County Planning Committee

Date Tuesday 2 June 2015 Time 1.00 pm Venue Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham

Business

Part A

1. Apologies for Absence 2. Substitute Members 3. Declarations of Interest 4. Minutes of the meeting held on 5 May 2015 (Pages 1 - 12) 5. Applications to be determined a) DM/15/00110/FPA - Flatts Farm, Toronto, Bishop Auckland, County Durham (Pages 13 - 48) Re-development of existing golf course to facilitate the staging of seasonal historical show, including associated car parking area, staging facilities, outdoor seating, management offices and associated infrastructure and landscaping.

b) DM/14/00763/FPA - Land to the west of Mount Park Drive and to the north of Newbiggin Lane, Lanchester, County Durham (Pages 49 - 82) Residential development of 149 no. dwellings with associated access and landscaping.

c) DM/14/02017/FPA - Land to the East of A19 and South of Dalton Heights Seaham (Pages 83 - 112) Residential development of 134 no. dwellings (C3 use class) with associated access and landscaping works.

d) DM/15/00709/FPA - Moordale Road, Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe (Pages 113 - 124) Extension to distribution centre (B8 land use) in 2 phases (10,000m 2 and 7,000m 2) including to storage enclosure and plant room, additional sprinkler tank and pump room, changes to HGV route and car park, and landscaping.

e) DM/14/03879/FPA - Land to the West of Preston Road, Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe (Pages 125 - 142) Installation and operation of 5MW solar farm and associated infrastructure.

f) DM/15/01366/FPA - Land to the south of Comeleon House, Tanfield Lea Industrial Estate, North Stanley (Pages 143 - 158) 4MW Solar Farm and associated infrastructure.

6. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration 7. Any resolution relating to the exclusion of the public during the discussion of items containing exempt information Part B Items during which it is considered the meeting will not be open to the public (consideration of exempt or confidential information)

8. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration

Colette Longbottom Head of Legal and Democratic Services

County Hall Durham 25 May 2015

To: The Members of the County Planning Committee

Councillor K Davidson (Chairman) Councillor B Moir (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors D Boyes, J Clare, P Conway, M Dixon, G Holland, I Jewell, A Laing, R Lumsdon, C Marshall, H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield, P Taylor and R Young

Contact: Ian Croft Tel: 03000 269702

Agenda Item 4

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

At a Meeting of County Planning Committee held in Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Tuesday 5 May 2015 at 1.00 pm

Present :

Councillor K Davidson (Chairman)

Members of the Committee: Councillors J Allen, B Armstrong, H Bennett, D Boyes, M Dixon, A Laing, C Marshall, B Moir (Vice-Chairman), H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield and R Young

1 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Hall, G Holland, R Lumsdon and P Taylor.

2 Substitute Members

Councillor H Bennett as substitute for Councillor D Hall.

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor G Richardson informed the Committee that he was a Member of South Bedburn Parish Council but had taken no part in discussions when the Windy Bank Road application was being considered by the Parish Council.

Councillors Armstrong, Laing and Richardson declared an interest in Agenda Item 5 (b) as Members of the County Durham and Darlington Combined Fire Authority and withdrew from the meeting during determination of this item.

4 Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

5 Applications to be determined

a CMA/6/48 - Land to the north of the village of Woodland, south of Windy Bank Road

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the proposed erection of 4 wind turbines with maximum tip height of 125m, control building, substation, site compound and other ancillary buildings with

Page 1 site access from Windy Bank Road to the north of the site on land to north of the village of Woodland, south of Windy Bank Road (for copy see file of Minutes).

C Teasdale, Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site on 1 May and were familiar with the location and setting.

Stephen Lee, representing South Bedburn Parish Council, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The proposed wind turbine site would be sited within the Parish of South Bedburn. The Parish had no village as such but covered a relatively large area which encompassed Hamsterley Forest, which was the County’s largest outdoor leisure attraction.

In 2011 the Parish Council believed that it was pertinent to issue a copy of the initial Windy Bank proposal, together with a survey form, to every household within the Parish in order to gauge the opinion of as many registered electors as possible. Of the 96 forms returned, 83% were against the proposal and the Parish Council sent a letter recommending refusal to the Planning Authority. Residents were also asked to return comments on the application if they so wished. Some residents, who would be nearest to the proposed development, were concerned about the enormity of the structure, the possible noise and the disruption to their access lanes during construction. Others who lived further away were concerned about the destruction of the landscape the effect on the community and the effect on tourism. Some misgivings were also expressed about the developers financial motives.

Mr Lee provided the Committee with examples of quotes from two residents who had expressed concerns about the proposed development. One important issue which was raised often was the potential damage to livelihoods in the event of reduced tourism. Local farmers had diversified to gain additional sources of income by taking on caravan parks, camping grounds or holiday homes. There was a fear that tourists would not return to the area that was seen to be becoming somewhat industrialised.

In conclusion Mr Lee asked the Committee to understand that the residents of every household in South Bedburn Parish, where the development was proposed, had been presented with the chance to express their opinion on the application, and the vast majority were against the proposal.

Alan Rutter, a Member of Woodland Parish Council, address the Committee to present the Parish Council’s objection to the application. Mr Rutter informed the Committee that the Parish Council was not anti-windfarm, and had offered no objection to several smaller wind turbines within the Parish area. The Parish was, however, against large-scale industrial developments such as this application.

Woodland Village was the nearest settlement to the proposed development being less than 2km from the site. The Parish Council expressed grave reservations about the Scoping Report in June 2009 and submitted objections to the planning application in August 2011, July 2013 and again to the revised proposal in September 2014. The grounds for objection were as follows:

Page 2 • Public opinion – public opinion in the area was overwhelmingly against the application. A survey of Woodland Village carried out by the Parish Council in 2011 showed a vast majority of the public to be against the development. • Location, landscape and visual impact – the Windy Bank site was unsuitable for turbine development due to its proximity to the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The visual impact of the turbines on Woodland should be rated as severe and the building of the 125m high turbines would destroy the beautiful and peaceful landscape of the area. Turbines of this size were out of scale with the current landscape. • Proliferation – there was grave concern about the future development of other wind turbine sites within the area as had happened at other locations throughout the Country. Approval of this site would lead to their being a real danger of further wind turbines and wind farms being encouraged in the area. • Ecology – this was a sensitive ecological site and the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the installation would not have a long-term and irreversible impact on the bird and bat population. The applicant could not remove this threat and if there was to be destruction or dissipation of the important wildlife resource it was doubtful that this could ever be recovered. • Local economy and tourism – the proposed development would bring little or no economic benefit to the Woodland area either during construction or operation. Construction, maintenance and repair would be by specialised personnel from outside of the area. Teesdale had been promoted as by the County Council as a tourist area and was promoted as ‘England’s Last Wilderness’. The unspoilt and natural tranquillity of the area had been one opf the major selling points and attractions for visitors and there was a real possibility that local tourism would be harmed by the development. • Noise – Woodland was within 2km of the turbines, with some properties within 1km. Although figures showed that there should be no discernible noise, low levels of wind turbine noise might produce effects which were greater than expected. The wind farm, once constructed, could not have noise reduced at source or by barriers.

Rachel Mackay, Clerk to Lynesack and Softley Parish Council addressed the Committee to object to the application. The proposed development would be detrimental to tourism in the area and there were concerns among tourist businesses in the area about the impact it might have. The application site was in a tranquil, unspoilt area which would be spoiled by the development.

The proposal would be a risk to, or may even displace, wading birds within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). As well as destroying scenery within the area, views from the North Pennines AONB would also be destroyed. There were concerns about access to the site both during construction and operation, with surrounding roads being narrow country roads. The proposal would have a negative impact on wellbeing and quality of life in the area, with a loss of visual amenity, the effects of flicker and noise generated. The letters of support for the application were pro forma letters.

Jane Bee, Chairman of Hamsterley Parish Council, addressed the Committee to object to the application. Ms Bee informed the Committee that, while sympathising

Page 3 with the difficulties the Council faced balancing the world environment with local pressures, when surveyed all those who responded in Hamsterley were against the application. The Council was under pressure to make more housing available, but this proposal took three homes out of housing stock and prevented the development of two more which had been approved.

While acknowledging that most of the wind noise predictions for local homes were within ETSU guidelines, turbine noise in the area, which was noted for its tranquillity, was forecast to be between 15dB and 30dB higher than prevailing background noise, which would mean an increase of up to eight times in noise levels. This would have a negative impact on visitors who came to the area for its tranquillity. The Council’s consultant had expressed deep concern that residential amenity would be severely impacted because turbine noise would be the dominant noise in bedrooms.

The consultant also expressed concern about the likelihood of amplitude modulation (AM), which had been likened to the sound of a distant pile-driver. The AM effect could be so distressing and intrusive, and difficult to control, that this demonstrated the inappropriateness of the application.

Further problems on noise were the predictions on for four homes at The Grove. The applicant’s forecasts of noise for those were untruthful and the testing did not follow the Good Practice guidance claimed. It was therefore requested that, due to improper monitoring, The Grove was protected by a condition of 35dB of daytime noise, as required by ETSU.

Residents in the Hamsterley area were extremely concerned about the disruption during construction. Whilst this was not a planning issue, convenient alternative parking would be needed during the times of construction when parking on the street would be prevented. If the Committee was minded to approve the application it was hoped that the Highways Authority would make this a condition, in addition to the restrictions on hours permitting travel through Hamsterley Village.

Ms Bee informed the Committee that there was great concern about the potential degradation of the area. The village of Hamsterley had bed and breakfasts, holiday cottages and four caravan sites, with one in the process of increasing its capacity, and these businesses contributed to the local economy. Although visitors to the area may not stay in accommodation which was in sight of the turbines, they came to the area because of its tranquil nature and its wildlife. Thousands visited Hamsterley Forest, where the turbines would inflict an overhanging presence from whichever direction the Forest was approached.

The applicant had requested micrositing of 50m. Ms Bee asked the Committee to refuse this because the turbines were already planned to be so close to the road that, if moved in that direction, would result oversail of the road or footpaths. Moreover, if moved in other directions, this would cause a significant increase in the noise predictions at sensitive properties.

Ms Bee urged the Committee to refuse the application because its disadvantages outweighed its disadvantages.

Page 4

Caroline Peacock and Peter Shield of the Hamsterley and Upper Gaunless Action Group (HUGAG) addressed the Committee to object to the proposal. For six years the community had lived with the threat of industrial-scale wind turbines invading the rural landscape. Over this time the clear message from the overwhelming majority of local residents and visitors was that a development of this type, in this location, would be hugely damaging. The County Council’s Landscape officer, the Director of the North Pennines AONB, Natural England, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and HUGAG’s landscape expert all agreed with this and had set out multiple reasons why, on landscape policy grounds alone, this application should fail.

It was HUGAG’s view that County Durham owned a heritage asset of equal merit to Durham Cathedral, and this was the countryside of western Durham. Once this heritage asset was spoilt or degraded, the original quality of it could never be recovered. This heritage asset drew people from all parts of Britain and even abroad to Teesdale to experience the sort of living heritage landscape that was now so rare.

HUGAG, 27 Parish Councils and hundreds of members of the public all sought to protect this landscape and had made written representations to object to this proposal. Many of the letters of support for the application were pro forma letters which the applicant had hawked around local villages or were signed by their contacts who had never been to Teesdale.

HUGAG and all objectors the proposal hoped that future generations could count on the Committee to dismiss this proposal which would forever damage the unique heritage treasure of Teesdale and the west of County Durham.

While people engaged with and valued areas in different ways, it was beyond doubt that the construction of four immense wind turbines, each measuring 125m in height, and with a blade diameter of over 90m would have a devastating impact on the local landscape of the Linburn Valley and would forever degrade the quality and integrity, and thereby people’s enjoyment, of a significant proportion of the North Pennines AONB.

Hamsterley Forest provided a highly popular playground for walkers, riders and cyclists and a place for families to spend time together immersed in nature. The surrounding moorland was of immense beauty and scenic splendour. In contrast, small villages scattered among river valleys and rolling countryside provided a more intimate landscape and place for visitors to stay.

