+ Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: CMA/4/112
Residential development of up to 150 dwellings, small scale community hub comprising use classes A1 and/or A2, A3, A4 and A5 of up to 950sq.m. and FULL APPLICATION use class D1 of up to 950 sq.m. with open space, DESCRIPTION : hard and soft landscaping, associated infrastructure and off site highway improvements (outline, all matters reserved except access).
Tees Valley Housing NAME OF APPLICANT :
Land south west of Station Road, West Rainton ADDRESS :
Sherburn ELECTORAL DIVISION :
Ann Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 261393 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The Site
1. The application site comprises approximately 11.35 hectares of agricultural land bordered by hedgerows to the south western edge of West Rainton, abutting Station Road. To the north west of the site is the east coast mainline and the adjoining settlement of Leamside, to the south west is agricultural land and to the south east is the A690, leading to Durham and Sunderland. The site is triangular in shape extending from Rainton Gate/Lambton View to the east, down to Leamside to its western side, with the site sloping from east to west. The eastern/south eastern boundary is lower than the existing 3 storey properties at Rainton Gate which back onto the site. Off-site the ground slopes to the south allowing views towards Durham.
2. A public right of way extends through the centre of the site, along a raised field line from Station Road to the north into the agricultural fields and a wooded area to the south, connecting to a network of routes to the south and west. The existing landscape includes hedgerows to the south east corner. There are occasional small trees and bushes along the field line and also along the grass verge alongside Station Road.
3. West Rainton is located approximately 6.9km to the north east of Durham city centre and approximately 2.5km to the south east of Houghton-le-Spring. It is situated 1.5km to the southwest of the Sunderland City administrative boundary. The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural and residential, with supporting community facilities scattered through the village. As set out in the City of Durham Local Plan, the site is beyond the identified settlement boundary, which is defined by Station Road, and is situated directly to the north/east of the Durham Green Belt. The site is located to the north and east of an area of landscape value and to the northeast of a site of nature conservation importance. There are 4 designated heritage assets located within 1km of the site. The site itself contains no heritage assets, landscape or ecological designations.
The Proposal
4. The application is for outline planning permission with all matters, except access, reserved for consideration at a later date. An illustrative master plan has been submitted to support the application which sets out how the applicant intends to develop the design ethos of the scheme. The application seeks approval in principle for the following elements:
• Up to 150 residential dwellings comprising 3 (20%), 4, and 5 bedroomed detached and semi-detached houses; • 20% affordable housing (30no.) with 75% social rented and 25% intermediate housing comprising 15 no. bungalows suitable for older people; • 950sq.m of use classes A1 (shops) and/or A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (cafe/restaurant) A4 (pub), or A5 (hot food takeaway); • 950 sq.m. of use class D1 (non-residential uses, potentially a new or relocated doctors surgery and/or community facilities); • A ‘landscape-led’ design approach focusing on a core concept of ‘green fingers’ running throughout the scheme incorporating; open amenity green space, semi-natural green space, informal play space, perimeter landscaping belts, hedgerows and tree planting; • Pond features (SUDS); • Off-site highway improvements.
5. Vehicular access would be taken into the site in two locations off Station Road to the north of the site, approximately one third and two thirds down the site from east to west. Pedestrian access would be taken at these points also. The access point to the north west has been moved slightly southwest during the course of consideration of the application. An existing footpath through the centre of the site from Station Road would be retained.
6. The off-site highway works proposed are; improvements to the Chantry Place/Station Road junction: a signalised junction at the A691/ Chantry Way which would include a pedestrian facility and necessitate narrowing of the central reserve (east side) and potential widening of the High Street/ A691 Carrville junction (subject to further junction modelling outcome).
7. The application has been amended from 250 dwellings to 150 dwellings after concerns were raised by officers regarding the appropriateness of 250 additional houses to the role, function, scale and character of West Rainton as a settlement.
8. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee as it represents major development with a site area of more than 4 hectares.
PLANNING HISTORY
9. Planning permission was granted at appeal for residential development in 1991 and the permission renewed by the Durham City Council in 1994 and again in 1997 but was never implemented and so has lapsed. Permission was granted as Durham City did not have a favourable housing land supply at the time. In 2000 a detailed planning application for 193 dwellings was refused by the Durham City Council because of the greenfield nature of the site rather than it being a brownfield site and its incursion into the open countryside. A subsequent application for 308 dwellings in 2002 was withdrawn.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
10. 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’.
11. 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:
12. 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 a low carbon future.
13. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
14. NPPF Part 2 – Ensuring the vitality of town centres. Town centres are recognised as being at the heart of communities, with the pursuit of their viability and vitality as being paramount. Planning applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres firstly, then in edge of centre locations. Only when these are not available should out of centre locations be considered.
15. 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. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities.
16. 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 policies and 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.
17. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Developments should be safe and accessible; Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, local services and community facilities to enhance the sustainability of community and residential environments. An integrated approach to consider the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.
18. 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 and associated infrastructure.
19. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment . The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.
20. 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. 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 (NPPF)
21. 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.
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
City of Durham Local Plan (2004) (CDLP)
22. Policy E3 – World Heritage Site Protection. Seeks to safeguard the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site and its setting, including within both local and long distance views.
23. Policy E7 – Development outside of Settlement Limits. Development outside of settlement boundaries will only be permitted when it accords with other policies in the plan.
24. Policy E10 – Areas of Landscape Value . The Council will protect the landscape value of the district by resisting development that would have an adverse impact on the landscape quality or appearance of an area of high landscape value and require that development respects the character of its landscape setting in terms of its siting, design, scale, materials, landscaping, protection of existing landscape features and relationship with nearby buildings.
25. Policy E14 – Protection of Existing Trees and Hedgerows . Views hedgerows and trees as a valuable resource to be protected when new development is being considered.
26. Policy E15 – New Trees and Hedgerows. Tree and hedgerow planting is encouraged.
27. Policy E16 – Nature Conservation – the Natural Environment . Is aimed at protecting and enhancing the nature conservation assets of the district. Development proposals outside specifically protected sites will be required to identify any significant nature conservation interests that may exist on or adjacent to the site by submitting surveys of wildlife habitats, protected species and features of ecological, geological and geomorphological interest. Unacceptable harm to nature conservation interests will be avoided, and mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts upon nature conservation interests should be identified.
28. Policy E18 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. The Council will seek to safeguard sites of nature conservation importance and development which would be detrimental to their nature conservation interests would not be permitted unless it meets certain criteria.
29. Policy E21 – Historic Environment . Requires the Council to preserve and enhance the historic environment by requiring development proposals to minimise impact upon features of historic interest, and encourage the retention, repair and reuse of visual of local interest.
30. Policy E23 – Listed Buildings. The Council will seek to safeguard listed buildings by not permitting development which detracts from its setting.
31. Policy E24 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Remains. Ancient monuments and other nationally significant archaeological remains and their settings will be preserved in situ and damage would not be permitted. Archaeological remains of regional and local importance will be protected in situ and where preservation in situ is not justified by, ensuring that in areas where there is evidence that significant archaeological remains exist, or reasons to pre-suppose they exist, pre-application evaluation or archaeological assessment will be required and requiring as a condition of planning permission, that a programme of archaeological investigation, recording and publication has been made.
32. Policy H3 – New Housing Development in the Villages. New housing development comprising windfall development of previously developed land will be permitted with settlement boundaries.
33. Policy H5 – New Housing in the Countryside. In the countryside new housing development will be permitted only when it is; required by persons employed in agriculture or forestry where there is a functional need and the enterprise in financially viable, the size is commensurate with the established functional need; adequate provision cannot be made within the settlement/existing buildings and it respects the character of its landscape setting.
34. Policy H12 – Affordable Housing . Requires residential schemes of 25 units or more, of 1 ha or more, to provide a proportion of affordable housing where a local need exists.
35. Policy H12A – Type and Size of Housing. States that the type and size of dwellings will be monitored with where appropriate negotiation with developers to provide the right housing types and sizes to ensure balance.
36. Policy H13 - Residential Areas – Impact upon Character and Amenity. States that planning permission will not be granted for new development or changes of use which have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of residential areas, or the amenities of residents within them.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Policy Q4 – Pedestrian Areas. Requires that pedestrian area should be laid out and designed with good quality materials in a manner which reflect the street scene.
40. Policy Q5 – Landscaping General Provision. Sets out that any development which has an impact on the visual amenity of an area will be required to incorporate a high standard of landscaping.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Policy Q15 – Art in Design . Encourages the provision of artistic elements within new developments.
44. 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.
45. Policy R11 – Public Rights of Way and other Paths. Public access to the countryside will be safeguarded by protecting the existing network of PROW’s and other paths from development which would result in their destruction.
46. Policy T1 – Traffic – General. States that the Council will not grant planning permission for development that would generate traffic likely to be detrimental to highway safety and/or have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property.
47. Policy T5 – Public Transport. States that the Council will encourage improvements to assist public transport services within the district by a combination of measures.
48. Policy T8 – Traffic Management. The Council will support traffic management measures which seek to improve highway safety; amenity and ease congestion. Priority will be given to measures which specifically reduce congestion and delays.
49. 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.
50. Policy T19 – Cycle Facilities. The Council will seek to ensure the development of a safe, attractive and convenient network of cycle routes.
51. Policy T20 – Cycle Facilities. Sets out a requirement to encourage the provision of facilities for parking cycles in the city centre and at other appropriate locations.
52. Policy T21 – Walker’s Needs. The Council will seek to safeguard the needs of walkers by ensuring that: existing footpaths are protected; new footpaths are provided; and footpaths are appropriately signed.
53. Policy S6 –Village Shops. Within West Rainton shops of less than a 1000m2 will be permitted provided that it would not adversely affect the vitality/viability of any other village/local centre; it would not affect amenity and road safety and is situated close to and is well related to other shops.
