4 and 11 of the NPPF.
9. No construction/demolition works shall take place outside the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on a Saturday. No works shall occur on any Sunday or Bank Holiday.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regard to policies U5 and T1 of the City of Durham Local Plan and parts 4 and 11 of the NPPF.
10. No development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall take place until a scheme for the management and disposal of surface and foul waters for the relevant phase of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of managing surface and foul water disposal and reducing flood risk having regards to Policies U8a and U10 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 10 of the NPPF.
11. No development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall take place for each phase unless in accordance with the mitigation detailed within Chapter E (Ecology) of the Environmental Statement Reason: In the interests of preserving protected species in accordance with Policy E16 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004
12. Prior to commencement of the residential development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) hereby proposed, details of a pedestrian footpath to be provided from the north east of the site to meet the existing footpath in Bowburn Village (Durham Road) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any residential dwelling hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy T1 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.
13. No development other than (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall commence until a scheme to deal with any contamination has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority for each phase or part thereof. The scheme shall include the following, unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed use and dispenses of any such requirements, in writing:
Pre-Commencement
(a) A Phase 2 Site Investigation and Risk Assessment is required and shall be carried out by competent person(s) to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications.
(b) If the Phase 2 assessment identifies any unacceptable risks, remediation is required and a Phase 3 Remediation Strategy detailing the proposed remediation and verification works shall be carried out by competent person(s). No alterations to the remediation proposals shall be carried out without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. If during the remediation or development works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Phase 3, then remediation proposals for this material shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works.
Completion
(c) Upon completion of the remedial works (if required), a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Phase 3 Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risk to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with NPPF Part 11.
14. Prior to the submission of the Reserved Matters for each phase, the applicant, must submit an archaeological mitigation strategy that has been approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The Strategy shall provide for: i; the proper identification and evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains by means of trial trench evaluation to inform the reserved matters; ii; proposals for phased mitigation strategy to ensure the preservation in situ, or the preservation by record, of archaeological features of identified importance (details to be confirmed following trenching evaluation.); iii; Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts; iv. Methodologies for Level 3 EH-style building recording prior to any demolition of historic buildings or stripping out of fixtures and fittings; v; Post-fieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses; vi; Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals; vii; Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories; viii; A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy; ix; Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works; x; A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including sub- contractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.
The archaeological mitigation strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with the approved details and timings prior to the commencement of development of the relevant phase
Reason: To comply with policy E24 of the former City of Durham Local Plan because the site is of archaeological interest.
15. Prior to the relevant phase of the development being first brought into use a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy for that phase shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record and receiving archive.
Reason: to comply with para. 141 of the NPPF which ensures information gathered becomes publicly accessible.
16. No development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall take place for each phase of development until a final lighting scheme for that phase of the development adhering to the parameters shown on Parameters Plan 6: Dark Zones (5658-113) and Parameters Plan 7: Lighting Levels (5658 -114) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed lighting scheme shall thereafter be implemented prior to occupation of the respective phase. All permanent lighting shall be orientated and shielded or otherwise designed and positioned such that they meet the requirements of the Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011.
Reason: In the interests of ensuring that light spillage from the development is acceptable having regards to potential impacts upon residential amenity, heritage assets and protected species having regard to Policies E3, E16, E21, E22 and E23 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Parts 11 and 12 of the NPPF.
17. No development excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall take place until a scheme (to include the phasing of implementation) for the provision and management of up to a 30 metre wide buffer zone alongside the Bowburn Beck is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed phasing of implementation. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision. The schemes shall include:
• plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone • details of the planting scheme (for example, native species, particularly native grass species suitable for water vole habitat at the northern edge) • details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term • details of any footpaths, fencing, lighting etc.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and habitat creation in accordance with policy E16 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
18. Prior to the occupation of each of the B2, B8, C2, D1, A3, A4 and A5 uses hereby approved details of the proposed opening/operating hours of the units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the units shall operate in accordance with the approved details.
Reason In the interests of defining the consent and residential amenity having regard to Policies U5 and U7 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
19. No development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall take place on each phase of the development until a scheme to minimise energy consumption for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall consist of energy from renewable or low carbon sources provided on-site or an equivalent scheme that minimises carbon emissions to an equal level through energy efficient measures. Thereafter each phase of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and retained so in perpetuity.
Reason: In order to minimise energy consumption and to comply with Policies U14 and 15 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.
20. Prior to the first occupation of each phase of development a final travel plan for that phase or part thereof shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable transport options having regard to Part 4 of the NPPF.
21. Prior to development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) commencing on each phase, details of agreed routing of HGV’s at night (23.00-0700) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Thereafter night time HGV movements shall be in accordance with the approved routing.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regard to Policies U5 and U7 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF. 22. No development (excluding demolition, archaeological investigation, services diversions and any land remediation/ground improvement works) shall commence until a scheme has been agreed for the phased implementation of the off-site infrastructure improvements identified through the Transport Assessment and Chapter C of the Environmental Statement. These mitigation measures include an improvement scheme at Junction 61, the upgrade to the northbound on-slip to the A1(M) and an improvement scheme to the A177/A688 roundabout junction. Thereafter the agreed improvements shall be undertaken in line with the agreed scheme.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy T1 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.
23. Prior to commencement of the development of the solar farm, a glint and glare study to ascertain the effect on the operation of the Leamside Line and East Coast Mainline (particularly in terms of signal sighting and driver distraction) should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway and objectives of Policy T9 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
24. No retail floorspace within the development site shall be used for the sale of:
• Food • Fashion clothing and footwear • Perfumery/cosmetics • Pharmacy/chemists • Jewellery/spectacles • Music or instruments • Videos, DVDs, CDs, records • General books, magazines • Stationary, cards, calendars • Films and photo albums
or used as a
• Newsagent • Post office • Dry cleaners • Travel & ticket agencies
Reason: In the interests of limiting the occupation of retail units to bulky goods retail only having regard to Policy S9B of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 2 of the NPPF.
25. No development other than demolition shall take place until a scheme for the introduction of artistic elements/features into the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the provision of art in development having regard to Policy Q15 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
26. No development shall commence until an Employment & Skills Plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Employment & Skills Plan. Reason: In the interests of building a strong and competitive economy in accordance with Part 1 of the NPPF. This condition is pre-commencement as it concerns construction workforce employment.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to approve the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
- Submitted application forms, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant - The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) - National Planning Practice Guidance - Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - City of Durham Local Plan - Statutory, internal and public consultation responses DM/15/03912/OUT
Outline application with all matters reserved (except for access details of roundabout and internal distributor road) for Planning Services a maximum of the following; 270 dwellings (class C3), a 70 bed hotel (class C1), a 60 bed residential care home (class C2/C3), a 3.96ha solar farm, change of use of 710m2 of agricultural land to residential garden space, 170,859m2 of general industrial, storage and distribution (class B2/B8), 1,858m2 of restricted goods retail (class A1), 409m2 restaurant/café/takeaway (class A3/A5), 613m2 public house (class A4), 450m2 childrens nursery (class D1), 400m2 GP surgery (class D1) and 1860m2 car showroom (class sui generis) at Land South of Bowburn and West of the A688, Bowburn This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with Comments the permission Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright Date March 2016 Scale Not to scale and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005