This mosaic of moorland, pasture, woodland and watercourses supported a wealth of wildlife. Its value, particularly to birds, was reflected in the designation of the nearby, internationally important North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area. The proposed development site itself supported an incredible abundance and diversity of bird life including many of the most vulnerable, cherished and recognisable species.

Page 5 The developers own consultant described the site as being of County value for breeding curlew, a species of conservation concern particularly vulnerable to the effect of wind turbines. Equally, the thousands of golden plover and lapwing that used the site each year as a staging area during the pre-breeding season would also be affected through the loss of a safe foraging habitat.

In contrast to almost every county in England, Durham had already made a major contribution towards the provision of alternative renewable energy sources, particularly through the development of commercial wind farms. Although everyone should make changes in their lifestyles to tackle the effects of climate change, moving towards a low carbon future should not be at the expense of the very things that made County Durham special and which were fundamental to the viability of the rural economy and communities.

The Council’s external and internal consultees had demonstrated that the proposed development contravened a raft of both Local and National Planning Policies and HUGAG had based its objection on the same planning reasons.

Regardless of the decision of the Committee, HUGAG and its supporters would continue to fight to protect the landscape, the views, the heritage and the wildlife of the Durham Dales from damaging, inappropriate and unsustainable development in whatever form it took. HUGAG asked that, in making its decision, the Committee supported it in this endeavour and refuse the application.

Mark Dowdell of the Banks Group addressed the Committee in support of the application. He informed the Committee that local residents and businesses were also in attendance at the Committee to show their support for the application.

The Windy Bank site had been identified by because it lay in an area remote from a large population, with the nearest settlements being Woodland at 2.2Km and Hamsterley at 4.3Km, and an area where cumulative effects from other wind farms was unlikely to occur.

The proposed development would result in an investment of over £16m in the Windy Bank project, and local firms would be given the opportunity to tender for a range of related contracts worth up to £3.5m for different aspects of the project, including construction, security, accommodation and catering. Leading business groups including NECC and the Federation of Small Businesses have expressed their support for the wind farm.

In addition to the jobs within the Banks Group and its supply chain which would be supported by this investment, around 30 jobs would be directly supported during the site preparation and construction of the proposed wind farm.

The proposed development would also bring benefits to local people. In addition to supporting local employment, the proposed wind farm would also support local communities through the associated community fund which would contribute £70,000 per annum, or over £1.25 million over the life of the project which would work in partnership with the County Durham Community Foundation to support

Page 6 local community groups, environmental projects and a local Learning, Working, Earning Fund to break down the financial barriers that local unemployed people without age restriction faced to getting access to workplace learning, training and employment.

Local residents from villages around the wind farm site, including Hamsterley, Woodland and Evenwood had submitted over 200 letters of support for the project, urging Members to approve the proposal whilst noting that their own views had not been taken into consideration by their respective parish councils.

Banks had worked closely with the Council, and its consultees on the Windy Bank proposal for over six years. In that time the project had been reduced in size from nine turbines to four to reduce its effects locally and in the event that planning permission was granted, Banks guaranteed not to extend the site from that now proposed.

Mr Dowdell referred to wildlife habitats and the visibility of the proposed turbines from within the AONB. In relation to habitats, the site was not designated for its ecological interest. The national designations nearby had been assessed by Natural England who have confirmed no objection subject to a 25 year habitat management plan being introduced, and there would be a legal agreement in place with local landowners to ensure this plan was delivered.

Mr Dowdell referred to the required assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directive. There was over four years of survey information available to enable the Council to take account of effects on birds and, as well as the data itself, the Council had been provided with reports by two independent ecological assessors, plus the habitat management proposals of another. The reports included detailed information on the usage of fields within and around the application site. It was clear that the level of usage by birds varied significantly across the survey area. This extensive survey information clearly demonstrated that, unlike the rougher fields to the south, the fields where the turbines and wind farm infrastructure would be located were not well used by birds. Although the County’s Ecology officers considered the Shadow Appropriate Assessment to be compromised as a result of inadequate survey work, Mr Dowdell informed the Committee that the Banks Group had sought legal and ecological advice on this and offered to provide this to the Committee. When considering whether the Shadow Appropriate Assessment was appropriate, the Council was the relevant authority and not officers.

Mr Dowdell informed the Committee that the substantial community and economic benefits of the development outweighed any negative impact which may arise.

Stephen Bromley of Hall Construction addressed the Committee in support of the application. He informed the Committee that Halls Construction had operated in the area for 35 years and employed some 200 staff. The construction of the wind turbines would support local businesses by employing local contractors.

A resident of Evenwood addressed the Committee in support of the application, He informed the Committee that over 50 members of the local cricket club supported the application, and while the local Parish Council had objected to he

Page 7 was confident that if the Parish Council had sought the views of local residents, they would have been supportive of it. The cricket club was facing financial difficulties and money which would come from this development would be of assistance to the club.

Mark Simpson, a local resident, addressed the Committee in support of the application. Mr Dowdell informed the Committee that he had farmed at Mayland Lea since 1978 and that over time it had become increasingly difficult to achieve good prices for grain, despite rising costs of production. This application allowed him to diversify on the farm, which he would continue to run to a high standard, produce quality stock and green electricity, which would produce power and heat for local people.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that this application required a very difficult balanced decision to be made, adding that financial issues were not a material planning consideration. L Renaudon, Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee that the proposed community fund was not proposed through a s106 agreement and there was no direct link to the proposed development. The proposed community fund was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that the application site was in an Area of High Landscape Value, the area was a heritage treasure, and the development would have a negative impact on tourism and the landscape. The need for the development had not been proven and County Durham already had a number of wind turbines. There was a need to take into account the views of professional officers of the Council and also a need for consistency, with a similar application for this area being rejected on grounds of landscape value. Councillor Dixon moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that while he had been consistently opposed to wind turbine developments, each application should be considered on its merits. The financial benefits which would arise from this development needed to be considered, including £6.7m in construction, £1.75m community fund and the creation of 30 jobs. No turbines would be less than 1km from the nearest property and on balance Councillor Boyes informed the Committee he was against the recommendation in the report and moved approval of the application.

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that 27 Parish Council’s, representing a large number of people in the area, had objected to the development. The size of the turbines would have a domineering impact in an Area of High Landscape Value which was only 1.2km from the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. While he acknowledged the financial contribution of £3,000 per Town or Parish Council per year, all Parish Councils were opposed to the development. The County had exceeded its 2020 target for this type of energy supply and the cumulative development in the east of the County should not be extended to this location. Councillor Shield seconded refusal of the application.

Councillor Marshall informed the Committee that the proposed development would contribute to low carbon energy. It carried a massive community benefit in the

Page 8 current times of austerity when money was not available for communities. He did not agree with the ecological and visual impact evidence produced. The development would benefit the supply chain and local communities and he seconded approval of the application.

T Coult, Principal Ecologist informed the Committee that the Shadow Appropriate Assessment was compromised as a result of inadequate survey work. It was considered that further survey work should be undertaken for two years in respect of golden plover. It was therefore not possible for an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out. The Committee was therefore unable to approve the application in the absence of such an assessment and could only refuse the application or be minded to approve the application subject to the undertaking of an appropriate assessment.

Councillor Armstrong reminded the Committee that the application would provide a £1.7m community fund, £2.7m in business rates and create 30 jobs. It would also help local apprentices and work placed training and should be approved.

Councillor Moir informed the Committee that the contentious issue of the application appeared to be around environmental issues, including ecology. The financial contributions which would arise from the application would not be removed if further work was undertaken around the Appropriate Assessment and he considered the application should be deferred pending the completion of this further work.

The Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee that because the development may affect a special protection area no planning permission could be granted until an appropriate assessment had been completed. Although the Committee could adopt the applicants shadow appropriate assessment, the Committee had not seen enough detail of this to make a determination. The Committee could defer the application to allow an appropriate assessment to be completed or could refuse the application but it was not in the Committee’s gift to grant planning permission without the appropriate assessment being carried out.

Councillor Allen informed the Committee that the Council were custodians of the County’s heritage and natural beauty and she did not consider that the financial benefits from this application outweighed the loss of visual amenity.

Councillor Nicholson informed the Committee that he agreed with Councillor Dixon that there was a need for a difficult balanced decision to be made on this application. He reminded the Committee that Cornwall and Devon, areas which relied on tourism, had approximately 330 wind farms and that this application was for a period of 25 years, following which the area would be returned to its natural beauty.

Councillor Boyes, having considered the legal advice given, moved that the Committee be minded to approve the application pending the satisfactory completion of an appropriate assessment.

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that while he was not the local Member for the area he did know the area well and also people who lived in the area. Although there were 80 letters of support for the application, Councillor

Page 9 Richardson queried how many of these were from local people and how many were from employees of the applicant. The ecological issues had not been fully addressed and the development would have a detrimental impact on the tourist industry in the area. The £1.75m community fund did not equate to very much for the Parish and Town Councils involved. Councillor Richardson expressed disappointment that those Members of the Committee who were supporting approval of the application had not attended the site visit to the area.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved: That, by the Chairman’s casting vote, the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.

b DM/15/00352/FPA and DM/15/00353/LB - Fire Station, Wilson Street, Barnard Castle

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of a fire station and associated buildings, making good a listed wall and erection of Quad Emergency Services Building with associated training yard, car parking and access at the Fire Station, Wilson Street, Barnard Castle (for copy see file of Minutes).

P Herbert, Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site on 1 May and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that since the publication of the report one further letter of objection had been received.

Councillor John Blissett of Barnard Castle Town Council addressed the Committee to object to the application. In 2015 the Town Council had resolved to object to the application on the grounds that it conflicted with following four policies in the Teesdale District Local Plan • GD1 – the development form, mass, scale and layout of the proposal was not in keeping with the area. The development would disturb and conflict with adjoining uses and would lead to an increase in traffic. A traffic survey which the Council had carried out had taken place midweek during the Easter holidays and this was not a true reflection of traffic conditions in the area. Vehicles would be leaving the site at speed 24/7 with the surrounding roads having on-street parking. • ENV4 – the design, scale and materials of the proposed development would be incompatible with the neighbouring Bowes Museum gardens • BENV3 - the proposed development would adversely affect the character of Bowes Museum • ECON4 – the development would be an expanded use of the existing fire station, which would be business use in a residential area. Too much credence was being given to the location of retained firefighters within the area of the proposed development, indeed during the construction period it

Page 10 was being proposed to locate the fire station to a site at Glaxo, which confirmed that any site would be in range for retained firefighters.

Dick Francis, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application. While agreeing that the idea of a Quad Emergency Services Building, this was the wrong location for the facility. The report stated at paragraphs 83 to 8 and 89 that very few staff would be located within the building at any one time and Mr Francis queried why the development would need 27 parking spaces.

Referring to the traffic survey carried out, Mr Francis informed the Committee that this was requested by Barnard castle Town Council on 2 March 2015 but was not carried out until 8 April 2015 which was during the Easter holiday period and was therefore flawed because it was not truly reflective of traffic flows and usage in the area.

Paragraph 91 of the report referred to the egress of vehicles from the proposed development northwards into Crook Lane and Mr Francis asked how vehicles would egress when attending an incident to the south.

Paragraph 102 referred to the storage of diesel fuel which by its very nature would necessitate fuel tankers gaining access to the site, which again was inappropriate given its location.

Details of other sites which had been considered for this development had been requested under an FOI request, and the local MP had been approached in an attempt to delay the spend by date for the funding for the development so alternatives could be considered. This was an industrial development in a residential area.

Sean Hedley of Hedley Planning Services addressed the Committee in support of the application. The applicant had worked closely with Council officers to address areas of concern prior to the application being made. Mr Hedley emphasised the following: • The highway at this location was already used by emergency service vehicles and had been so for the past 50 years. • Retained firefighters were not occupied for long periods of time and other services which would operate from the site tended to operate ‘in the field’ and therefore the development would generate low levels of traffic on site. The Highways Authority had concluded that the level of traffic generated was acceptable and less than severe. • There had been no recorded road traffic accidents in the area in the last 5 years. • The development had a proposed 27 parking spaces, 9 of which would be in a secured yard area. During quiet times, the other 18 spaces would be available for use by local residents. • Alternative sites had been considered and evaluated on their own merits. • The funding available was specific to support this project. • There had been no objections to the proposal from statutory consultees • The development would provide an improved emergency service facility in Barnard Castle.