54. Policy S7 – Individual Shops. Permits individual small shops within settlement boundaries provided that it will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of any other local centre or village, it will not adversely affect the character and amenity of the surrounding area more the interests of road safety.
55. Policy S10 – Food and Drink. Within settlement boundaries development for A3 (food and drink) will be permitted provided that there are no adverse effects on amenity, there is adequate parking, it is in scale and character with its surroundings.
56. Policy C2 – Health Centres, Surgeries and Clinics. Planning permission will be granted provided that the proposal is well related to residential areas, would not have a detrimental impact on amenity or highway safety, is well located to public transport and accessible by a choice of means of transport and allows level access for pedestrians.
57. Policy C8 –Provision of New Community Facilities. Planning permission will be granted provided that the proposal is within a settlement, well related to residential areas/facilities, is of a flexible design, would not have a detrimental impact on amenity or highway safety, is well located to public transport and accessible by a choice of means of transport and allows level access for pedestrians.
58. Policy U8a – Disposal of Foul and Surface Water. Requires developments to provide satisfactory arrangements for disposing of foul and surface water discharge. Where satisfactory arrangements are not available, then proposals may be approved subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme and its implementation before the development is brought into use.
59. Policy U11 – Development on Contaminated Land. Development will only be permitted where the nature and extent of contamination is established, the development would not add to the level of contamination, proposals include remedial measures and that there is no detrimental effect on the environment.
60. Policy U13 –Development on Unstable Land. Development will be permitted provided that there is no risk to the intended occupiers from stability or that satisfactory remedial measures can be undertaken.
61. Policy U14 – Energy Conservation . General states that the energy efficient materials and construction techniques will be encouraged.
RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :
62. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, 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. Further, the Planning Practice Guidance explains that in limited circumstances permission can be justifiably refused on prematurity grounds: when considering substantial developments that may prejudice the plan-making process and when the plan is at an advanced stage of preparation (i.e. it has been submitted). The following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application.
63. Policy 3 – Quantity of new Development. In order to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future residents at least 31,4000 new homes of mixed type, size and tenure are required in the County.
64. Policy 4 – Distribution of Development. To reflect the spatial approach the Plan allocates sufficient sites to provide for housing. In Central Durham the Plan allocates 8010 dwellings with 5220 in Durham City and 520 required in the smaller towns and larger villages.
65. Policy 15 – Development of Unallocated sites. Development on sites not allocated will be permitted provided that certain criteria are met including; that it would not involve development in the countryside and is appropriate in scale, design and location to the character and function of the settlement.
66. Policy 30 – Housing Land allocations. In order to meet the housing requirement and distribution set out in Policy 3 and 4 a number of sites are allocated for housing development. No sites are allocated for housing in West Rainton.
67. Policy 31 – Addressing Housing Need. Requires all qualifying new housing to provide a percentage of Affordable Housing which is accessible, affordable and meets the needs of those residents unable to access the open housing market.
68. Policy 35 – Development in the Countryside. Planning permission for development in the countryside will only be permitted where it meets certain exceptions such as housing for countryside workers.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications can be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (City of Durham Local Plan) http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
69. West Rainton and Leamside Parish Council – Advise that it objects to the proposed development and has concerns regarding the following issues; the site is close to green belt land and it is not allocated for housing in the emerging CDP. There is no need for additional houses in the area. The new estate would be a separate community and would impact on the character of West Rainton. Concern is raised regarding a potential loss of view of the Cathedral, detrimental impact of the development on a public footpath, wildlife and the potential for flooding. Additional housing, compounded by the potential opencast would increase traffic and congestion and detrimentally affect highway safety, amenity and the Leamside Bridge, including for cyclists and horse riders. Other issues raised relate to concerns that a further cemetery is required which could be on this land as well as the potential for archaeological remains and underground mines. The proposed development would put pressure on the local school and amenities and would bring no benefit or employment to the village.
70. City of Sunderland Council – Has advised that the proposals are unlikely to prejudice the interests of the City of Sunderland.
71. Highways Authority – Raise no objection noting that the impact of the increased trips at various junctions has been considered through a transport assessment. Officers advise that the predicted traffic growth and trip generation for the development is acceptable and this has been used to model junction operation. It is considered that the site access junctions would operate well within capacity. It is noted that the A1M/A690 junction is the subject of a mitigation scheme associated with the Belmont Industrial Estate and the applicant is to contribute £25,000 towards the costs of the mitigation scheme/infrastructure improvement works to accommodate the additional impact of generated traffic at this junction.
72. The existing High Street/ Park and Ride junction has been modelled with additional generated traffic from the development. A timing adjustment strategy was proposed, however, this is not accepted as being a suitable and acceptable solution by officers to mitigate for additional traffic. Officers are of the opinion that there is a requirement to balance demands and delay which can be achieved through increase in junction capacity at the High Street junction which would allow adjustment to signal cycle times. A new traffic signal junction is proposed at the A690/ Lambton View junction. This has been subject to detailed modelling to demonstrate its deliverability in an amended junction layout. The principle of the delivery of an appropriate junction layout and signal strategy is acceptable and the technical detail of the scheme could be agreed via planning condition.
73. It is highlighted that Station Road is a 40mph carriageway in keeping with the Council’s Speed management strategy. Following discussions with Durham Constabulary, officers consider this would remain appropriate given the nature and layout of highways approaching Station Road. Speed surveys have confirmed that the present speed limit is appropriate for the measured speeds. Officers recognise that there is a need to make some provision to accommodate pedestrians along Station Road and thus a detailed pedestrian refuge scheme on Station Road can be conditioned. Advice is also provided regarding bus stops, the submitted travel plan and the required upgrade of a nearby footpath.
74. Highways Agency – The Highways Agency placed a TR110 Direction on the application to run until the 16 th June 2014, stating that development should not proceed until the Highways Agency are satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the strategic highway network. However the Highways Agency have now advised that they would accept a contribution of £25,000 towards the cost of the A1 (M) Carville Interchange (Junction 62) strategic road improvement measures. They advise that the direction would be removed and planning permission allowed to be granted upon completion of the Section 106 agreement including this requirement.
75. Environment Agency – Having considered a revised flood risk assessment (FRA) the Agency advises that it has no objections subject to compliance with the submitted FRA and the imposition of a condition limiting surface water drainage rates from the site to greenfield rates as set out in the FRA.
76. Northumbrian Water – Has raised no objections subject to specific foul water discharge rates being adhered to as set out in the submitted utilities assessment.
77. Coal Authority – Advises that the application site falls within a risk area and that within the site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered as the site has been subject to past coal mining activity. The Coal Authority is satisfied with the recommendations for intrusive investigation works prior to development in order to establish the situation regarding ground conditions and to enable remedial measures to be identified, if necessary. It is considered that this should give due regard to the potential for mine gas. The Coal Authority has no objections subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring site investigation works and that in the event that remedial works are required, that these are undertaken prior to development.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
78. Spatial Policy – Officers advise that the scheme does not accord with either the existing or emerging development plan, although it does not undermine the delivery of the strategy of the emerging plan and accords with many of the aspirations of the NPPF. In light of this development plan policy conflict officers advise that there would need to be other material considerations to justify any planning permission. It is considered that the proposal broadly accords with the Council’s approved ‘Assessing Development Proposals in a Changing National Planning System’ report (approved by Cabinet May 2012). In this regard officers consider that the scheme would assist in meeting housing needs within County Durham, including provision for affordable housing. Officers highlight that the scheme would deliver other benefits, including greatly improved community facilities. The highway improvements required, notably to the junction on the A690 would serve to benefit the whole community of West Rainton and users of the A690. Officers are of the opinion that the number of houses now proposed is considered to be of a scale commensurate with the role and function of the settlement of West Rainton.
79. On balance, officers feel that the rigid approach of the adopted Local Plan has been overtaken by a more pragmatic approach in the NPPF, and that whilst the proposal does not accord with the emerging strategy of the County Durham Plan, approval would not undermine this Plan going forward. When the NPPF and the community benefits are taken into account, officers consider these to materially weigh in support of the proposal.
80. Design and Historic Environment – Officers have made a number of comments in response to the illustrative layout that accompanies the outline application. Officers originally raised concerns regarding the original density and lack of open space and location of play space. Officers advise that a large area of open space could be provided adjacent the existing PROW which runs through the site to retain the character of this path. It is considered that the core concept of six fingers of green space through the development is promising, however, this could have a much stronger relationship with the orientation of the dwellings and framed by the building groups and is undermined by the hard surfaced accessed roads through the green fingers. Concerns were also expressed that the dwellings appeared cramped. It was advised that the provision of a community hub is desirable. However, it could be better located within the development and designed to resemble an attractive commercial centre rather than a small retail park. Officers advised that this should also be located away from the open space to avoid anti-social behaviour. Officers feel that until these concerns are addressed they are unable to support the application.
81. It is noted that the railway bridge to the north east of the site is a Grade 2 listed structure. Officers consider that it has a confined setting within the settlement and is unlikely to be adversely affected by the development. Officers are satisfied that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the setting of any designated heritage assets within the immediate radius of the site. Officers do not consider that there are any notable views of the Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site which would be compromised by the proposed development.
82. Landscape – Officers consider that the proposals would have some significant effects on the character of the local landscape but that these would be relatively localised. They consider that the proposals would bring a substantial change to the visual environment of the southern edge of the village however these would not in themselves be unattractive. Advice is offered regarding the required structural landscaping and its timing to incorporate all perimeter areas as well as all the major green “corridors” which are proposed to cross the site. Officers consider that the boundary planting should be a minimum of 15m in depth to provide a reasonable level of screening of the development from surrounding areas in medium and short distance views. Officers consider that the perimeter planting can contain walkways for recreational purposes. Officers consider that a five year management/maintenance plan is required for all ‘in advance’ planting areas and all phases. A landscape and construction phasing plan is also required and all planting in each phase (except the initially completed structure planting) should be carried out in conjunction with the construction of dwellings and associated infrastructure.