Page 11

In conclusion, the benefits of the proposed development outweighed the harm which may be caused.

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that this was an exciting project, the first of this type in the country. The site had operated as a fire station for the last 50 years and there had been no recorded road traffic accidents in the vicinity in the last 5 years. Councillor Boyes moved approval of the application.

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that while he had been encouraged about the proposed development while on the site visit, he had concerns about the traffic survey being carried out during the Easter holiday period when traffic would be less than usual. David Stewart, Principal DM Engineer informed the Committee that the traffic survey had been carried out by the developers agent on a voluntary basis as there was no requirement for them to do so. The survey was carried out during the Easter holiday period and while it was accepted that this could be a less busy period it was still considered that the levels of traffic generated by the development would be low.

Councillor Shield seconded approval of the application and it was

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Page 12 Agenda Item 5a Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/15/00110/FPA

FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : Re-development of existing golf course to facilitate the staging of seasonal historical show, including associated car parking area, staging facilities, outdoor seating, management offices and associated infrastructure and landscaping NAME OF APPLICANT : Anne-Isabelle Daulon, Eleven Arches Trust.

ADDRESS : Flatts Farm, Toronto, Bishop Auckland, County Durham

Bishop Auckland Town ELECTORAL DIVISION :

Steven Pilkington, Senior Planning Officer, CASE OFFICER : 03000 263964, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

1. The application site is in an open area of land located approximately 0.5km to the north of the centre of Bishop Auckland. It covers 48.7 hectares and predominantly comprises a former golf course with ancillary buildings water bodies and circulation space and hard surfaced access,. The site is enclosed to the north, east and south by the River Wear and is bounded by a railway walkway and the Newton Cap Viaduct to the north west and south west. The Public Right of Way of the Weardale Way also runs along the western boundary of the site. The site is accessed from the A689 just to the north of the viaduct which is partially shared with a car park and picnic area in Council ownership serving the railway path and bridleway. The surrounding urban fringe area to the south and west of the site contains a mix of commercial and residential properties and the settlement of Toronto lies on higher ground to the west beyond the viaduct.

2. The site lies immediately to the north of the escarpment on which Auckland Castle (Grade 1 Listed) and Parkland (Grade II Listed), and Bishop Auckland Town Centre (Conservation Area) are located. It is situated within a designated Area of Landscape Value and within the floodplain of the River Wear. Binchester Roman Fort (A Scheduled Ancient Monument) is located approximately 140m to the north of the application site. The Newton Cap viaduct on the western boundary is Grade II Listed.

3. The proposed development involves the provision of infrastructure necessary to facilitate the implementation of an open air night entertainment show. This includes stage and backstage areas, stand seating, lakes, paths, car parking and vehicular access arrangements as well as ancillary buildings, structures and lighting towers.

Page 13 The existing buildings on site would also be largely incorporated within the development.

4. The night show is proposed to operate on 30 evenings of the year, most likely Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays over the period May to September. It would run for approximately 80 minutes from 9.30pm finishing by 11pm. The show would be a theatrical performance utilising light and music to tell the history of Britain through the eyes of the north east. In addition the performance would be intrinsically linked to the history and heritage of Auckland Castle which would be used as a back drop to the show. It is intended that the cast and crew involved in the performance and backstage running of the show would be made up of 600 volunteers drawn from the local community. This model is based on that operated by the internationally renowned Puy du Fou in Vendee, France which would provide overarching technically and operational support to the scheme. The first show would commence next year subject to necessary authorisations.

5. It is anticipated that the show would attract 180,000 visitors a year who would be accommodated in a tribune (open seating area) that can accommodate up to 8000 spectators. This grandstand would be situated at the south eastern end of the site and would measure approximately 115m in length, 40m in width with a maximum height of 17m. An access and circulation area with number of associated smaller buildings would be located behind it to provided amenities and snacks. The structure would be of modular construction built with cladding to the rear while the seats would have a pixelated appearance to help reduce its visual impact. Earth bunding is also proposed to the north that is intended to soften the appearance of the structure. The stage area would front the grandstand and would consist of pathways bunds and an oval shaped light railway track arranged around a central body of water. Telescopic stages extending to a maximum height of 8m would be housed below ground level which could be raised during performances.

6. Other small ancillary buildings in this area associated with the main set, scenery and technical delivery of the show are also proposed. These include single storey train sheds, and backstage areas positioned to the left and right of the stage. 4 demountable lighting towers ranging in height between 10m - 18m would be positioned around the stage area. These would remain in place over the performance period but would be removed at the end of each season.

7. The existing buildings located centrally on the site were used in connection with the previous golf course use but are now redundant with the exception of a residential dwelling used by a site warden. These would be converted into a merchandising store, offices and a restaurant/food outlet. Minor external alterations are proposed to these buildings to improve their condition and unify their appearance. A further 2 redundant buildings, a barn and a structure associated with the former use would be demolished.

8. A ménage building to provide horse training for the show is proposed at the eastern end of the car park on the south side of the site. This would measure 21m x 11m and would be 5m in height. It would be timber clad and agricultural in appearance. A number of smaller stables and storage structures would be centred around this building.

9. A re-aligned and widened access off the A689 to allow simultaneous entry and exit to the development site would be created and provision would be made for 1811 car parking spaces and 30 coach spaces. These would be arranged in 4 blocks on the western and southern side of the site. The parking areas would be constructed from Page 14 a permeable surface to facilitate natural drainage and allow a significant proportion of vegetation to grow through. An existing access to the site under the Newton Cap viaduct would be restricted for emergency vehicles only. The main vehicular and pedestrian route to the site would therefore be confined to the access off the A689. An existing Public Right of Way extends along the western boundary would be partially realigned in parts to take account of infrastructure such as an internal distribution road and round about.

10. A significant proportion of new structure planting is proposed to the north eastern and western portions of the site. This would be provided as ecological and landscape mitigation and consist of native woodland, scrub, wetland and grassland. Elements of brown field habitat would also be created adjacent to the access road.

11. The application was identified as being EIA development by the Secretary of State under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and an Environmental Statement has been submitted in support of the application. This application is being reported to Planning Committee as it falls within the definition of a major development.

PLANNING HISTORY

12. The site has planning history dating back to the late 1980’s when planning permission was granted for a new farm house and alterations to existing buildings to form holiday cottages. Subsequent approvals were granted in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007 for a golf complex that culminated in the provision of an 18 hole course, driving range, club house and facilities and 24 holiday homes. 13. The site was last used for a golf course and driving range, with fishing lakes However this failed as a going concern has now ceased and buildings are empty or underutilised although a warden still remains on the site. The overgrown mounding and landscaping associated with this former use also remain as a legacy to previous development.

14. The consent for the provision of the 24no. Holiday homes, on the site was renewed in 2011 but expired last year having not been implemented.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY 15. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. 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’.

16. 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. Page 15

17. 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.

18. 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 needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.

19. 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.

20. 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 and community facilities. An integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.

21. Part 10 – Climate Change . 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. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

22. 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, geological conservation interests and soils; recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; 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 and unstable land, where appropriate.

23. Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

NATIONAL PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE : 24. The recently introduced National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) supports the core government guidance set out in the NPPF and provides detailed advice Page 16 technical and procedural advice having material weight in its own right. It is set out in a number of topic headings and is subject to change to reflect the up to date position of Ministers and Government and is referenced where necessary within the report.

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

25. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policies 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, however, the following policies of the Wear Valley District Local Plan are considered relevant.

26. Policy GD1 - General Development Criteria - Identifies that all new development and redevelopment within the District should be designed and built to a high standard. and contribute to the character and appearance of the area. It states that permission will be granted provided it meets certain development criteria as appropriate. This includes having regard to the setting of landscape features, not have a detrimental impact on the landscape quality of the surrounding area, not disturb or conflict with adjoining uses, avoid damage to important wildlife habitats, not cause significant pollution to the environment in terms of noise, not be located on a identified floodplain or areas at risk of flooding, provide save access to the site and adequate parking facilities and not create unacceptable levels of traffic which exceed the capacity of the local road network.

27. Policy ENV1 - Protection of the Countryside - Set out that the Council will seek to protect and enhance the countryside of Wear Valley. Development will only be allowed for the purpose of agriculture, farm diversification, forestry or outdoor recreation.

28. Policy ENV3 - Areas of Landscape Value - Sets out that development will not be allowed which adversely affects the special landscape character conservation interests and appearance of the Area of Landscape Value.

29. Policy ENV4 – Historic Parkland Landscapes – Identifies that within the areas of landscape value the Council will protect and enhance the historic parkland landscapes at Auckland Castle Park. Development will not be allowed which will detract from the special historic character, landscape qualities and nature conservation interests of the park.

30. Policy BE1 - Protection of Historic Heritage - Seeks to conserve the historic heritage of the area by the maintenance, protection and enhancement of features and areas of particular historic, architectural or archaeological interest.

31. Policy BE4 - Setting of a Listed Building - Development which impacts upon the setting of a listed building and adversely affects its special architectural, historical or landscape character will not be allowed.

32. Policy BE5 – Conservation Areas – sets out that the character of Conservation Areas will be protected from inappropriate development.

33. Policy BE8 – Setting of a Conservation Area – Sets out that development which impact on the setting of a Conservation Area and which adversely affects townscape qualities, landscape or historical character will not be allowed.

Page 17 34. Policy BE15 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments – Sets out that planning permission will not be granted for development which would have an adverse effect on scheduled ancient monuments and their setting.

35. Policy BE17 - Areas of Archaeological Interest - Requires a pre-determination archaeological assessment where development affects areas of archaeological interest. Where possible the remains will be preserved in-situ.

36. Policy BE20 – Conversion of Buildings in the Countryside - Sets out that the conversion of buildings in the countryside for small scale employment uses, holiday accommodation, recreational uses and new rural enterprises will be permitted provided the building is capable of conversion without substantial alteration, would not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity for neighbouring land users and would preserved nature conservation interests.

37. Policy TM1 – Criteria for Tourist Proposals – States that the Council will encourage schemes which provide tourism facilities provided that are of a scale and intensity compatible with their surroundings, can be absorbed into the landscape, safeguard nature conservation interests, can be accessed safely, adequate parking facilities are provided and the scale of the development does not affect the amenities of local residents.

38. Policy T1 - General Policy, Highways - All developments which generate additional traffic will be required to fulfil Policy GD1 and : provide adequate access to the developments; not exceed the capacity of the local road network; and be capable of access by public transport networks.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:

39. In considering this proposal due regard should be had to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. In respect to this part of County Durham the statutory development plan currently comprises the ‘saved’ elements of the Wear Valley District Local Plan that are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Due regard should also be had to relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) as a material consideration. In conjunction with these material considerations regard should also continue to be had to the most up to date relevant evidence base.

40. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public in April 2014 and stage 1 of that Examination has been concluded. However, the Inspector’s Interim Report which followed, dated 18 February 2015, has raised issues in relation to the soundness of various elements of the plan. In the light of this, policies that may be relevant to an individual scheme and which are neither the subject of significant objection nor adverse comment in the Interim Report can carry limited weight. Those policies that have been subject to significant objection can carry only very limited weight. Equally, where policy has been amended, as set out in the Interim Report, this amended policy can carry only very limited weight. Those policies that have been the subject of adverse comment in the interim report can carry no weight in the development management process. Page 18

41. In light of the above it is considered appropriate to draw attention to the relevant components of the emerging Plan in this report to which a degree of weight can be attached. However, the weight that can be attributed to these emerging policies is of such a limited level that it should not be the overriding decisive factor in the decision making process.

42. Policy 1 – Sustainable Development , sets out a presumption in favour of such through 18 subsections including directing economic growth to existing centres, protecting agricultural land, promoting inclusive and healthy communities, achieving well designed accessible places, making the most effective use of land, and conserving the quality diversity and distinctiveness of the County including the conservation and enhancement of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

43. Policy 18 – Local Amenity states that permission will only be granted for proposals providing it can be shown that a significant adverse impact on amenity would not occur including, for example, loss of light and privacy, visual intrusion, overlooking, noise and odour. In addition to this, permission will not be granted for sensitive land uses where suitable mitigation measures cannot be put in place to rectify the adverse impact on amenity.

44. Policy 19 – Air Quality, Light and Noise Pollution – All developments will be expected to minimize light pollution and/or prevent unacceptable exposure to such through good design. Planning applications with the potential to result in significant light pollution should be accompanied by an assessment of the likely impact to show that the lighting scheme is the minimum necessary for functional or security purposes and it minimizes potential pollution from glare and spillage. Particular attention will be paid in or close to open countryside, within the setting of heritage assets, close to residential and/or other sensitive land uses, or to areas or features important for nature conservation. Proposals for new lighting on existing developments or to illuminate existing facilities will be subject to the same considerations. Where adverse effects are identified development will only be approved if suitable mitigation can be achieved. All development will be expected to prevent unacceptable levels of noise pollution. Development within areas sensitive to noise such as within the setting of a heritage asset or close to residential properties will be given particular attention.

45. Policy 27 – Visitor Attractions – The expansion of key attractions will be permitted providing that there are no significant adverse impacts and the overall benefits outweigh any social, economic and environmental effects, is appropriate to the site’s location in terms of scale, design, layout and materials, does not have a significant adverse impact on natural or heritage assets, helps support the future business viability of an existing attraction and enhances and complements visitor attractions and priorities in the County.

46. Policy 39 – Landscape Character prevents new development where it would cause significant harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape or important features or views unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh its harm.

47. Policy 41 – Biodiversity and Geo-diversity - New development will not be permitted if significant harm to bio-diversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or as a last resort, compensated for.

48. Policy 44 – Historic Environment requires development to conserve the fabric, character, setting and cultural significance of designated and non-designated Page 19 heritage assets, with an approach proportionate to the significance of non- designated assets.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3272/Wear-Valley-District-Local-Plan and http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

49. Environment Agency - Offers no objection provided the mitigation measures detailed in the submitted flood risk assessment are implemented by condition. These include the protection of existing flood defences, identification of safe routes into and out of the site, the provision of a 10m buffer zone from the river embankment and maintenance of flood storage volumes.

50. Historic England – Identify that the proposal lies just below the escarpment on which Auckland Castle and Park and Bishop Auckland are situated and where the settlement historically and presently gives way to the broad rural landscape of the Wear Valley. This enduring relationship helps to define and appreciate the significance of the castle as a grade I listed building, the park as a grade II* registered park and garden and the northern edge of the town as part of the Bishop Auckland Conservation Area. The proposal would weaken this relationship by partially urbanising this prominent piece of land and in doing so the significance of these heritage assets is harmed. Whilst recognising the ambition and exciting vision of the proposal, the harm to the significance of heritage assets needs to be acknowledged and considered in the planning process. In line with section 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework the harm caused to the significance of heritage assets needs to be weighed against the potential public benefits of the proposal. This is the balanced judgement that will need to be made in determining the application and it is recommend that the economic and social promise of the proposal is adequately scrutinised in order to test the level of benefit.

51. Highways Agency – In order to minimise disruption on the A1(M) Motorway it is recommended that conditions should be attached to any planning permission to control the opening times of car parks on site and the limiting of the capacity of the venue to 8000 visitors.

52. Highway Authority – Advise that the timing of the proposed event is such that it does not coincide with the existing highway network peak hours of operation and in principle the use of the access subject is considered acceptable subject to junction modifications. Whilst there is some concern about the scale of the car park no highway objection is raised overall subject to conditions in respect to traffic management controls on entry and exit to the site, the implementation of a parking management scheme, provision of offsite car parking, the implementation of a signing strategy for a temporary speed reduction on the A689, limits on the capacity of the grandstand and number of events to 30 per year. It is also stated that vehicle and pedestrian access except in an emergency would need to be solely taken from the principal access on the A689.

53. Natural England – Based upon the information provided advise that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. The consultation documents indicate that the development includes areas of priority habitat, as listed

Page 20 in Section 41 of the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. The National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for the loss then planning permission should be refused.’ No advice is offered in respect to protected species.

54. Northumbria Gardens Trust – Raise concerns about the proposal, including the scale of the tribune, design of other buildings and the extent of development which will cause serious damage to the views of the park and its wider borrowed landscape from along the northern edge of the castle. It is acknowledged that assessing the potential benefits of the development is a complicated judgement and outside of the remit of the Northumbria Gardens Trust.

55. Coal Authority – Advise that the conclusions of the Mining Risk Assessment are sound and that coal mining legacy issues poses a risk to development. Intrusive site investigations should therefore be carried out on site as a pre-commencement planning condition and appropriate mitigation secured.

56. Weardale Ramblers Association – Offer no objections to the scheme but concerns are raised regarding securing the diversion of the Public Right of Way and improved connectivity into the wider right of way network.

57. Bishop Auckland Town Council – expresses support for the Trust’s plans for the Eleven Arches Project which will create a major visitor destination of regional, national and international significance. The Council is not only excited about the project itself, but also for the considerable economic, cultural and social benefits it will bring to the town and surrounding area.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

58. Environmental Health (pollution control) - Advise that following consideration of the submitted noise assessments the development will significantly impact on the nearest noise sensitive dwellings amounting to a statutory noise nuisance. Objections are therefore raised for the following reasons:-

- The event is proposed to run at a time that has maximum impact on residents (outside of the 11pm-7am period), namely when the majority of households want to relax or young children have been put to bed. - The event is proposed to run during the summer months when residents are more likely to use outside areas and/or have their windows open - The event although 80 minutes long is very regular in frequency being 30 nights, condensed within the summer season. - The potential noise level is above the guidance stipulated and will be clearly audible at a significant number of properties. As the same show is run on 30 occasions (every year) the repetitive nature of this is likely to increase the impact of the development. - The site is generally very quiet in nature and therefore the noise will be far more noticeable. - The noise is made up of considerable fluctuations in volume and the variations in the tone/type of noise including pyrotechnics are also punctuated by lights. This is likely to draw attention to the noise and increase the impact on residents.

Page 21 - The event is planned to run on consecutive nights possibly 3-4 on a bank holidays, therefore increasing the impact.

It is therefore advised that without significant changes to the proposed development it is not considered appropriate for the site due to its proximity to residential properties and the nature/topography of the land.

In relation to light pollution it is advised that the although the lighting is intended to illuminate the staging area using a number of localised and tower lights it is inevitable due to its proximity to housing and the very dark nature of the site that there will be light spill which will change the nature of the area and directly affect receptors. The impact is likely to be increased by the changing light and become more intrusive and noticeable. The development is proposed in a very dark location and the lighting will also be visible at considerable distances for the period of the show. Nevertheless based on the information available it is not considered that the development likely to lead to a statutory nuisance, as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However it is likely that some loss of amenity would arise.

59. Ecology Section – Advise that the development would result in the loss of a significant area of foraging habitat for badgers along with the possible loss of a sett, disturbance to other setts and the displacement of badgers from the site onto the nearby road. It is advised that this is contrary to guidance and planning policy which suggests that there should be no loss of foraging habitat and no increase in the risk of road kill.

The site is also used by a diverse assemblage of local bats, with 8 out of the 10 bats species recorded in the County being found on site. The bat surveys show that an important foraging area will be lost to the development and although mitigation is proposed through habitat creation it would not be effective for a decade or so. The applicants ecologist has attempted to quantify the disturbance effects of the light and sound show but the results still indicate a significant displacement effect. Although this is limited to 30 nights per annum it cannot be easily dismissed as the nights are bunched into the summer feeding and breeding season. On nights when the light show takes place there will be a delay in the emergence time of bats from roosts on and near the site. As yet there insufficient data to say what that impact might be on the suspected Daubenton’s bat roost in the un-surveyed buildings on site. Although these are excluded from development in the current planning application it is clear from the applicants ecologist’s report that bats utilise those buildings. It is therefore not possible to make an informed decision on what impacts the development might have at this stage.

Other issues such as dingy skipper butterfly and habitat loss/creation have been adequately assessed and mitigated and require no further work and no concerns are raised over disturbance to otters or the river habitat in general.

60. Design and Historic Environment Section – Advise that the scheme offers much in terms of opportunities for Bishop Auckland, its local population and the wider population of the County and region. It presents a rare opportunity to secure a visitor attraction without comparison in this County. However, these positive messages must be balanced against the sensitive location of the proposal and the impact the development will have on the setting of the adjacent heritage assets and their significance. Based on the form, scale and impact of the development it is considered that the setting of various assets will be harmed, namely the grade I listed Auckland Castle, the grade II* listed park and garden surrounding it and the Bishop Auckland Conservation Area. Only if the local planning authority is satisfied that having given considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of Page 22 these assets and the public benefits outweigh the identified harm should this application be approved.

61. Landscape Section – Advise that there would be some locally significant adverse effects on the special landscape character and appearance of Area of Landscape Value in the area between Bishop Auckland and Binchester. This would be localised within around 250m of the site but would affect an area of particular value in respect of the setting of the town and Auckland Castle Park. The potential adverse effects have been addressed as far as possible both though detailed design and though mitigation proposals contained in the Landscape Strategy. A detailed landscape scheme would need to be agreed for the ongoing management of landscape and screening elements which form part of the mitigation strategy to ensure that design objectives are delivered over time. This should be secured by condition. The colour of certain elements such as tribune seating will also need to be agreed and should be secured by condition.

62. Spatial Policy – offer there no in principle policy objections to the location of this proposal beyond the built up framework of Bishop Auckland subject to landscape comments being favourable. The socio economic benefits of the scheme are apparent. However, the acceptability of the overall scheme is certainly dependent on the finer detail according with the provisions of the policies detailed from an environmental perspective in terms of ecology, residential amenity and heritage assets.

63. Air Quality Officer – Advises that the site is not within or in close proximity to a declared Air Quality Management Area. In analysing the submitted Transport Assessment and based on the number and timing of shows a year the proposal is not considered to have a significant impact on local air quality.

64. Contaminated Land Section – Advise that following review of historical uses of the site no further work is required to be carried out in relation to potential contaminated land.

65. Archaeology Section - Advise that the development will have a limited impact on archaeological assets. Previous evaluation prior to the development of the site as a golf course found no archaeological features or deposits. The previous redevelopment as a golf course involved considerable landscaping which will have sterilised the site further from an archaeological perspective. Some low level photographic recording of the extant farm buildings, particularly the U-shaped farm buildings, would be the only work to be considered and controlled by condition should planning permission be granted.

66. Drainage and Coastal Protection Team - Advise that a surface water drainage scheme should be developed prior to the commencement of development that utilises soakaways where appropriate, limits discharge from the development to greenfield run off rate and incorporates design features within buildings to mitigate flood damage.

67. Regeneration and Economic Development – Offer support for the application, highlighting the likely economic and regeneration benefits to Bishop Auckland through increase visitor numbers which has the opportunity to support local businesses. The developer is encouraged to enter into a targeted recruitment and training programme to secure local employment opportunities

Page 23 68. Rights of Way Section – Offer no objections to the proposed diversion of the Public Rights of Way but highlight that surface improvements would be expected.

EXTERNAL NON STATUTORY CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

69. Bishop Auckland Civic Society –Support the application and consider that the proposal to be an inspired scheme that represents a unique opportunity for Bishop Auckland. The potential for regenerating the local and regional economy is something that must be embraced and supported and the proposal represents a one in a lifetime opportunity for the town and surrounding region.

70. Durham Badger Group – Identify that the site is of high importance to badgers. Based on the submitted surveys the badgers main foraging ground would be lost due to construction work, increased human pressure and eventually the operation of the site. It is suggested that there would not be any mitigation that could be proposed that retain the badgers on the site. The proposal is not considered to accord with paragraph p.118 of the NPPF.

71. Northumbrian Water Limited – Offer no objections provided that the development is carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment.