83. Archaeology – Officers consider that the applicant has provided a comprehensive and well researched archaeological assessment which advises that further evaluation work is required to determine if currently unrecorded and significant buried heritage assets survive within the site. The results of the geophysical survey do not appear to show any hugely significant features which would inhibit development. Therefore officers advise that they have no objections subject to suitable archaeological conditions. This would allow for trial trench evaluation to be undertaken prior to the determination of any reserved matters application and any mitigation works would be a condition of this. By undertaking trial trenching post determination of this outline application, but in advance of any reserved matters application, the results of the archaeological works would inform the design of the development if required.
84. Ecology – Following submission of additional information officers confirm that all previous concerns have been addressed. It is recommended that the enhancement measures contained in the original report and the recommendations concerning breeding birds, wildlife species and planting mix detailed in the additional information are conditioned as part of any planning consent.
85. Environmental Health (Noise) – No objections are raised. It is recommended that conditions should be attached to any planning permission to reduce and mitigate dust and noise, operation hours should be restricted, the burning of material in site should be prohibited and all noisy plant, vehicles, equipment and machinery should be properly operated and maintained.
86. Environmental Health (Ccontaminated land) – Officers consider that although the site is not considered likely to have significant contamination present, the potential for made ground cannot be discounted. Reports submitted with the application identify the potential for shallow mining works at the site and it is noted that there is a mining shaft on the site and the potential for further entries. As a result there is a potential for mining gas at the site. There is also the potential for asbestos containing material to be present on the site. A Phase 2 site investigation is therefore recommended as a result, and due to the fact that the proposed development constitutes a change of use to a more sensitive receptor.
87. Environmental Health (Air quality) – Officers advise that the location of the proposed development is not within or in close proximity to the declared Air Quality Management Areas. Officers consider that the proposed development would not create additional traffic levels that would impact on local air quality.
88. Sustainability and Climate Change – Officers consider the site is sustainable in terms of accessibility to community services and facilities. It is noted that the site not within a short walking distance of a secondary school / 6th form, post 18 education providers, or the facilities and employment opportunities associated with a main town, retail park, industrial park or large employer. However, this is not considered to be a significant issue given the level of bus service. It is noted that additional investment to bus services may be required to maintain the existing level of service to an increased population. Given the large size of the site there may be the opportunity to address existing open space deficiencies.
89. Officers advise that the proposals would result in the loss of greenfield agricultural land. Landscape impact and noise should be considered as well as impacts on habitats and archeology. Consideration should be given to green infrastructure. An energy statement should be submitted and the development should commit to subsequent increases in Part L of the building regulations and consider renewable/low carbon technologies. Officers advise that until this is done support cannot be given to the application.
90. Access and Public Rights of Way – Officers advise that Public Footpath No. 8 West Rainton Parish passes through the centre of the site. Officers advise that this is highly valued and extremely well used by local residents. It provides the only immediate pedestrian access to open countryside from the established residential south edge of West Rainton without the need to cross the A690 dual carriageway. It also forms part of a promoted walking route. Although the footpath would be retained on its current definitive line, officers consider that there would be some loss of the present amenity value and rural character of the path. To mitigate this, officers advise that the open, rural aspect of the path should be retained within the development and properties should face onto the path. The footpath within the site should also be resurfaced with a suitable material.
91. Sustainable Transport and Travel – Officers consider that from a general public transport accessibility angle, the site is excellent as West Rainton is served by a frequent service 20 (6 per hour weekday daytimes, with 2 per hour in evening and 3 per hour Sunday daytime). However, the current bus stops on service 20 adjacent to the site are either at the south end of Station Rd, and about 225m along School Avenue. This would mean that walks to the outer limit of the site are probably over the preferred 400m distance, especially as there is a slope involved. To ameliorate this, officers consider that a new bus stop south east bound on Station Road, south east of the School Avenue junction should be provided. Older people’s dwellings should also be located nearer the bus stops.
92. Travel Planning Team – It is considered that the submitted travel plan contains most of the required components at this stage of the planning process. However, further clarification of developer commitment to fund the travel plan and commitment to other elements are required to ensure that the travel plan meet the Council’s requirements.
93. Culture and Sport Team – A commuted is requested in order to improve existing facilities within the village. This would be likely to be directed at the Adventure Lane play site, through potentially providing a MUGA or improvements to existing equipment.
94. School Places Manager – Advises that no contributions towards additional classrooms are required on the basis of 150 new dwellings.
95. Housing Development and Delivery Manager – Advises that the breakdown of the different types of affordable housing proposed is acceptable and thus officers are supportive of the proposal.
96. Employability Team – Consider that there is an opportunity to explore employment and skills opportunities that would assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability. Advise that during the construction phase it is estimated that between 468 and 936 person weeks could be attributed to a scheme of this size/duration which equates to between 9-18 FTE job opportunities/apprenticeships.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
97. The application was advertised in the press, on site and in the locality. Letters were sent to neighbouring residents. A large number of letters of objection have been received. The main concerns and comments received from local residents are summarised as follows:
Objection
98. 111 bespoke letters and 189 standard letters of objection have been received in respect of the plans as originally submitted (250 houses). Additionally, since the submission of amended plans, a further 79 bespoke letters and 165 standard letters of objection have been received.
99. Concerns raised within these letters relate to the impact of the development upon the character, nature and size of the village, the fact that the site is greenfield agricultural land and potential landscape and visual impacts, including loss of view into Durham and of the World Heritage Site. It is highlighted that the site is not allocated for housing with the emerging CDP and there is no need for additional dwellings. Further comments are made with regards to the level of traffic that the development will generate and how this would impact upon traffic flows both within the village, at the junction with A690 and using the railway bridge at Leamside and Station Road. Concerns are raised in terms of congestion, vehicular and pedestrian safety, as well as for cyclists and horse riders, noise and emissions. It is considered by some that the proposed traffic lights would compound this impact. Additionally, there is some criticism of the submitted Travel Plan and potential parking issues.
100. Other significant issues for objectors include the impact of the development upon local services including West Rainton Primary School, the GP Surgery and the village cemetery, whether the development is needed as there are houses for sale within the area, the stability of the site due to former coal mining activity, potential land contamination at the site, archaeological remains, flood risk and whether the proposed SUDS scheme is appropriate and likely to be adequately managed .Impacts on local public rights of way and local biodiversity are also cited as reasons for concern, as is the potential for crime to increase, whether the proposed development would integrate well the village itself and the level of local objection. Loss of property value, social housing and loss of residential amenity and outlook was also cited. There would also be no benefit to the village and the impact would be compounded by the proposed surface mine.
101. With specific regards to the amended plans, objectors note that the site itself has not reduced in size and that there is the potential for the dwellings which have been removed from the proposal to come forward at a later date as part of a phased development.
102. West Rainton, Rainton Gate and Leamside Village Action Group 2013 has submitted the results of a survey which it carried out that indicates that 210 respondents are against the proposal, 7 have concerns, 5 indicate no concerns, 7 are in support and 6 made no comment. Comments are made as part of the survey as to the reason that residents are for or against the proposals which largely reflect the matters raised above and below.
103. West Rainton, Rainton Gate and Leamside Village Residents Action Group 2013 – Object to the proposed development on the grounds that the increase in dwellings would put additional pressure on infrastructure and public services, including the school, medical facilities and concerns are raised with the potential for a new facility to be constructed on the site. Concern is raised regarding the need to find a new site for a cemetery in the village and the impact on policing due to an increased population. Concerns regarding the change in character and charm of the village are raised as are issues of loss of agricultural land and archaeology and the impact on the nearby listed bridge, church and views towards Durham Cathedral. It is considered that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the density and layout of the village. The additional traffic would be exacerbated by new traffic lights and additional junction problems and would result in an increase in congestion, damage, noise, fumes and highway safety concerns and issues including impacts on Station Road, Chantry Place and parking problems. The proposed new commercial centre could impact on existing businesses. Existing drainage and flooding problems would be exacerbated and the proposed development would impact on existing PROW and nature conservation.
104. County Councillor Stephen Guy (Electoral Division member for Sherburn) – Advises that he objects to the proposals on the grounds that the site is not allocated for development within the emerging CDP, the proposed amenities would be inadequate to meet the demand and the existing GP would not be able to cope. He considers that there is already a lack of burial space in the village. Concerns are also raised regarding increased traffic, congestion and highway safety which would be compounded by new traffic lights as well as the safety of the existing railway bridge. Other issues raised relate to the change in character and nature of the village, impact on wildlife, loss of visual amenity, mining and contamination risks and well as flooding.
Support
105. A single letter of support has been received, noting that the proposed development would bring in extra facilities and life to the village. The support also considers that West Rainton Primary School could accommodate the additional pupils, and that traffic light controlled junctions on the A690 would improve the current situation.
Non-statutory Representations
106. Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison) – Advises that the ‘crime risk’ assessment for the proposal is low however it is important to ensure that the layout does not include crime generators such as unnecessary footpaths to the rear of properties. Advice is provided in respect of the site layout, landscaping, footpaths vehicle access, boundaries, lighting, and garages.
107. Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) – Advise that it objects to the proposed development. The site is not proposed for housing in the CDP and is amber within the Strategic Land Availability Assessment which means that the site is considered unsuitable for housing. The proposed development would not be in accordance with Policy 15 of the CDP as the development is not considered to be appropriate in scale, design, and location to the character and location of the settlement. There are insufficient facilities in West Rainton to support the influx of residents. The site is within the countryside and does not meet any of the exceptions in Policy 35 or Policy 17 (exception sites) of the CDP. The proposal would result in loss of public view, including that of the Cathedral and the Durham Plain, diminished enjoyment of a public footpath nor is provision made for cycling. It is also not located where people can walk or cycle to work given the traffic on the A690. The anticipated housing requirement in the CDP is over exaggerated and it would be premature to approve this application before the CDP is adopted. The development would not provide for a self-sustaining new community with local jobs and facilities as it would be low density dormitory town development. The reduction in the number of houses and provision of a SUDS system has not altered the view of CPRE.
108. Durham Wildlife Trust – Advises that it disagrees with the assumption that Brown Hare, a BAP species, are not present at the site as they are present at Rainton Meadows Nature Reserve. The Trust considers that inadequate survey work has been undertaken and the timing of the site survey is not ideal. Given the lack of information presented and the generic mitigation proposals put forward the Trust questions whether insufficient information has been provided.
109. The Ramblers Association – Has no objection to the proposals providing that the route of West Rainton footpath 8 is maintained through a green area of the site, as proposed.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
Promoting community focused and high quality development, which meets genuine local and county-wide needs, is an ethos which has driven the approach to this planning application from the outset. Thirteen Group, of which Tees Valley Housing is a member, are the largest housing provider in the region and have been recognised nationally for their work on similar schemes. The package of local benefits that accompany this application reflects Tees Valley’s vision of delivering and enhancing sustainable mixed communities where people want to live, while actively responding to community input and concerns.
110. The benefits that would sit alongside this scheme are extensive, and have been developed following on-going community and stakeholder engagement. These benefits include the following: significant investment into a fully signalised junction on the A690 at the entrance to the village, the benefits of which extend beyond that which would be required to mitigate the impact of the proposals; commitment to further off-site highways works along Station Road, including the relocation of a bus stop and road widening at the Chantry Place junction; a £50,000 contribution towards local community initiatives, with community stakeholders; delivery of local commercial and community facilities including potentially a new doctors surgery. This would create opportunities for the relocation of existing and new facilities for the wider village; 20% on-site affordable housing provision of which 25% would be intermediate tenure and 75% social rented, including 2 and 3 bed homes and bungalows for the elderly; and the delivery of further 3, 4 and 5 bed market homes which would make a significant contribution towards delivering the identified housing requirements in the area and boosting the 5-year-supply.
111. The scheme would be designed to follow a ‘landscaped’ concept which would deliver a green and attractive scheme. The economic benefits that the development would generate are likely to include New Homes Bonus payments of approximately £1.5m, and an uplift in Council Tax revenues of around £260,000 per annum alongside increased spending and employment in the local community.
112. Tees Valley Housing is a charitable, socially responsible owner and developer of sustainable homes and residential led schemes. Tees Valley is not a developer who develops schemes, sells all the homes and then has no further interest in a project. Tees Valley retains ownership of housing in its developments and therefore has a strong incentive to ensure that they provide great places, enhancing local communities in the long term. It is our intention that the proposed development at West Rainton and the valuable suite of benefits to both West Rainton and County Durham that would result from it would enhance the area over and above the “minimum required” for this type of development to protect the long term sustainability of the community and our investment in it.
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://spatial.durham.gov.uk/dcs/DetailMain.asp?appid=2877&AppRef=CMA%2F1%2F93&Category= All&Status=All&Appeal=All&District=All&Month=All&Year=All
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
113. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: the principle of the development, affordable housing, access, traffic and highway safety, landscape and visual impact, design and layout, affect upon residential amenity, ecology and nature conservation, public rights of way, flooding and drainage and other matters.
Principle of Development
114. The main issues relating the principle of the acceptability of the proposed development are: the extent to which the proposed development accords with the existing development plan for the area; the extent to which the proposed development accords with the emerging development plan; and, the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government guidance in relation to planning for housing and other policy objectives set out in the NPPF. With particular regard towards delivering a wide choice of high quality homes that widens opportunities for home ownership and helps create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.
115. The site is situated outside of the existing defined settlement boundary for West Rainton, as defined by Policy H3 of the CDLP. Policy H3 defines a series of ‘settlement boundaries’ for main towns and villages to indicate where new development is permissible. The implication is that housing development would normally be approved where it lies inside of the boundary, to help to contain settlements and prevent sprawl into the surrounding countryside. As the application site falls outside of the designated boundary, this proposal draws no support from this Policy.
116. Sites located outside of settlement boundaries should be assessed against ‘countryside’ policies and objectives (set out within CDLP Policies E7 and H5). There is a general presumption against allowing housing development beyond a settlement boundary unless it is required to fulfil an employment role. In view of this, it is considered that this proposal is in conflict with this element of the development plan.
117. Whilst the CDLP remains a statutory component of the development plan and a tool for determining applications, for determining applications, Government advice is only to afford it material weight where it accords with the NPPF. In this context, settlement limits are not fully supported by the NPPF, which instead takes a more flexible approach to settlement growth and development. Paragraphs 47- 55 of the NPPF seek to boost significantly the supply of housing to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. To accord with the NPPF new housing development should be located to provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car. The key matter in applying the NPPF relates to directing development to sustainable locations.
118. Contained within the submission CDP is the raft of housing sites which are earmarked as housing allocations for the next 16 years. There are no allocations proposed for the West Rainton settlement. In light of this, the proposal draws no support from Policy 30 (Housing Land Allocations). To ensure that the CDP is flexible over its intended timeframe and resilient to changes which take place within that period, the CDP contains policies to enable proposed development on unallocated sites to be assessed on their merits and individual circumstances (Policies 15 and 35). These are criteria based policies which are permissive of development provided that it is appropriate in scale, design and location to the character and function of the settlement; and it would not involve development in the countryside.
119. The site cannot be classified as forming part of the built up area of West Rainton. This is on account that development would extend the built form of the settlement into the countryside. The development is therefore in conflict with Policies of the emerging CDP overall. Notwithstanding this, legal advice to the Council suggests that whether a site is or is not allocated in the CDP is of limited weight in determining planning applications at the current time. This advice has been corroborated by recent appeal decisions which confirmed that only limited weight may be attributed to the CDP at this point in time.
120. As set out at section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, if regard is to be had to the development plan in determining the application, such a determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, having established that this proposal is in conflict with the development plan, the success or otherwise, of the proposals would be dependent upon the existence of material considerations. One such material consideration which is relevant is the NPPF. Paragraph 6 explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development. Paragraph 7 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The social dimension includes ‘supporting strong, vibrant healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of the present and future generation’. In instances where it is accepted that the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, the NPPF stipulates that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Specifically in relation to housing applications, paragraph 49 of the NPPF sets out that they should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
121. West Rainton is defined as a local service centre (3rd tier) within the Council's ‘Settlement Study’. Despite this, the settlement contains limited services and has no specific employment opportunities, and as such, residents of the settlement are likely to be reliant upon accessing employment and main shopping requirements in higher order settlements such as Durham City (and the Belmont area, in particular). Furthermore, these trips are more likely to be made using cars, although West Rainton is close to Durham and has good strategic links on the A690 so these trips will be relatively short distances. Regular public transport provision is also available through the village. It is therefore considered that the settlement itself is situated in a sustainable location, but that it does not benefit from a range of facilities and services that such a settlement would ordinarily be expected to have. Therefore, it is considered that this represents the evidence that this site needs to be developed as a sustainable mixed community with associated new community facilities, as are proposed, to improve the sustainability of the village. To develop the site would assist in making the settlement more sustainable and thus meet the aspirations set out within Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
122. A key matter concerns the scale of development proposed. The proposal was originally for 250 dwellings and this generated concerns by officers that the scale of development was not consistent with the role and function of West Rainton, as well as concerns raised by local residents that this was too much additional housing. There are presently approximately 1,032 houses in the settlement. Consequently the scheme for an additional 250 units would have represented a 24 % increase in the number of houses. This was considered to be excessive and too large for the existing scale and character of the settlement. The revised scheme for 150 units constitutes an increase of below 15%. It is officer’s view that this level of growth is consistent with the role, function and existing scale of the settlement. It is considered physically appropriate for the village without it expanding to such an extent that its current character would be both adversely and significantly affected, as required by CDLP Policy H13.
123. Paragraph 70 of the NPPF states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural services the community needs, planning decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments.
124. Ahead of adoption of the new CDP the Council has sought, in line with the NPPF, and in recognition of the need to stimulate the local economy, to allow appropriate sites to come forward now through the determination of planning applications. Notably, the scheme proposes a community hub, including retail and a potentially a relocated surgery. The village does have some retail provision, but this is quite spread out and there is no obvious village centre. This proposal brings the opportunity for such a facility to develop, to complement the existing facilities in the village as encouraged by Paragraph 70 of the NPPF. Furthermore, in order to address the increased traffic generated by the new houses, major highway improvements are required for the western village junction with the A690. This junction has been traffic calmed in recent years, but a traffic light controlled junction would create a much improved and safer access to the A690 for the benefit of all residents of the village. The proposal also proposes 30 affordable housing units, meeting the NPPF aspiration of achieving sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. It also contributes to the stock in an area of affordable housing need. It is considered that the scheme provides for a varied and appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes as required by paragraph 50 of the NPPF and CDLP Policies H12 and H12A.
125. It is considered that the scale of development proposed would not actually undermine the CDP (150 new homes equates to less than 0.5% of the 31,400 earmarked for the County by 2030). Furthermore, the CDP proposes green belt deletions for strategic sites of 3,700 units adjacent to Durham City. This site represents just 4% of this amount so would have no impact on the delivery of those key sites and would not undermine the strategy relating to the City.