72. Visit County Durham - Offer support in principle for the proposal, advising that investment of this scale to the visitor economy is at a premium. The proposal has the potential to be an economic benefit for Bishop Auckland and the surrounding hinterland increasing the visitor economy and will likely result in increased overnight stays increasing tourism revenue across the county.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

73. The application has been publicised by way of press and site notices, and individual notification letters to neighbouring residents. 27 letters of objection and 75 letters of support have been received in relation to the issues summarised below. An additional 2 letters or representation offering comment on the application have also been received.

74. Objections:-

Traffic/Highway Safety • The existing access is considered inadequate to serve the development, due to limited sight lines and width and the speed at which vehicles travel on the A689. • The submitted transport assessment supporting the application is not robust and makes flawed assumptions. It takes no account of footfall onto the surrounding road network from the viaduct • A significant amount of traffic will be generated at peak times. This has not been modelled and will create congestion for all roads. • Traffic entering and exiting the site will back up on the roundabout and cause significant delays within the area. This will impact on highway safety while generating noise and additional air pollution. • The proposed secondary access is inadequate to accommodate additional traffic or pedestrians. • The intended mitigation measures are considered inadequate, volunteers do not have training and are unable to enforce on the highway. Proper traffic management will need to be brought in to manage the event. • The site is not considered sustainable given the distance to walk from the town centre, location of bus stops and train stations. Public transport does not run

Page 24 effectively around start and finish times. The development would significantly increase car journeys. • The length of time it would take visitors to exist the site is unacceptable and this would put pressures upon residential areas which would serve as overflow parking as people would be likely to park in residential areas.

Noise Impact • The submitted noise assessment is considered flawed, due to the limited background readings taken and assumptions made on how sound will travel. It does however highlight there will be an impact on surrounding residents due to the noise, frequency, timings and nature of the show. • The show will likely breach acceptable noise limits set out by the World Heath Organisation which raises the possibility of a significant effect on human health. • The noise impact will extend to Toronto and the Market Place and further afield and will also affect other leisure businesses such as cafes and pubs. • No assessment of road traffic noise has been undertaken. • Other outdoor events have restrictions to limit noise levels to 5db above background. The proposal will significantly exceed this and noise will also likely exceed statutory nuisance levels • Rehearsals and use of PA equipment should be limited to certain times • Concerns are raised regarding potential vibration impact caused by the development.

Ecology • The conclusions made in the submitted ecology report are based on insufficient evidence, and are questioned particularly in relation to the amount of Otters, Butterflies and the failure to identify the site as a Durham Biodiversity Action Plan habitat. • 8 species of bat have been recorded which are a European protected species. Although mitigation is proposed there will be an impact on the species, particularly on foraging areas and disturbance by human activities. • The development of this site will fragment interconnecting areas of habitat while noise and lighting has the potential to adversely effect species • The legal framework around protected species is highlighted and concerns are raised that the development would contravene this. • The lighting levels particularly on the car park will also impact on bats including insects such as moths. • The lighting assessment has ignored the impact on birds and there are general concerns about impacts on ground nesting birds

Landscape and visual amenity • The development is not in keeping with the Wear Valley Area of Landscape Conservation or the Durham Coalfield Pennine fringe Landscape Character area as designated by Natural England • The development, particular the car park and grandstand will have a significant and inappropriate impact on this undeveloped site. • Views will be significant from a range of heritage assets including Auckland Castle and Binchester Fort will be impacted upon. The development will detract from views of these and the viaduct in the landscape. This will reduce the enjoyment of the countryside and remove the sense of openness urbanising the countryside • The development will conflict with policies of the local and emerging plan in this respect by detracting from the significance of heritage assets

Page 25 Flooding and drainage and land stability • The development is located within flood zone 3 where the NPPF seeks to limit development • The Flood Risk Assessment which has been submitted is inadequate to support the conclusions which have been made. • This assumes that there is no impact from the car park while flood volume of the area will be reduced. • The soil composition does not allow infiltration and storm water will reach the river quickly and cause downstream and localised flooding particularly if connected to the sewer system where there are capacity issues. This will also change peak river flows. • The river meanders and will change its course impacting on the development • The additional weight of parked cars and the built development will cause land stability issues particularly in proximity to coal seams.

Economic and social impact • Limited job opportunities are actually provided and these are likely to go to specialists from outside of the area. Job conversion from volunteering to permanent employment is unlikely. • Wider social and community cohesion is not considered a material planning consideration. • The mass movement of people in and out of the area will not support Bishop Auckland. The emphasis on arrival by car means that Bishop Auckland may be bypassed by the majority of visitors. An example of this is the Locomotion in Shildon • The development does not integrate with the retail offer of Bishop Auckland and competition would be provided to existing businesses by the facilities on site. • This development conflicts with nature conservation, heritage and other kinds of visitor experience. • The French example is provided in an entirely different context, more connected to the rest of Europe, it operates within wider open space and is not imposing on local business or the local community. • The negative issues associated with the development may detract from the offer.

Other Issues • Even with the proposed mitigation measures the proposal will impact on local residents due to the lighting levels. These will exceed statutory nuisance levels. Concerns are also raised regarding light spillage into the night sky. • The development is likely to exacerbate anti social behaviour which exists under the old bridge and along the river bank and will act as a focal point for disturbance, • Part of the site is in council ownership and therefore there is a conflict of interest in determining this application • Concerns are raised regarding the availability of information on the Council’s website and the level of consultation undertaken is inadequate • It is unclear whether the public right of way is being diverted or not • Concerns are raised regarding the lack of renewable energy integration and the lack of a waste management plan • The loss of eight houses could be viewed as insignificant but it is still a loss • Although key sectors of the community have been engaged with the proposal, he developer has not engaged with residents who will be severely impacted on by the proposal • Concerns are raised regarding the requirement for the Council to contribute to improving transport infrastructure for the event • Impact on value on homes Page 26 • The scheme is EIA development and an Environmental Statement should have been submitted alongside the planning application.

75. Support:-

• The regeneration benefits of the proposal are highlighted while attention is drawn to the lack of investment into the town and its recent decline. The proposal would bring much needed support to the future of the town, bringing jobs and visitors. • The proposal alongside others from Auckland Castle would provide a landmark visitor attraction putting the town on the map and complementing other regional attractions such as Beamish. • The involvement and commitment to the community would give valuable support to the future of the. Future generations would benefit from improved social cohesion and the revenues generated. • The proposal provides an opportunity to bring people together with a shared aim and to re-ignite pride in and enthusiasm for the town and surrounding area. It is a brave and challenging step which deserves support. • There would be a reduction in anti-social behaviour when people engage with the project • The town has demonstrated it can stage big events such as the food festival. • The benefits that the development would bring outweigh any harm although this has to be careful considered • The proposal would improve the appearance of this derelict site

76. In addition to statutory planning publicity the applicant carried out a community engagement programme prior to submission of the planning application. This is documented in a statement and involved consultation events and workshops with local residents, business and other interested bodies. It also included the distribution of a Questions and Answer fact sheet distributed to local residents and the construction of a dedicated website. In response to this publicity a total 1309 replies offering support for the development were received and 6 objections and 2 no comments received. The statement of community involvement also highlights support from local schools, businesses and organisations.

77. Local Councillor Joy Allen offers support for the application highlighting that it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Bishop Auckland, County Durham and its surrounding villages. It is considered that the development will significantly boost tourism and has the potential to become one of the must see visitor attractions in the UK. The proposal would provide a family focussed quality attraction, creating over 200 jobs. It would also encourage visitor and tourists to stay longer and spend more in the local economy giving a much needed boost to the retail/commercial sector. The majority of residents are very supportive of the scheme and recognise the efforts the Trust has made to engage with local individuals, groups and welcome their intentions to train and develop 600 local volunteers in a range of specialisms.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT

78. Eleven Arches is a £24m charitable scheme - fully funded privately and part of a £90 million charitable enterprise based around Auckland Castle, bringing economic prosperity and job creation to County Durham, lifting Bishop Auckland and the region generally.

79. Eleven Arches is set up to produce an open air night spectacle featuring 2,000 years of British history through the eyes of the North East; it has partnered with Puy du Fou, the Oscar-winning entertainment company (Applause Award Nov ’14): its Page 27 French-equivalent offering in France has completely transformed the Vendee region by harnessing 3,400 volunteers from the local community in its night show, a show seen by more than 10 million people over the last 37 years. Today, Puy du Fou welcomes 1.9mln visitors a year, employs 150 permanent and 1,500 seasonal staff, and generates €74mln revenues and 3,500 jobs in the area. Its creative team has worked with Eleven Arches over the last 24 months; Puy du Fou’s entire resources and intellectual property stand ready to help us deliver in June 2016 the show we have written together. Due to Puy du Fou’s international commitments (Russia in 2017 and China in 2018), there is a unique window of opportunity to bring a world class show to County Durham in 2016.

80. Eleven Arches is only its second iteration –bringing, quite literally, the ‘best show in the world’ to the North East. A unique family attraction in the country, the show will draw visitors from the all over the country and beyond, attracting new audiences and overnight visitors to County Durham: as overnight visitors spend £157/day vs £19/day for day trippers in County Durham, this translates into more than 200 jobs created from visitor expenditures alone. Other attractions in the county will be beneficiaries as well of those enjoying a short-stay circuit, snowballing the economic impact for each extra day and night spent in the region. Overall, Eleven Arches development and operations are expected to have a total net impact of 390 FTE jobs at local and 492 at regional level.

81. Building on the success of London 2012 and the 2014 Glasgow CW Games, County Durham will welcome the next chapter of volunteer-led power entertainment, generating incredible pride among participants and a sense of belonging and achievement for the people of the North East –not just for a one-off, but for a season of up to 30 shows every Summer. There is an overwhelming desire from members of the community “to be part of it”, so a target of 1,000 volunteers is achievable. Some of our volunteers will be involved outside the show area (ushering, parking attendants, first aid, security, visitor services) or outside of show time (landscaping, animal care, promotion and ticket bookings, costume, set & prop making), others on stage as cast (general cast, riders or stunt cast) or off stage as technical crew, but all on their leisure time.

82. Eleven Arches Creative Director and Mass Cast Coordinator is Steve Boyd, who has masterminded inter alia the public involvement of every Olympic since 1992. In May 2015, Steve has already organized masterclasses in Bishop Auckland in several key disciplines that will be needed for the production, leveraging local and regional training facilities and organizations (Pyrotechnics, Stage Combat, Horse riding and Mass Choreography). 350 people are included into this initial effort -each nightshow next Summer will require the participation of the same number of performers. The Mass Choreography itself is a historic coming together of 320 kids from the 3 Bishop Auckland secondary schools and the college to perform a human animation under Steve Boyd’s direction. All masterclasses were designed to illustrate how the volunteer experience will be fun, challenging, socially meaningful, and how personal transformation can occur in a very short time. Over 400 people are already registered to volunteer with Eleven Arches, and yet it was important to show the volunteer’s arc of achievement in terms that other can see themselves doing as well or better, and to show that everyone in the community has a place in this production no matter their current abilities. Engagement, recruitment, training and retention of ALL our volunteers are the cornerstones of the quality of our performances (a must- see show) and their longevity (a success year after year). Subject to planning, an open day on 6 th June 2015 will kick off the One Year to Go countdown and start this process formally. Last is the establishment of the Eleven Arches Academy- as our ongoing commitment to education and training. Our legacy education programme will Page 28 draw on the founding blocks of the first season training modules with our partners to ensure a successful 2 nd season and beyond. Eleven Arches will also look into the education opportunities and outcomes, for volunteers and visitors, in relation to the content of the show (show programme, Key Stage talks, etc). From Roman conquest to Viking invasions, from the early Christianization of Britain to Norman era to the battle of Neville’s Cross, with Henry VIII, Elizabeth I King Charles and Queen Victoria, from Civil War to Industrial Revolution to 2 world wars, with 4 Bishops and Auckland Castle as a backdrop through centuries, from the mining legacy to brass band traditions, the show will remind us all –in the region and all over the country- of our roots; this exciting family entertainment will engage all generations to understand what has shaped them over the last 2,000 years.