126. Whilst it is accepted that the land is not contained within the main body of the settlement, and consequently cannot be described as forming part of the built- up area, it is not considered that the level of encroachment would result in a significant adverse landscape or townscape impact in the context of the NPPF. This is discussed in more detail below. The site has benefited from residential approval in the past, although these permissions have lapsed. Consequently, the site is not within the Durham City Green Belt and this proposal would not undermine the purpose of the adjacent green belt in this area, which is intended to prevent coalescence between Durham City and the surrounding villages. The western extent of the development site would bring the built up area of the village no closer to Durham City than the existing development that runs in a ribbon along the A690. There are no housing allocations within the settlement which would be undermined by the proposed development, and the scheme would deliver highway improvements and investment in community facilities.
127. The NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five-year supply of deliverable sites to ensure choice and competition in the market. The 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment concluded that a five-year supply could be demonstrated in County Durham, so there are no deficiencies which need to be addressed by the release of more housing land. However, it is not the intention to resist schemes solely on oversupply grounds, but instead recognise that it enables the Local Planning Authority to be more selective over which sites it does release, to ensure that the most sustainable and appropriate sites are brought forward for development.
128. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF states that pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision- taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, design standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable. The applicant has submitted a viability assessment to demonstrate that scheme is viable, and that the added benefits of the scheme are deliverable. This appraisal has been verified by Spatial Policy and Assets Officers and it accepted that the scheme is a viable one.
129. The site lies in a sustainable and accessible location within easy access, via a choice of transport modes to community services, shops and facilities in West Rainton, Belmont and Durham. It is considered that the proposal would support the vitality and viability of services and facilities in West Rainton as encouraged by Paragraph 55 of the NPPF. It also enjoys easy access to services, facilities and to a variety of employment opportunities in the wider Durham and Sunderland area. Existing bus infrastructure would be improved. These are served by bus services that operate regularly linking the site to the wider area enabling access to a broader range of services, facilities and employment and educational opportunities.
130. The proposed housing development would also be supported by a commercial development which could potentially be occupied by two or more of a range of different uses such as, a shop, financial and professional services, restaurant/café, pub and potentially a new/relocated GP surgery and/or community facilities, enhancing social infrastructure. In principle, it is considered that the incorporation of a small commercial development of the size proposed would be ancillary to the main residential development of the site and thus would not undermine the vitality and viability of the existing services within the village or other local centres as set out at Part 2 of the NPPF. It is recognised that the siting of this, outside the existing settlement boundary is locationally not in accordance with Policies C2, C8, S6, S7 and S10 of the CDLP, albeit it is considered that should the principle of development be accepted, then given that it would potentially be situated close to the existing shops, the residential area and public transport routes. It is considered that it would not significantly adversely affect the character and amenity of the surrounding area and would be of an appropriate scale enhancing the sustainability of the settlement. It is not considered that additional facilities would be of a scale that would negatively impact on the existing businesses in the village.
131. The development, if approved would not result in the loss of the ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land as required by Paragraph 112 of the NPPF.
132. In principle, and whilst a departure from the development plan currently in force for the area, this proposal is in accordance with the NPPF’s key aspiration at Paragraph 47 of boosting significantly the supply of housing in sustainable locations and the provision of additional supporting community facilities and services as well as required highway infrastructure. It is on this basis that, having regard to the proposed benefits of the development, the principle of development is considered acceptable in this instance, subject to these benefits being secured by way of legal agreement and conditions.
Affordable Housing
133. In order to widen the choice of high quality homes and widen opportunities for home ownership, paragraph 50 of the NPPF encourages the provision of affordable housing based on evidenced need. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update report was completed in July 2013 and supplies the evidence base for 20% affordable housing across the Central Delivery Area in which the site falls. The requirement reflects an up to date needs assessment and identifies a significant requirement of approximately 189 net affordable units per annum throughout the Central Delivery Area up to 2016/17. This shortfall is greatest for one and two bedroom properties (68 net per annum). On the basis of the SHMA evidence base, Policy 31 of the submitted Local Plan identifies housing schemes of 15 dwellings or 0.5 ha or more where such an affordable housing provision should apply and that 10% of housing should be appropriate for older people.
134. In this particular case, the application proposes that on the basis of 150 dwellings being constructed, 20% would be affordable or 30 units overall. This would be spread across each phase of development. The proposal would assist in the delivery of a wide choice of homes based on current and future demographics as set out at paragraph 50 of the NPPF.
135. This level of housing development provides an opportunity to deliver major benefits by way of meeting the affordable housing needs of the City and its surrounds. In view of the cuts in Government support to fund affordable housing delivery, a contribution of this scale that would enable the 30 affordable units required by Policy to be provided, is a major benefit at a time when housing development is struggling to deliver enough value from many sites to make affordable housing viable.
136. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposals reflect the level of affordable housing recommended in the SHMA and as a consequence is consistent in Policy 31 of the emerging CDP and CDLP Policies H12 and H12A. The affordable housing provision would be secured in perpetuity by way of a S106 legal agreement.
Access, Traffic and Highway Safety
137. A transport assessment has been submitted in support of the proposals due to the potential amount of traffic generated by the proposed development. It is noted that this is an area of concern amongst local residents. In assessing such impacts, paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe. In this case the anticipated number of vehicle trips a day can be safely accommodated within the improved highway network as required by CDLP Policy T1, and would not therefore amount to severe impacts in the context of paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
138. The proposal is estimated to generate 93 two way trips at the busiest peak hour which would distribute onto Station Road via two access points. The impact of these trips at various junctions has been assessed as acceptable. The existing speed limit would be retained on Station Road to the front of the site, and it has been demonstrated that the appropriate junction design could be achieved given surveyed speeds. Predicted traffic growth and trip generation for the proposed development is considered acceptable and this has been used to model junction operation. The site access junctions would operate well within capacity. Three junctions have been modelled; the existing A1M/ A690 junction, the existing A690/ High Street Park and Ride junction and a new A690 / Lambton View junction.
139. The Highways Agency has considered the impacts of the proposed development in the context of mitigation required for the A1M/ A690 junction. The junction is the subject of an agreed mitigation scheme associated with the Belmont Industrial Estate. The applicant is to make a financial contribution of £25,000 towards the costs of the mitigation scheme to accommodate the additional impact of generated traffic at this junction. The Highways Agency has confirmed that subject to this being secured through a Section 106 agreement to contribute to the infrastructure improvement works it has no objections to the proposed development and withdraws its previous objection.
140. The existing High Street/ Park and Ride junction has been modelled with additional generated traffic from the proposed development. Highway Officers advise that there is a requirement to balance demands and delay. This can be achieved through increase in junction capacity at the High Street junction which would allow adjustment to signal cycle times. This requirement would therefore be conditioned to comply with CDLP Policies T1, T2 and T8. A new traffic signal junction is proposed at the A690/ Lambton View junction. This has been subject to detailed modelling to demonstrate its deliverability in an amended junction layout. The Highways Authority is satisfied that the principle of delivery of an appropriate junction layout and signal strategy is appropriate. The specific details of the junction layout, and signal strategy at the A690/ Lambton View junction can be conditioned in line with CDLP Policies T1 and T8.
141. Station Road is a 40mph carriageway in keeping with the Council’s Speed Management Strategy. Following discussions with Durham Constabulary it is considered this would remain appropriate given the nature and layout of highways approaching Station Road. Speed surveys have confirmed that the present speed limit is appropriate for the measured speeds. It was originally proposed to realign and designate parking space at the ends of Station Road to accommodate existing parking demand and install a traffic calming raised table feature. However, this has been removed from the proposals because the latter is not supported by officers. It is though recognised there is a need to make some provision to accommodate pedestrians along Station Road, therefore a requirement for pedestrian refuge facilities on Station Road would be subject of a planning condition in line with CDLP Policies T1, T8 and Q2.
142. Two access points off Station road are proposed. It is considered that the proposed development would comply with CDLP Policies T1 and Q2 and paragraph 32 of the NPPF which requires satisfactory access onto the adopted road network and safe vehicle entrance, exit and manoeuvring as well as effective access for emergency vehicles. The location of the site is considered to accord with paragraph 34 of the NPPF which requires that development that may be a significant traffic generator should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable modes can be maximised. The proposed detailed layout, siting and number of parking spaces, as well as roads, turning areas and footpaths would be considered at reserved matters stage. There is sufficient space within the site for these to be adequately accommodated in line with CDLP Policies S7, S10, C2, T10, Q2 and Q4.
143. A condition requiring the submission of details of the bus stop provision, incorporating relocation of an existing bus stop and provision of a new bus stop, would be imposed on any planning permission. A bus stop within Lambton View off the A690 East bound would be required to be relocated as the access from the A690 east bound would be closed. The proposals would thus comply with CDLP Policies T5 and Q2. The proposed new bus stop would be required to be sited outside of the visibility splay of the site entrance. The proposed enhanced bus provision on Station Road would ensure that all the development was within 400m of a bus stop. Such matters would be secured through condition.
144. The applicant has submitted a travel plan as part of the proposals which seeks to support the sustainable transport and travel agenda. This has been considered by the Council’s Travel Planning Team who has made suggestions for its improvements. Therefore, in order to secure appropriate requirements it is recommended that a condition is imposed which seeks agreement and implementation of a final travel plan. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with paragraph 36 of the NPPF.
Visual and Landscape Impact
145. The landscape is for the most part visually open, but there are more heavily wooded areas in the south and in the north. The site itself is made up of open arable farmland with few surface features. The site is not covered by any national or local designations. It lies close to areas of land identified as Area of Landscape Value in the CDLP. The landscape of the site itself is in relatively poor condition as the field boundary network has been lost. It is of moderate scenic quality being rather bland in itself but affording attractive views towards more wooded countryside to the south and panoramic views across the Wear Lowlands to the west. It has little recreational value in itself as arable farmland but is crossed by a footpath which gives access to attractive countryside around Moorhouse and National Trust land at Mallygill and Raintonpark woods for residents of West Rainton. The site is in a relatively prominent location and is visible in distant and middle-distance views from the west and north-west, and in close views from the southern edge of West Rainton. It is not generally visible east of the A690 or north/north-east of West Rainton.
146. The proposals would have no significant effect on landscape features as the site lacks mature features of any note. A hedge bordering the site in the south-east would be retained. It is acknowledged that residential development would change the character of the site itself. This would be appreciated most in views of the immediate locality, from the southern edge of West Rainton and the footpath which crosses the site. The character of the existing settlement edge of the village would undergo a substantial change and Station Road would become an enclosed urban street. The effect on the character of the local landscape would be substantial, however this would be relatively localised.
147. In more distant views across the Wear Lowlands the site forms part of a settled landscape made up of a mosaic of farmland, woodland, built development and infrastructure. The upper slopes towards Rainton Gate are prominent in some views, with the town houses of Lambton View conspicuous on the ridgeline. The site is more typically seen in relatively shallow views where it is screened in varying degrees by intervening vegetation. Development in that location would be visible as an extension of the urban form of West Rainton. While it would lead to an increase in the amount of built development visible in some views it would not affect the general character of the landscape to a substantial degree.
148. Structural landscaping within and around the site would assist in assimilating the built development in middle and long distance views in the medium term, provided it was sufficiently robust, which would progressively reduce the level of impact in wider views as required by CDLP Policies Q5, Q6 and E15. The proposals would be visible in some views from land within the AHLV. For the most part this is heavily wooded and views of the site would be restricted. The effect would not be significant and would not bring the proposals into conflict with CDLP Policy E10.
149. The change in character of the land south of Station Road would be notable in views from private properties and public vantage points which currently enjoy open views to the south and west. These would be replaced by views of housing across an urban road and associated open space and landscaping. This would not be unattractive in itself, but would be of a different character. The loss of views to individual private properties cannot be given weight. The change in views from public vantage points is of greater importance as it affects the wider community and the character of the settlement. The settlement edge here is not well defined, being a rather abrupt transition to open arable farmland, but it is long established and public.
150. The proposal provides for robust areas of structure planting and amenity open space running along Station Road and at various points through the proposed housing to a perimeter belt of structure planting in the south in accordance with CDLP Policies Q5, Q6 and E15. This would be followed by a footpath which would have attractive views out across the Wear valley similar to those that would be lost on the existing settlement edge. As an urban extension the proposed development is positively designed although would clearly bring a considerable change to the character of the existing edge of the settlement.
151. The proposals would have some significant effects on the character of the local landscape however, these would be relatively localised. The proposals would bring a substantial change to the visual environment of the southern edge of the village but would not in themselves be necessarily unattractive. Whether this degree of change is acceptable is a matter on which judgments will quite reasonably vary and is ultimately a matter for the wider balance of material planning considerations and the judgements of decision makers.
Design and Layout
152. The design approach has been to formulate a ‘landscape led’ master plan whereby a framework of green infrastructure would shape the pattern of development. The core concept incorporates six ‘green routes’ and landscaped/open space areas around which the development would be structured. It is envisaged that these would entail a series of strong, horizontal landscaped ‘green fingers’ located in key strategic visual zones, comprising of trees and hedgerows. This would result in low density development allowing for a spacious layout, now that the scheme has been reduced to 150 dwellings from the originally proposed 250 dwellings. The proposed large open areas, wide routes and the proposed buffer landscaping would allow the built form to be screened in long distance views and from public routes. It is intended that the proposed village extension should deliver a ‘sequence of spaces’; areas of containment, openness and an authentic street space created. It is envisaged that the introduction of a number of landscape zones would break the development up into a series of distinct character areas as opposed to one homogeneous roof scape.
153. It is considered that the proposals as they stand in outline form, recognising that the detailed design of the scheme would be developed at reserved matters stage, are appropriate in scale, form, density and character having regard to the local and wider area. They could contribute positively to the areas townscape and landscape, incorporating substantial investment to the public realm, strong green avenue infrastructure to delineate routes and spaces, a structural hierarchy of landscaping, routes and spaces as well as pedestrian and cycle linkages to the wider area. The design would respond to local typologies, vernacular and materials and legibility would be promoted through focal points, vistas, feature buildings etc. A range of parking and boundary treatment solutions would be used. It is intended that the scheme would meet secured by design principles. Any concerns regarding the design and specific location of the proposed community hub on the site can be resolved at reserved matters stage as the current application is in outline.
154. The proposed ‘landscape led’ master plan vision and concept layout demonstrates that the proposals have the potential to meet the aspirations set out within CDLP Policies S6, S7, S10, (in terms of scale and character) Q1, Q2 , Q4 and Q8. Officers note that the ‘green fingers’ concept could be improved by a stronger relationship with the orientation of the dwellings and framed by the building groups and is undermined at present by the hard surfaced accessed roads through the green fingers. However, the master plan can be evolved at reserved matters stage with the input of Council’s Design Officers and at this early stage the principle of the master plan vision is supported.
155. The Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) undertaken as part of the evidence base for the emerging CDP provides the most up-to-date evidence base to calculate the site’s open space requirements. The OSNA suggests there are deficits in terms of the amount of parks/gardens and semi-natural green space within the Sherburn Ward. The proposed development includes provision of a variety of open space on site and a financial contribution of £75,000 towards the improvement/provision of outdoor sports space, play space and/or parks/gardens within the electoral division. This would again be secured by way of legal agreement.
156. It is considered that the provision of informal play space, amenity open space and semi-natural green space on the site, comprising of approximately 2 hectares, assists in compensating for the aforementioned deficiencies in the area generally. These types of spaces would be secured as part of a S106 legal agreement. The siting of the various areas of open space would be controlled at reserved matters stage to ensure concerns any regarding anti- social behaviour were adequately resolved. It is considered that the provisions to be made on site and those to be secured off-site are such that the proposals would fully comply with the requirements of CDLP Policies R2 and Q8. A condition would ensure that the provision would be made for artistic elements in the design as required by Q15 of the CDLP.
Residential Amenity
157. The nearest properties to the site are situated across Station Road, to the north, at Rainton Gate adjoining the eastern side of the side and at Leamside adjoining the western side of the site. Notwithstanding the recognised loss of private view, into the countryside and Durham beyond, the development of the site for housing generally is unlikely to substantially diminish levels of residential amenity that those living nearby can reasonably expect to enjoy in their homes and gardens, in terms of loss of outlook, light and privacy as required by CDLP Policies H13 and Q8. It is not considered that the anticipated additional traffic associated with the proposed development would result in diminished air quality. It is accepted that there would be increased traffic, comings and goings and noise associated with a new housing development, albeit additional housing close to existing residential properties would rarely be deemed unacceptable from a residential amenity perspective. Dwellings would be located into the site at appropriate separation distances, be of an appropriate scale and be screened by landscaping to some degree.
158. Given the number of dwellings proposed development would result in a potential lengthy build-out period (25 – 35 dwellings per year would be a 5-6 year build out period) in order to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for existing residents and those who occupy dwellings in the earlier phases of development it is considered appropriate to require a construction management plan be developed and be implemented to ensure appropriate management of such issues as operations, deliveries, noise, dust, mud, vibration and light so that the construction of the dwellings would not adversely affect the amenity of residents.
159. It is considered that the commercial element of the scheme, which would be considered in the context of a subsequent reserved matters submission also, is sited in its current illustrative position at an appropriate distance away from nearby residential properties, adjacent other commercial properties, so as not to lead to a significant loss of privacy, outlook and general residential amenity, as required by CDLP Policies H13, C2, S6, S7 and S10.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
160. There are no designated sites on or within the immediate locality of the site, with the vast majority of the site comprising arable land. The application has been supported by an ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecology Report and various surveys or protected species and birds undertaken. The site was found to be of low ecological value. The existing hedgerow to the south east corner is a species rich hedgerow. This and a mature oak are the only features on the site of significant ecological value and these would be retained. The hedge is likely to support nesting birds and small mammals and is considered a priority habitat of local importance. Two trees to be retained are also considered to have bat potential. No plant species of conservation significance or protected species were recorded. Additional surveys would be required to be undertaken prior to the commencement of any development as well as checking surveys for nesting birds.
161. The proposed landscaping scheme would enhance the ecological value of the site and it is recommended that a linear parkway, grassland and pond features are incorporated into the detailed design of the scheme. Other ecological enhancements set out in the submitted ecological report include the installation of bat and bird boxes, planting of and improvements to hedgerows, native and wildflower planting and native woodland planting. The SUDs design should also use an open water design to benefit amphibians.
162. The County Ecologist accepts the submitted survey results, methodology and mitigation strategy designed to protect wildlife and their habitats. It is considered that the landscape and biodiversity enhancements on the application site meet the requirements of CDLP Policies E14, E16 and E18 and paragraphs 109 and118 of the NPPF, in that it is considered there would not be significant impact on wildlife, protected species and natural habitats and that the proposals contribute positively to connectivity and the creation and enhancements of habitats.
Heritage Assets and Archaeology
163. The applicant has provided a comprehensive and well researched archaeological assessment. It advised that further intrusive archaeological evaluation is required to determine if currently unrecorded and significant buried heritage assets survive within the proposed development site. The results of the submitted geophysical survey do not appear to show any hugely significant features which would inhibit development of the site. In principle the County Archaeologist has advised that she has no objections to the proposed development subject to suitable archaeological conditions. This would allow for trial trench evaluation to be undertaken prior to the determination of reserved matters and any mitigation works would be a condition of a reserved matters approval. By undertaking the trial trenching post determination of the outline but in advance of the reserved matters application, the results of the archaeological works could still inform the design of the development if required (i.e. if features are then revealed to be more significant than currently appear to be, they could be designed around to preserve in situ if needed) in line with CDLP Policies E21 and E24 and paragraph 128 of the NPPF.