83. Eleven Arches has already committed £3 million ahead of planning, and subject to consent and licensing, will spend the next £24 million within 12 months: workshops will be set up locally to create sets, props and 1,843 costumes. Leveraging as much as possible the existing facilities and training resources in the area, Eleven Arches will unlock local talent and train 1,000 volunteers and 56 horses to orchestrate a show on par with the Opening Ceremony of London 2012. 114,000 hours of volunteering and intergenerational activities will foster social cohesion; at the individual level, involvement in the show or enrolment in the academy for the younger volunteers will enhance life skills and provide upskilling, leading to improved pathways to employment.

84. The visual connection to Auckland Castle is inherent to the scheme and the very foundation of its historic storytelling. The site is not without challenges, and Eleven Arches worked hard at minimizing the impact on the environment, as evidenced by the support (or lack of objection) from statutory consultees. Eleven Arches acknowledges however the residual impact on ecology and on noise on a minimal number of neighbouring properties. Eleven Arches remains committed to reduce noise to acceptable levels throughout the process of creating its soundtrack, setting up, testing and fine tuning its sound system, as well as through exemplary event management procedures.

85. Today, Eleven Arches stands ready for a June 2016 delivery, with the overwhelming support of thousands of local people throwing their weight behind a scheme that will radically change the fortunes of the area: the profits of the show will be used to reinvest in the show and keep it at its best, year after year. They will also fund the charity’s education and community development objectives, with a long-lasting social and economic regeneration loop from inception. The unique volunteer-led enterprise is a key tool to radically transform the community Eleven Arches serves: it empowers people to create a sustainable and cohesive joint pursuit with tangible benefits at regional, community and individual level, for generations to come.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N9SHZ7GDHLV00

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

86. 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 planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the principal planning issues raised relate to the principle of development, economic and social considerations, impact on heritage assets, visual

Page 29 amenity, highway safety, amenity of adjacent land uses, ecological interests and flooding and drainage issues.

The Principle of Development

87. The application site is located in the open countryside, outside of the defined development limits of Bishop Auckland. Saved policy TM1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan (criteria for tourist proposals) states that schemes which provide tourism facilities, including those outside of defined settlement limits, will be supported in principle. This is provided the development is compatible with its surroundings in terms of its scale and intensity, can be absorbed into the landscape, adequately accessed with an appropriate level of car parking and protects the amenities of local residents.

88. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policies will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. In this respect it is considered that the general approach of policy TM1 in setting a framework to assess tourism proposals is consistent with the NPPF and the promotion of sustainable development and therefore significant weight can be afforded to this policy. It is therefore considered that there is support in principle to the creation of a significant tourist facility in this location under saved policy TM1of the Local Plan provided the detailed impacts of the scheme can be acceptably accommodated. The approach to tourism related proposals adopted under policy TM1 is also reflected in policy 27 of the County Durham Plan which sets out a framework for the assessment of new visitor attractions that are located in sustainable and accessible location (where practical). However limited weight can be afforded to this policy at this time.

Economic and Social Considerations

89. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, Paragraph 7 sets out the 3 dimensions of sustainable development defining these in terms of its economic, social and environmental roles. In assessing the development in this context, it is recognised that the proposal has the opportunity to significantly contribute to the economic and social roles of sustainable development.

90. The proposal is one of a number of significant schemes being developed by the Auckland Castle Trust at the present time in and around Bishop Auckland that are intended to increase the visitor attraction offer in the town. Some of these including proposed developments at the Castle are at an advanced stage having received planning permission and serve to demonstrate a commitment to invest in the future of the town. The present scheme would reference the history and heritage of the area in a different and theatrical way but would be very much part of the package of developing visitor experiences that are emerging from the Trust and integral to the vision to make Bishop Auckland a key visitor destination. As a key component of the Auckland Castle project the proposed development is intended to contribute to the overall financial viability of the Trust’s attractions going forward. Monies from the show would also be reinvested in an ongoing programme to maintain and enhance the quality of the 11 Arches production and visitor experience.

91. The proposed development would take place in the foreground of the Castle and its grounds and would utilise these and the Chapel in particular to provide an atmospheric visual backdrop to the night show. The technical delivery of the show and provision of associated infrastructure would involve significant financial cost and investment and a socio- economic report has been submitted in support of the planning application which highlights these considerations. This indicates that the Page 30 physical works associated with construction and set up would cost an estimated £19.4millon and generate an estimated 44 full time equivalent jobs (FTE) over this period. Thereafter in terms of visitor numbers and based on a 70% capacity 168,000 visitors are expected a year that would generate an estimated off site annual spend of £9.5million. Through direct employment on site, supplier linkages and off site visitor expenditure it is further estimated that around 250 FTE jobs would be created at a regional level. The report goes on to point out that the current night time tourism offer in the area is minimal and as a result this imposes limits on visitor stay extensions into the evening or overnight and on the evening economy potential. It is considered that the lead in period to the night show proposal and its late finish offers the potential to extend visitors stay around the area thereby generating additional revenue for the local economy.

92. The Eleven Arches night show is based on a successful similar model (Puy du Fou) in France that also utilises a significant number of volunteers from the community to deliver the show. The project is expected to offer over 600 positions and 114,000 hours of volunteering to people without pre-existing artistic or technical skills. Volunteers would be welcomed from across the age range and training would be made available for 300 people each year as part of the project in the associated off site Eleven Arches Academy in order to develop the necessary skills base. This would be geared towards young people who it is anticipated would make up at least half of the volunteers. The academy would provide the opportunity for training across a wide curriculum in after school and evening classes and in partnership with education bodies and would cover such areas as costume making, set design and stunts, artistic direction, landscaping, horsemanship and animal care.

93. Whilst direct employment opportunities arising from the seasonal show would be limited the socio-economic report highlights that the Puy du Fou model has been successful in building performing arts, crafts and related skills within the local community. This has also helped to generate an increased sense of aspiration and empowerment, social pride and cohesion as the local community comes together to make the event happen and as they are given the tools to do so. An additional benefit from training and skills development of this nature is highlighted in relation to support to the local economic base and local services. This assumes added importance in an area that is characterised by low level of employment and weak economic performance relative to the national average.

94. The methods used in compiling the socio-economic report have been assessed by the Council’s Spatial Planning Policy Team and Economic Development Regeneration Team and the suggested revenue streams and level of job creation are considered realistic. Visit County Durham has also offered support for the scheme advising that investment in the visitor economy on this scale is at a premium and the proposal has the potential to be an economic benefit for Bishop Auckland and the surrounding hinterland. It is also suggested that the proposal is likely to result in increased overnight stays enhancing tourism based revenue across the county.

95. On the basis of the above it is considered that the scheme would perform particularly well when assessed against the economic and social elements of sustainable development, representing a rare opportunity to secure a major privately funded visitor attraction without comparison in the region. Bishop Auckland is a major County town possessing a range of services and facilities and the attraction of significant numbers of visitors would provide an opportunity to help invigorate the town which has suffered a decline in its vitality over the recent years. Although there would be retail and food offerings on site that would be in competition to an extent with local traders, these would be limited and local shops and businesses would still have the potential to capitalise from increased spending in the local economy. Whilst Page 31 full time seasonal work would be limited a range of other jobs would be created and from a social perspective the focus on volunteers and partnership with local institutions also has the potential to increase social inclusion and community empowerment. The proposal has strong linkages to other development proposals associated with Auckland Castle that are being brought forward and would contribute to these as a related attraction and financially as part of the creation attraction to the provision of a sustainable visitor programme for Bishop Auckland.

96. Notwithstanding the above the NPPF sets out that the three roles of sustainable development should not be viewed in isolation and are mutually dependent. Full consideration therefore needs to be given to the potential environmental effects of the development and these are assessed below.

Landscape and visual impact

97. Part 11 of the NPPF aims to protect and enhance valued landscapes. The application site lies within an Area of Landscape Value as designated by saved policy ENV3 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan. This states that development will not be allowed which adversely affects the special landscape character nature conservation interests and appearance of areas of landscape value. Saved policy GD1 of the local plan also seeks to avoid a detrimental impact on areas of landscape quality. The site also lies adjacent to Auckland Park which is identified on English Heritage’s Register of Parks and Gardens of National Interest (grade II*) and saved policy EV4 seeks to protect and enhance the historic parkland of Auckland Castle Park.

98. The site is a relatively flat area of land within the floodplain of the River Wear immediately below the escarpment on which Auckland Castle and Bishop Auckland town centre are located. It is located within the Wear Floodplain Broad Character Area for landscape classification purposes which is of relatively high scenic quality and reflective in its designation as Area of Landscape Value. This area is predominantly rural in character with built development and infrastructure is largely absent. However the scenic quality of the site itself is lower, with existing man made features such as earth mounding that are out of keeping with the character of the floodplain, but forming part of wider views of higher quality.

99. In the local context the site is visible in shallow views from the valley floor across the River Wear from The Batts, Binchester Road, and the Weardale Way to the west. It is also overlooked from higher ground and visible in deeper views from vantage points on the northern edge of Bishop Auckland (North Bondgate), from parts of Auckland Castle and from points within the Park, and footpaths on higher ground to the east. Encircling ridges of higher ground provide a fairly strong degree of visual containment to the north, south and west. More distant views from higher ground to the east, south-west and north-west are achievable.

100. The scheme proposes some remodelling of the existing terrain to accommodate the development including the incorporation of bunding to provide screening where appropriate. For the most part this would affect areas where the landform has already been modified. The Council’s Landscape Officer advises the remodelling of the disturbed and engineered landform in the southwest of the site to a more naturalistic form would have a beneficial effect, although in the short term this would have a visual impact. The proposals would also entail the loss of some trees and sections of hedgerow but these are largely of low value.

101. The proposals would also provide substantial areas of new native woodland on the northern part of the site together with strategically placed structure planting on its Page 32 south side and areas of new woodland on the western bluffs. This would compensate for the loss of immature trees elsewhere on the site and create a more naturalistic vegetation structure. This would also be consistent with the wider objectives of the County Durham Landscape Strategy which identifies it as a priority area for new riparian woodlands, native woodlands and community woodlands.

102. The Council’s Landscape Officer advises that the overall effect of the proposals on the wider character area would be localised due to the degree of visual containment in views along the valley floor and would therefore be of low and minor significance. However the effect on the character of the area immediately north of Bishop Auckland the site and its immediate surroundings would be more substantial.

103. The built elements of the proposals particularly the tribune and lighting structures and extensive areas of car parking would be visible in general views across the floodplain as demonstrated in the submitted Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. These features would be out of keeping with the present rural character of the floodplain. Although some elements would be concealed or absent outside of show hours or taken down between seasons the overall magnitude of the impact would be high in the early years of development. Nevertheless this would diminish over time (10+ years) as vegetation became established reaching a point where it is considered that the effect on this medium –high sensitive landscape would be moderate.

104. Views towards the site from the more sensitive valley slopes in the higher parts of Auckland Castle Park would be largely obscured by mature vegetation and therefore the overall magnitude of the impact is identified as being low. The site would be more visible from the more open slopes to the west and north as part of wider panoramas and having a moderate landscape impact.

105. Having assessed the implications of the scheme on the landscape it is considered that in wider views the visible elements of the proposals would appear as small features in visually complex views of a settled landscape. However, the effect on the character of the area immediately north of Bishop Auckland, the valley slopes overlooking the floodplain and the special landscape qualities of Auckland Castle Park would be more pronounced. It is accepted that the potential effects of the proposal have been addressed as far as possible through the detailed design and mitigation proposals contained in the Landscape Strategy. These would become progressively more effective as planting becomes established although given the moderate longer term landscape impacts the scheme would still conflict with policies ENV3, GD1 and ENV4 to a level that would need to be outweighed by other material considerations.

Impact on the Historic Environment

106. Local Plan Policies BE1, BE4 and BE5 seek to preserve the historic environment, particularly the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and the setting of Listed Buildings. These policies reflect the requirements of Sections 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in terms of having regard to the desirability of preserving the special interest of listed buildings and giving this considerable weight and importance. The NPPF also seeks to conserve or enhance heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Sections 132 to 134 of the NPPF states that the significance of heritage assets can be harmed by development within their setting. Where this harm is substantial it must be demonstrated that the development is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits. When harm is of a lesser degree, then a proposal should only be accepted Page 33 with a proportionally strong level of public benefit.