164. The railway bridge, 420m to the northwest of the site is a Grade 2 listed structure and is the nearest heritage asset to the site. Officers consider that this has a confined setting within the settlement and its setting is unlikely to be adversely affected by the development. The presence of the bridge as a local landmark, its function as a road bridge, its interrelationship with the railway line and position within the surrounding settlement and topography would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The Grade II listed former Ebeneezer Chapel approximately 625m to the northeast, the Grade II listed former Londonderry School approximately 700m to the northeast both have an insular and immediate setting within the settlement. There is no interrelationship or indivisibility between the former school and chapel and the site, and therefore the setting of these assets would not be adversely affected by the development.
165. The Grade II* listed St Mary’s Church approximately 800m to the northeast does have a stronger landmark presence within West Rainton and features in views from the A690 and from the corner of Station Road/Chantry Place, however this role would not be affected by the development of the site and it should be noted that the church is already surrounded by housing development. It is considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the setting of any designated heritage assets within the immediate radius of the site as required by Policies E21 and E23 of the CDLP.
166. The concerns of local residents regarding views of the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage site are noted. However, the Council’s Conservation Officer does not consider that the proposed development would compromise any notable long distance views of the World Heritage site or its setting, which is located 6km to the southwest of the site, given the distances involved and the low level residential nature of the development as required by CDLP Policy E3. There would be no identifiable impact on the outstanding universal values or significance of the World Heritage Site.
Public Rights of Way
167. Public Footpath No. 8 (West Rainton Parish) passes through the centre of the site. It provides the only immediate pedestrian access to open countryside from the established residential south edge of West Rainton without the need to cross the A690 dual carriageway. It also forms part of a promoted walking route. It is understood that the path is highly valued and well used by local residents. The footpath would be retained on its current definitive line. However, there would be some loss of the present amenity value and rural character of the path given that part of the path would extend through the proposed residential development. To mitigate this officer’s advice that the open, rural aspect of the path should be retained within the development and properties should face onto the path. A large area of open space could be provided adjacent the existing footpath that runs through the site to retain the character of this path and thus could be required as part of the detailed layout and landscape scheme. The surface of the footpath should be resurfaced with a suitable material. These measures can be achieved by planning conditions and through the reserved matters process, and ensure compliance with CDP Policies R11 and T21.
Flooding and Drainage
168. The site lies within flood zone one where residential development is considered appropriate. The main consideration is the prevention of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment’s findings and recommendations, as well as surface and foul water drainage proposals, are accepted by Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) and the Environment Agency. This is subject to appropriate planning conditions which restrict the amount and location of foul water discharge and prevent surface water discharging into the public sewer as well limiting surface water run-off to agreed greenfield run-off rates.
169. NWL has advised that its existing foul water drainage system has available capacity to accommodate a restricted discharge from the development via a manhole to the north west of the site. Given that there would be an increase in impermeable area, attenuation storage tanks and SUDS ponds would drain the surface water from the site and restrict it to greenfield run off rates i.e. the run-off generated would not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site, so that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The objectives of CDLP Policy U8a and Part 10 of the NPPF are therefore considered to have been met. The concerns regarding this matter are noted, however it is the case that development of a site enables a positive drainage strategy to be implemented.
Other Matters
170. The site presents a good opportunity for innovative sustainable design. At this stage the details of sustainable design are not finalised because the proposal is at the outline application stage. Opportunities for solar thermal, ground source heat pumps, and photo voltaic cells to roofs, energy efficient design features and the fabric first approach would all be appropriate to consider at the detailed design stage.
171. The combination of these technologies has the capability to meet and exceed the target of 10% renewable energy generation on site and thereby meet the requirements of CDLP Policy U14 and the core principle of the NPPF of achieving sustainable development. The imposition of a condition to meet this requirement would address concerns raised by the Sustainability and Climate Change Officer regarding improving the sustainability of the design and construction of the dwellings and the consideration of renewable or low carbon energy generation on the site.
172. Environmental Health Officers advise that although the site is not considered likely to have significant contamination present, the potential for made ground cannot be discounted. Reports submitted with the application identify the potential for shallow mining works at the site and there is a mining shaft on the site and the potential for further entries. As a result there is a potential for mining gas at the site. There is also the potential for asbestos containing material to be present on the site. Therefore it is recommended that a Phase 2 site investigation is undertaken in order to identify, and if necessary, deal with any contamination in order to ensure that the site is suitable for the proposed use, as required by Policy U12 of the CDLP.
173. The School Places Manager considers that there are sufficient surplus primary and secondary school places within the locality to accommodate the projected additional pupils as a result of this particular proposed development.
174. The consultation response of the Coal Authority is noted. The requested condition requiring intrusive site investigation works to be undertaken in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site is recommended in respect of the outline area of the site. Remedial works to treat the areas of shallow mine workings to ensure the safety and stability would then be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development within the outline area. This would ensure that the site is safe and stable for the approved development, as required by CDLP Policy U13 and paragraph 121 of the NPPF.
175. Concern has been raised regarding a potential cumulative impact of the proposed development with the implementation of the proposed open cast, also to be determined, however it is considered that the proposed housing and opencast proposals are essentially different in character. The construction phase of the housing development would involve some engineering operations such as soil stripping and storage that would be similar in nature to works involved in the opencast operation, although the visual effects of these would generally fall on different parts of the village.
176. From the upper storeys of town houses at Lambton View there would be some visibility from south-facing windows of surface activity and storage mounds in the proposed opencast site at distances of around 400m to the southwest. There would be visibility from north-facing windows of construction activities associated with the proposed housing. Whilst there would be potential for some cumulative effects should the two proposals overlap or closely follow each other, both would be temporary and short term operations and the overall effect on residential amenity would not be significant. Furthermore the traffic generation from the proposed opencast would be limited to 45 movements per day. This level of trip generation would not have any significant impact on the junction at the A690/ Chantry Place.
177. It is not considered that concerns relating to a perceived lack of burial space in a particular village would be a sustainable reason to reject additional housing development. It is considered that loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
CONCLUSION
178. The proposed scheme does not accord with either the existing or emerging development plan, although it does not undermine the delivery of the strategy of the emerging plan going forward and accords with many of the aspirations of the NPPF. In light of the conflict with development plan policy there would need to be other material considerations to justify granting planning permission.
179. The scheme would provide clear benefits to the local area. It would assist in meeting housing needs, including the provision of 30 affordable houses some of which would be bungalows for older people. The scheme would deliver other benefits including improved community facilities and community investment as well as investment in sports and play provision in the locality. The highway improvements proposed, notably to the junction on the A690 would serve to benefit the whole community of West Rainton and users of the A690. The number of houses is considered to be of a scale commensurate with the role and function of the settlement of West Rainton. When the NPPF and the community benefits are taken into account, these are considered to materially weigh in favour of the proposal.
180. The proposals would have some significant effects on the character of the local landscape but these would be relatively localised. They would bring a substantial change to the visual environment of the southern edge of the village but would not in themselves be necessarily unattractive. It is considered that structural hedge and tree planting and incorporation of various types of open green space would assist in assimilating the development into its surroundings over time. The scheme has the ability to be developed into a high quality ‘landscape led’ scheme, with extensive onsite open space, landscaping, high levels of sustainability and the use of sustainable urban drainage.
181. The development is considered acceptable in highway safety, access, parking and traffic terms, subject to proposed mitigation. Investment and highway improvements would be made to surrounding road junctions, footpaths/cycle ways and bus infrastructure. It is not considered that the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties would be significantly adversely affected. The proposed development is not considered to negatively affect protected species or nature conservation and proposals have been put forward which would improve the ecological value of the site. It is not considered that any heritage assets would be significantly affected. Adequate drainage to the public sewer would be provided and flood risk would not be increased elsewhere, subject to conditions. Conditions would also ensure that the site is safe for development and that archaeological investigations are carried out to ensure that any archaeological remains would not be affected by the development.
182. Careful and thorough consideration was given to the objections and concerns raised by local residents and these have been taken into account and addressed within the body of the report. On balance the concerns raised were not felt to be of sufficient weight to justify refusal of this application, in the light of the benefits of the scheme and the ability to impose conditions and legal agreement.
183. Although the proposed development would represent a departure from CDLP Policies E7, H3 and H5, it is considered that such Policies are of diminished weight in the context of the NPPF. The conflict with these policies that housing development on the site would bring, would be outweighed by the proposed benefits of the scheme in the context of the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and the key objective of boosting significantly the supply of a mix and type of new housing thus enabling the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes as well as community benefits.
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:
• Commencement of construction of the community hub before occupation of the 25 th dwelling and completion before the occupation of the 75 th dwelling. • A financial contribution of £25000 towards the cost of A1 (M) Carville Interchange highway improvement measures. • A 20% affordable housing provision across the site, incorporating 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership (provision of 30 dwellings, out of 150) comprising of 15 bungalows suitable for older people and 15 two and three bedroomed houses; • £500 per dwelling financial contribution towards additional and/or improved sports provision, equipped play provision, and parks/gardens provision/improvement in the Sherburn electoral division totalling £75,000 for 150 dwellings; • £50,000 financial contribution towards community schemes and initiatives; • Targeted skills and employment opportunities; • Open space provision on site comprising a minimum of 2.0 hectares incorporating of 1 hectare of semi-natural green space, 0.9 hectares of amenity open space and 0.1 hectares of children’s play space (or a combination thereof, totalling 2.0 hectares minimum) which is then maintained in perpetuity.
And subject to the following conditions:
1. Application (s) for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three 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 layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced.
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. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications:
Plans:
Site Location Plan. SL02. 21 st October 2013 Illustrative Master Plan- Indicative Cells and Frontages. IM-05. 18.3.2014.
Documents:
Design and Access Statement. October 2013. Design and Access Statement. Addendum April 2014. Transport Assessment. Land at West Rainton. Aecom Transportation. Rev. 05. 1 st April 2014. Flood Risk Assessment. Ref: 130601.R.003. Version 3. Roberts Environmental Ltd. March 2014. Utility Study. WSP. October 2013. Archaeological Assessment. The Archaeological Practice Ltd. September 2013.
Pre-development Tree Condition Survey (Tree Constraints Assessment). August 2013. E3 Ecology. MacArthur Green. Extended phase 1 Habitat Survey. Ecological Report. Final. October 2013. MacArthur Green. 4 th March 2014. Response to comments from DCC. McArthur Green. 17 th March 2014. Clarifications following phone call between Gary Shears, DCC and Rachael Iveson, Mcarthus Green. Geo-Environmental Desk Study and Coal Mining Assessment. WSP. October 2013.
Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies E3, E10, E14, E15, E16, E18, E21, E23, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q8, T1, T5, T7, T8, T10, T19, T20, T21, S6, S7, S10, C2, C8, H12, H12A, H13, R2, R11, U8a, U13, U14 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
4. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application samples of the external walling and roofing materials of the dwellings should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the relevant phase of the development to which the material relates. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regards to Policies Q8, E10 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 7 of the NPPF.
5. Notwithstanding any details of all surface treatments, boundary treatments, street furniture, informal play areas and lighting scheme submitted with the application, full details of these should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before substantial completion of the 1 st dwelling. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regards to Policies Q8, R2 and H13 of the City of Durham of the Local Plan.
6. Development shall not commence until a construction working practices strategy that includes (but not exclusively) dust, noise, and light mitigation; compound location and traffic management shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter construction will take place in full accordance with that agreement.
Reason: In the interests of public health, highway safety and amenity, in accordance with the objectives of Policies T1, Q8 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
7. The development shall not commence until a detailed landscaping scheme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any additional tree felling to that approved should be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any submitted scheme must be shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. The landscape scheme shall include accurate plan based details of the following: Retention of the mature oak tree and species rich hedgerow to the south of the site Perimeter (boundary) structure planting to all boundaries which shall be at least 15m in depth; Structure planting to all the major green ‘corridors’. Surfacing of the section of Public footpath no. 8 West Rainton Parish that is within the site boundary Open rural grass corridor/open space on either side of of Public footpath no. 8 that is within the site boundary Hedge enclosures to the front boundaries of properties. Avenues of street trees and structure planting along access roads and footpaths Perimeter walkways Trees, hedges and shrubs scheduled for retention. Details of hard and soft landscaping including planting species, sizes, layout, densities, numbers. Details of planting procedures or specification. Finished topsoil levels and depths. Details of temporary topsoil and subsoil storage provision. Seeded or turf areas, habitat creation areas and details etc. Details of land and surface drainage. A management plan for all planting extending from initial planting until 5 years after final completion of the development which should establish a maintenance regime, including watering, rabbit protection, tree stakes, guards etc. Trees, hedges and shrubs shall not be removed without agreement.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies E15, E16, Q5 and Q6 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
8. All tree and hedge planting, seeding or turfing and habitat creation in the approved details of the landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with an agreed timetable of works. This shall incorporate advance planting of all perimeter structure planting before construction of any dwelling commences and thereafter landscaping associated with each phase should be planted during construction of the relevant phase to which it relates and be wholly completed before completion of the final dwelling on each phase. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the removal/felling is shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. Any approved replacement tree or hedge planting shall be carried out within 12 months of felling and removals of existing trees and hedges.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies E15, Q5 and Q6 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
9. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until all trees and hedges to be retained are protected by the erection of fencing, comprising a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, well braced to resist impacts, and supporting temporary welded mesh fencing panels or similar approved in accordance with BS.5837:2005. No operations whatsoever, no alterations of ground levels, and no storage of any materials are to take place inside the fences, and no work is to be done such as to affect any tree. No removal of limbs of trees or other tree work shall be carried out. No underground services trenches or service runs shall be laid out in root protection areas.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policy E14 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
10. Details and locations of bin/recycling stores and cycle stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the construction of the 1 st dwelling. The bin/recycling and cycle stores shall be constructed and available for use before the occupation of the dwelling to which they relate.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area, to reduce reliance on the car and to comply with Policies Q8 and T20 of Durham City Local Plan.
11. Before the occupation of the 1 st dwelling a Travel Plan Coordinator shall be appointed and contact details for this person shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of improving the sustainability of the site having regard to Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport of the NPPF.
12. Within 6 months of the occupation of the first dwelling, a final Travel Plan, conforming to the ethos of the National Specification for Workplace Travel Plans, PAS 500:2008, bronze level, indicating programmes and funding commitment, shall be submitted in writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In the interest of improving the sustainability of the site having regard to Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport of the NPPF.
13. No operations and deliveries associated with the construction phase of the development hereby approved shall be carried out outside the hours of: Monday to Friday – 08:00 – 18:00 hours Saturdays – 08:00 – 12:00 hours Sundays – None Public and Bank Holidays – None
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies Q8 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
14. Plans showing full engineering details of the proposed estate roads shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the construction of the 1 st dwelling commences. These shall be constructed as approved and made available for use before the first occupation of the relevant phase of the development to which the estate road relates.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policy T10 of the Durham City Local Plan.
15. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide for:
i) The proper identification and evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the site, in accordance with a brief issued by the County Durham Archaeology Section and completed to inform the first reserved matters application; ii) An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeological remains identified in the evaluation phase; iii) proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the publishing of the findings, it being understood that there shall be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ wherever feasible. A new updated written scheme of investigation for the final mitigation strategy (if needed) must be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority before the 1st reserved matters application. iv) Sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological contractors to ensure that archaeological fieldwork as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed before the commencement of the approved development in the area of archaeological interest; and v), notification in writing to the County Durham Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To comply with Policies E21 and E24 of the City of Durham Local Plan and paragraphs 135 and 141 of the NPPF.
16. The development shall not be occupied until a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy is deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication.
Reason: To comply with Policy E24 of the City of Durham Local Plan and paragraph 141 of NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.
17. Foul water must be restricted to 11.5 litres per second and discharge into the public sewer at manhole 4601 and no surface water from the approved development may discharge into the public sewer.
Reason: To comply with Policy U8A of the City of Durham Local Plan.
18. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing details of the junction layout and signal strategy for the A690/ Lambton View junction, together with a timetable for their implementation. The junction improvements shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T2 and T8 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
19. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a full scheme of improvements to the highway infrastructure at the A690/ High Street junction, including timings for their implementation. The approved works shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved timings.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T2 and T8 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
20. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a full scheme of improvements to the bus infrastructure, including the location and detail of all new and relocated bus infrastructure and timings for their implementation. The approved works shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved timings.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T2 and T5 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
21. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a full scheme of re-surfacing works to the part of the Public Footpath no. 8 West Rainton Parish which lies within the site. The approved works shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved timings.
Reason: To safeguard the needs of walkers and protect the existing network of PROW’s as required by R11 and T21 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
22. Development shall not commence until a scheme for the incorporation of artistic elements within the scheme’s buildings, spaces and landscapes, and a timetable for their implementation, has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the agreed scheme shall be carried out and implemented as approved.
Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy Q15 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
23. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment 130601.R.003 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the report; limiting the surface water generated by the site so that it would not exceed the run-off from the un-developed site and not increase the risk of flooding on-site. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented before any of the development is occupied and subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied in the scheme.
Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy U8a of the City of Durham Local Plan to prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.
24. Development shall not commence until a scheme to minimise energy consumption shall be 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, to a minimum level of at least 10% of the total energy demand from the development, or an equivalent scheme that minimises carbon emissions to an equal level through energy efficiency measures. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme prior to first occupation and retained so in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable construction and energy generation in accordance with the aims of Policy U14 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
25. The development shall only take place in full accordance with the recommendations set out in section 6 of the Macarthur Green West Rainton Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Ecological Report Final dated 24 th October 2013 and Addendums dated 4 th March and 17 th March 2014.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of Part 11 of the NPPF and Policy E14 and E16 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
26. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the 1 st occupation of the development.
Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site in accordance with Policy U8A of the City of Durham Local Plan.
27. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme to deal with contamination has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 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:
(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 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.
(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 Policy U11 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
28. The approved development should consist of a minimum of 20% 3 bedroomed properties.
Reason: In order to provide an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes as required by Paragraph 50 of the NPPF.
29. The approved community hub shall be restricted to 950 sq. of class A1 and/or A2, A3, A4 and A5 use and 950sq.m. of class D1 use.
Reason: In order to comply with Policies S6 and S7 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 2 of the NPPF.
30. Development shall not commence until a scheme to market the community hub has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be carried out approved.
Reason: To ensure the provision of local services and facilities as required by Paragraph 70 of the NPPF.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this 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 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
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 Notes • City of Durham Local Plan 2004 • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses
CMA/4/112 Residential development of 150 dwellings, small scale community hub within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 of up to 950 sq. m and within use class D1 of up to 950 sq. m with open space, Planning Services hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure (outline, all matters reserved except access) including off site highway improvements (Revised proposals) at Land to the South West of Station Road, West Rainton, County Durham
This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey Comments on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014