107. Identifying the key heritage assets, English Heritage advise that the Grade 1 listed Auckland Castle is one of the best preserved and most interesting Bishop's Palaces in England. Continually used by the Bishops of Durham from the 12th century to early 21 st century the castle reflects the changing, often defining, role the Bishops had in the governance of County Durham and the spiritual and political life of England. It is the principal monument of the town and contributes to regional identity through its association with the Bishops of Durham.

108. Auckland Park is a grade II* registered parkland with formal and functional gardens immediately around the Castle. The parkland has an 18th century character which uses the course of the River Wear to create picturesque encounters with the Castle and the Wear Valley and so makes an important contribution to the Castle’s setting.

109. Bishop Auckland Conservation Area encapsulates the growth and history of one of Durham’s principal towns. Its significance is expressed primarily through the visual and historic values of a largely 19th century townscape laid on a medieval plan around the market place and a post medieval expansion along the course of the Roman Road Dere Street (now Newgate Street). It is a varied and complex conservation area of considerable historic and architectural interest and potential.

110. Binchester Roman Fort situated to the north east of the site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and one of the most significant Roman sites in Britain. The Newton Cap Viaduct, a Grade II listed structure is located to the south west of the site.

111. English Heritage considers that as the application site forms part of the landscape setting to each of these heritage assets it contributes to their significance. This is reflected visually in the appreciation of the relationship between landscape and settlement. In the medieval period it is likely that the castle was a prominent landmark in a landscape largely controlled by the Bishops. From the 17 th to 19 th centuries the ‘romantic’ quality of views across the Wear Valley were increasingly brought into the design of the castle and park and the distinctive silhouette of the chapel against its parkland backdrop was formed. The town is more inward looking and centred on its commercial and civic spaces but its original northern boundary remains defined by the river’s edge with historic boundary plots running down to the Batts and North Bondgate visible on the skyline above.

112. A Heritage Statement and other supporting information has been submitted with the application assessing the impact of the development on key heritage assets. English Heritage consider that the analysis of impact on the historic environment within the documentation is robust, with sound research and a good visual impact assessment and illustrations.

113. In assessing the impact on the heritage assets both English Heritage and the Council’s Design and Conservation Team advise that the impact on the setting of the designated assets would primarily result from the considerable change in the character of the land. This would cease to be broadly open and rural in character with sporadic built development and would become much more urban in nature reflecting the operational requirements of the new use. Because the justification for the location of the development is underpinned by the use of the iconic castle and chapel buildings as a backdrop to the historic show this would bring these sensitive buildings into immediate conflict with the new development, primarily in respect to the raked stadium seating. Despite the intended design modifications a structure of this scale and form would not be recessive in the landscape. Whilst other associated

Page 34 storage and operational buildings would be far less intrusive in their own right and in isolation their cumulative visual impact would be considerable.

114. In relation to the conservation area, primary views from the North Bondgate edge would be dominated by the proposed car parking layouts and to a lesser extent the performance related structures. These impacts would be greater during operating periods, although it is accepted these would be relatively short and temporary throughout the year. The proposed hours of operation would also help to minimise the potential impact on the more tranquil and reflective environment around the castle and park on the days when the show is taking place.

115. Whilst the proposed landscape mitigation measures would have some effect in reducing the impact of certain parts of the physical development it would be impossible to effectively screen these elements entirely. Overall therefore it is considered that the proposal would cause harm to the significance of the castle, park and conservation area. Nevertheless as the proposal would be seen in a wide panorama into which it would visually intrude but not dominate, the level of harm would be less than substantial for purposes of the NPPF. In addition the proposal would not affect the setting of these heritage assets from other locations that often make a stronger contribution to the assets' significance such as the market place or from within the sections of parkland nearest to the castle.

116. Whilst the proposals would conflict with local plan policies in that there would be some harm to heritage assets it is considered that these do not entirely accord with the NPPF in terms of identifying the level of harm or in giving weight to public benefit in the planning balance. However considerable weight and importance has been given to the desirability of preserving the identified heritage assets in coming to a view on the scheme in terms of the primary legislation and NPPF. Subject to being satisfied on issues surrounding the substantial public benefits arising from the development it is considered that the heritage impacts could be accommodated.

Highway Safety

117. Saved Local Plan Policy T1 requires that development proposals achieve a satisfactory means of access to the wider highway network, while seeking to protect highway safety in terms of vehicle movements and traffic generation. Policy GD1 of the local plan also seeks to locate developments in accessible locations that can be reached by a range of transport methods.

118. The existing access to the site is taken from the A689 via a single width track down to the site. The scheme proposes to improve this access in terms of its realignment with the A689 and increased width to allow simultaneous entry and exit to the development site including the proposed parking area. An existing access to the site under the Newton Cap viaduct is proposed to be restricted for emergency vehicles only. This means that vehicular and pedestrian access would be confined to the access off the A689. Although a high level of on-site car parking is proposed the applicant also intends to operate a park and ride system to car parks in both private and public ownership within the town centre. It is also proposed to introduce a traffic management system to implement a temporary reduction in the speed limit on the A689 around the site together with temporary traffic lights at the access to regulate traffic flow. Parking restrictions would be imposed around the town centre to prevent event parking in residential areas.

119. A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted with the application and this has been reviewed by The Highways Authority and Highways Agency as part of their respective development appraisals. The Highways Authority considers that the Page 35 proposed site access improvements are acceptable and that the implementation of a signal control junction in event time would be an appropriate method of managing event traffic. Concerns are raised regarding the size of the proposed car park and the likely discharge time when this is full (estimated to be in excess of 1 hour) and the potential this may have for parking by visitors in the town centre and residential areas. However no objections are raised on balance given the timing of the shows subject to traffic management arrangements regulating site entry and exit, details of the proposed park and ride scheme and off site car parking, appropriate onsite parking management and the implementation of a signing and road user information strategy to cover a temporary speed reduction and delays on the A689. The highway authority also expects that restrictions would be placed on the capacity of the site(8,000) and that the number of events would be limited to 30 per year.

120. The Highways Agency also raise no objection from its perspective advising that the proposal would not adversely impact on the strategic road network, providing the capacity of the venue is limited to 8000 visitors and the car park is not open to patrons before 7.30pm.

121. Overall therefore it is considered that the development would not adversely impact on the highway safety of the surrounding road network. However the finer details of the event management strategy, park and ride and parking enforcement and the engineering design modifications to the access would need to be controlled by condition or legal agreement as appropriate. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policy T1 of the Local Plan in this respect.

Impact on residential amenity.

122. Local Plan Policy GD1 highlights that developments should protect the amenities of neighbouring uses. This is replicated in terms of tourism proposals within policy TM1. Policy 18 of the emerging CDP also refers to the protection of amenity and policy 19 refers to preventing unacceptable levels of noise pollution. However only limited weight can be attributed to policies 18 and 19. The impacts in relation to noise, light and amenity are addressed below.

Noise

123. Part 11 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to or being put at risk from unacceptable levels of noise pollution. Paragraph 123 indicates that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impact on health and quality of life. It is also expected that measures will be taken where necessary to mitigate and reduce to any adverse noise related impacts to a minimum.

124. More detailed guidance contained within the NPPG states that consideration should be given to whether or not a significant adverse noise effect would occur in associated with new development This is defined within the NPPG as above a level where t he noise is categorised as noticeable and disruptive and causes a material change in behaviour and/or attitude. For example this could include avoiding certain activities during periods of intrusion, having to keep windows closed most of the time and the potential for sleep disturbance. The guidance states that if exposure is beyond a level where the quality of life would be diminished due to changes in the acoustic character of the area, the planning process should be used to avoid the development. However such decisions need to take into account the economic and social benefit of the activity causing the noise, while recognising that that it is undesirable for such exposure to be caused. Page 36

125. The proposed show would operate up to 30 nights a year within a compacted time period between 1st May and 15th September. For artistic and operational reasons the show would start at around 9.30pm and finish before 11pm. Given its nature timing and proximity to non-involved residential dwellings, the nearest of which are located a minimum distance 200m to the south of the stage area, the proposal would inevitably impact on local residents. This has been acknowledged by the applicant and the predicted effects on surrounding properties have been taken into account in a noise impact assessment which was amended for further detailed work following the identification of initial concerns.

126. The Council's Environmental Health Unit (EHU) as relevant consultee in relation to these matters considers that the noise assessment provides a robust appraisal of the likely noise impacts but concludes that the proposed development would adversely impact on the nearest noise sensitive dwellings.

127. As a starting point for the assessment of the scheme the EHU makes reference to the Code of Practice on Environmental Noise control at concerts 1995 (COP), The COP is a nationally adopted standard for assessing noise impact in relation to music/performance events and assumes that most people will put up with louder than average noise for a limited number of occasions as long as they know they are not going to be impacted regularly. Three event categories have been established under the code setting guideline noise limits The most applicable in this case is the 3-12 event days category, which allows a maximum noise of 15LAeq (15 mins average) above background noise levels.

128. The submitted assessment has sampled background noise levels across a number of locations in proximity of the site as part of a significant piece of work to achieve a realistic assumption of conditions experienced at these locations. The table below summarises the estimated readings at noise sensitive residential locations and is based on the minimum noise level and speaker arrangement that the show could realistically sustain to ensure that artistic content audience satisfaction would not be compromised as required by the COP guidelines. The applicant has suggested a slightly lower figure could be achieved although it is believed that this would significantly impact on the artistic delivery of the show and would still break the established limits. For comparison purposes this figure is shown in the brackets below.

Location Estimated noise Background (L90) Difference (15db level at location target) (Laeq 15 mins average)

Binchester 66 (60) 37.2 28.8 (22.8)

Batts Terrace 67 (60) 38.8 28.2 (21.2)

Barrington Street, 58 (52) 31.5 26.5 (20.5) Toronto

129. As the table indicates the estimated noise readings would exceed the minimum 15db above background threshold by a significant level in these locations. Further detailed modelling by the applicant suggests that around 40 residential dwellings would be adversely affected by the development although it is acknowledged the show would be audible to significantly more properties in the wider area. In the light of the Page 37 predicted levels additional mitigation options have also been explored options to help reduce the impact including revised speaker placement, earth mounding and acoustic screens. Despite these steps however it has not been possible to bring the noise levels below the minimum guidance thresholds.

130. Whilst the COP provides a baseline to predicted noise impacts a range of local factors will also have a bearing on conditions that are experienced This includes the nature and timing of the show and the character of the surrounding area. The EHU notes that the event would run at a time that would have maximum effect on residents (outside of the 11pm-7am period) as it coincides with the evening period when a majority of households wish to relax and when young children have been put to bed. It is also during the summer months that residents are more likely to use outside areas and keep windows open for ventilation. Although the show would only be 80 minutes long it is high frequency event over 30 nights (COP equates to a maximum of 12 events) and the repetitive nature of the show is likely to accentuate the perceived impact of the development. Fluctuations in noise levels during the show and variations in the tone/type of noise including pyrotechnics would add further variables that are likely to compound noise difficulties. Concerns are therefore raised by the EHO that the development would have a significant and adverse impact on the quality of life and health of neighbouring residents. In reaching this view and if the predicted levels occur it is also considered that the noise impacts of the development is likely to constitute a statutory nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If so and should planning permission be granted, the development could be subject to separate enforcement action under these provisions irrespective of any planning controls that are in place.

131. The submitted noise assessments also take into account other potential noise sources of significance such as the likely impact of traffic noise and disturbance arising from the development. In this respect the EHU considers that although it is likely that there would be some loss of residential amenity associated with the movement of up to 8000 people exiting the site after 11pm, this would have a more limited impact that could be accommodated. As such there would be insufficient reason to justify a refusal of the planning application.

132. The location of the site relative to the northern edge of Bishop Auckland and nature of the night show are such that residents in the vicinity of the development are likely to experience noise disturbance from a variety of sources related to the scheme However it would be the key performance related components that would give rise to the most significant impacts. Although the applicant and the EHU have worked to reduce predicted noise levels they are in broad agreement from the assessments carried out that likely impacts would fall within the ‘noticeable and disruptive’ category defined within the NPPG. Where this is the case then the guidance indicates that development should be avoided and given that mitigation would not reduce its impact. The proposal is therefore not considered to comply with the guidance contained within the NPPF and NPPG or local plan policy TM1 in terms of this likely amenity impact.

Light

133. Part 11 of the NPPF requires that planning decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. The NPPG also contains advice for Local Planning Authorities dealing with planning applications where light pollution could occur. This recognises that artificial light can be essential for new development, including recreational based purposes. However it is accepted that it also has the potential to cause annoyance to people, create harm to wildlife, undermine the enjoyment of the countryside and

Page 38 detract from the night sky. The guidance indicates that light pollution may arise if light levels would be materially altered outside the development and/or would have the potential to adversely affect the use or enjoyment of nearby buildings or open spaces. Light pollution may also occur if there would be a significant impact on protected species.

134. In order to minimise these impacts it is expected that lighting should only be used when required and that planning conditions should be used to ensure that it switched off when not needed. In considering the acceptability of the level of lighting, details of the proposed scheme needs to be carefully assessed and consideration given to whether it exceeds the level needed to fulfil its purpose. The guidance notes that the character of the area and the surrounding environment may affect what will be considered an appropriate level of lighting.

135. The above considerations have been taken into account in the submitted Lighting Assessment which appraises the likely impact of the lighting strategy for the development on the amenity of local residents. Although the detailed lighting requirements have yet to be fully designed and produced, assumptions have been made on the existing operations at Puy du Fou which are similar in nature. However the main lighting would be focussed on the stage area using a number of localised lighting sources and tower based floodlights.

136. In considering this matter the EHU highlights that due to the proximity of the stage to housing and the very dark nature of the site there would be instances where light spillage would occur that would directly affect residents and temporarily affect the night time character of the area . Moreover it is felt that these impacts are likely to be increased by the changing complexion and intensity of light throughout the show which would make it more intrusive and noticeable. The relatively isolated position of the site and extremely low levels of current illumination across the site at night would also mean that the lighting in the darkening night sky would be visible at considerable distances for the period of the show. Nevertheless based on the submitted information and adherence to the principles outlined in the lighting strategy it is not considered that lighting levels are likely to lead to a statutory nuisance, as a source of pollution defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Although a some loss of residential amenity would be likely to arise during these periods it is not considered that it these impacts would be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application on these grounds.

Privacy and overbearing impact

137. Concerns have been raised regarding the potential for a loss of privacy and amenity from the proposed development. However there would be a separation distance of approximately 290m between the proposed grandstand and the nearest group residential properties on Batts Terrace. This raked structure provides the main elevated viewpoints across the south east of the site and although there would be views back to residential properties it’s relative position and orientation are such that no significant loss of privacy or overbearing effects would arise. Other features and pathways towards the southern edge of the site are largely low lying and would relate acceptably to existing development on the other side of the river.

Ecology

138. Part 11 of the NPPF recognises that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Planning decisions should aim to maintain, enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and conservation interests. The impact of a Page 39 development on protected species is also a material planning consideration when reaching planning decisions. Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not endanger or damage important wildlife habitats or have a detrimental on ecology.

139. The proposed development relates to a large tract of open land with sporadic existing buildings. A range of ecology surveys have therefore been carried out in support of the application to record the presence of plant/animal species and habits assess the likely ecological impacts and necessary mitigation. Each of the identified species is addressed in turn.

Badgers 140. The submitted surveys indicate that there are a number of badger setts on the site and it is estimated that there may be up to 11 badgers in residence and using the site for foraging. Whilst the site is considered to provide good quality foraging habitat it is nevertheless at carrying capacity and the badger population is territorially contained there due to the natural enclosure of the encircling River Wear and a smaller stream to the north and the barrier of the Newton Cap viaduct and A689. The Council’s Ecology section advise that the proposed development is likely to involve the loss of approximately 40% of the habitat currently used by the badgers. Given the physical constraints of the territory and reduction in available habitat it is considered that there would be significant negative impact on the badger population.

141. It is further pointed out that as the access road improvements would be constructed in close proximity to the badger setts these may need to be closed to prevent re occupation during the development stage. This work would need to be carried out under a Natural England development license if planning permission was granted.

142. Although badgers are not a rare or endangered species, they are a protected species under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. The legislation allows for a licence to be granted for interference with a badger sett for the purposes of development, where there is suitable justification. Natural England provide standing advice to local planning authorities which seeks to avoid adverse impacts on badgers. If there are unavoidable impacts then mitigation should be designed to reduce those impacts. If there are still unacceptable impacts on the species following these steps then compensation measures need to be provided to offset the impacts. In determining planning applications it is necessary to consider whether there are any satisfactory alternatives to the proposed scheme which would have less of an impact on protected species.

143. Because the proposal would have a significant and unavoidable adverse effect on the badger population on the site and in view of the associated constraints the ecology section consider that any mitigation proposed is unlikely to alleviate the identified problem or significantly reduce the likely impacts on the species. Objections are therefore raised in this respect. Whilst some of the existing badgers may find their way off the site to a neighbouring area, the territorial nature of the species is such that the prospects of successfully displacement and integration elsewhere are not good. There is every likelihood therefore that most of the existing population could be lost. This would be locally significant in terms of the site although it is acknowledged that within the wider context of County Durham there is a healthy and well spread population that is not under threat as a species.

Otters 144. An otter holt has been identified on the site and a 30m buffer zone is proposed along with a riparian management plan to retain and enhance the habitat. The Ecology Page 40 Section consider that this would be sufficient to protect this species from the development although the final details of the management plan and its implementation would need to be agreed by condition.

Brownfield BAP habitat/Dingy Skipper (butterfly) 145. An existing brownfield habitat identified as a Durham and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat lies in the vicinity of existing buildings on the site. Although part of this would be lost to facilitate the creation of the proposed car park, a further would be area created in order to mitigate this loss. Subject to securing this compensatory area and agreeing the finer details by condition the impact on this habitat is considered acceptable by the Ecology Section.

Bats 146. Bats are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and consideration therefore need to be given to the issue of disturbance and habitat loss. The submitted ecology reports confirm the presence of roosting bats within the derelict barn that is to be demolished in the centre of the site. Although these are likely to be occasional roosts rather than maternity roosts a Natural England license would be required for works to this building. Assessment of the remaining buildings also points to the likely use of a majority these by a range of bat species thought the year. Key areas of bat activity linked to commuting or foraging were also identified during transect surveys along sections of open grassland to the west of the site the south and south west river corridor central scrub areas and woodland linkages and around a large pond to the east. Up to 5 species were recorded during the transects and fixed monitoring identified a possible 8 species between July and August 2014.

147. The ecology report concludes that the range of species provide an indication of the quality of the habitats within both the site and the surrounding area. Whilst there was no evidence of a maternity roost and the records indicate that a moderate number of bats use the site the report identifies the proposed development would have a potential impact on the species arising from: • Medium to long term loss of and disruption to foraging and commuting areas used by a good range of bat species. • Temporary disruption to an area of permanent open water identified as a valuable foraging resource. • Impacts upon foraging, commuting and roosting bats from increased on-site lighting. • Disturbance to bats and their foraging habitats during events from traffic, people, lighting and noise. • Loss of a known pipistrelle roost site within the derelict barn. • Disturbance or harm to roosting bats within the remaining buildings following renovation for change of use, including possible hibernating bats if works are undertaken during the winter. • Loss of trees with the potential to support roosting bats

148. The Council’s ecology team has appraised the submitted report and consider that the methods and methodologies used are sound. However it is advised that the thirty nights of the show would be within the summer feeding and breeding season and there will be a delay in the emergence of bats from roosts on and near the site and a displacement from key foraging areas because of disturbance from sound and light. It is accepted that habitat enhancement elsewhere on the site would provide mitigation for the displacement but because this would not mature for a significant period of time there is likely to be a short to medium adverse impact.

Page 41 149. Whilst most of the buildings on site have been surveyed, there are some that have yet to be fully assessed as part of the current planning application including the existing bungalow, farm house and fishing lodge that are to be refurbished as part of the proposed development. As one of the submitted reports identifies that bats may utilise these buildings, the Ecology section advise that it is not possible at this stage to make an informed decision on the full extent of the impact that the development might have on this bat population. Objections are therefore raised to the development.

150. Under the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) it is a criminal offence to kill, injure or disturb the nesting or breeding places of protected species unless it is carried out with the benefit of a license from Natural England which is normally obtained after planning permission has been granted When deciding whether to grant a licence to a person carrying out activity which would harm a European Protected Species (EPS) the regulation contain three ‘’derogation tests” which must be applied by Natural England The three tests are that: the activity to which the licence is required must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; there must be no satisfactory alternative and favourable conservation status of the species must be obtained.

151. Notwithstanding the licensing regime, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must discharge its duty under Regulation 9(3) and also be satisfied that these three tests are met and that Natural England is likely to grant a protected species licence when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a development which could harm an EPS. A Local Planning Authority failing to do so would be in breach of the Regulations which requires all public bodies to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions.

152. For the Council to do this, in line with Natural England advice further surveys should be carried out to establish the nature of any possible roosts within the remaining buildings. This work is currently ongoing and has up to now been affected by unfavourable weather conditions. However is likely to be completed during July, when it will then be possible to establish the nature and location of any roost within the remaining buildings and assess whether the favourable conservation status of the species is maintained. At present the bat species on site are considered to be of local parish significance and no significant effects at district level are anticipated. If this is carried through in the survey findings then this would enable one of the tests to be met.

153. It is considered that the other tests those of overriding public interest and there being no satisfactory alternative would be met by the proposed development. This would occur because of the significant economic and social benefits that would arise from the implementation of the development. Given the unique nature of the proposal and its intrinsic relationship with Auckland Castle and Bishop Auckland it is also considered that there would be no other viable location for the development.

154. Subject to the outcome of further survey work it is considered that the likely impacts on bats would be local in nature and would not give rise to significant harm to the conservation of the species and when taking into account the nature and potential benefits of the development. Having noted the need to complete a bat survey and the issues arising from this, it is therefore suggested that in the event of a favourable decision on the application officers consider the final derogation test under delegated powers to confirm whether the favourable conservation status of the species would be maintained.

Page 42 155. This would enable the Council to satisfy its obligations under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and planning requirements under paragraphs 118, 119 of the NPPF However as it is acknowledged that the development would have a negative impact on bat populations, especially in the short term before environmental mitigation has full effect, the proposal would not comply with the relevant section of policy GD1 of the Local Plan.

Flooding

156. The overall aim of Part 10 of the NPPF in considering flooding issues is to steer new development to areas within flood zone 1 which have the least risk of flooding. Where there are no reasonable sites within flood zone 1 for a proposed development Local Planning Authorities should take account of the flood risk vulnerability of land uses. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided but where it is necessary it should be made safe, does not give rise to increased flooding elsewhere and is informed by appropriate assessments.

157. The application site is generally low lying and close to the river and areas within it the covered by the higher flood zone categories. This includes the intended locations for the proposed car park and stables and containing the existing buildings. These are located within flood zone 2. In addition the tribune and stage would be located within flood zone 3b which is part of the functional floodplain. Because water has to flow or be stored in times of flood in these areas only water compatible uses including outdoor recreation facilities are considered acceptable. The proposed tribune and stage area falls under this classification as confirmed by the Environment Agency. And the proposed development would meet the test of the NPPF in this respect.

158. The required site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) that has been submitted, has modelled flood risk on the site and the potential resultant impact downstream. The FRA concludes that the flood water storage volumes on site would be increased due to the remodelling of parts of the site to create landscape bunding. Moreover the proposed layout of the site would ensure that flows would not be impeded. A number of mitigation measures are proposed including the siting of sensitive equipment above 1 in 100 flood levels and the incorporation of permeable surfaces.

159. The Environment Agency and the Councils Drainage Team, the statutory consultees for flooding and drainage matters agree with findings of the Flood Risk Assessment and offer no objections to the scheme subject to the incorporation of the detailed mitigation measures and provided flood storage volumes are not reduced.

160. Northumbrian Water also offer no objections to the scheme but highlight that surface water should not connect into the public drainage system. This is in line with the proposed surface water strategy, to utilise soakaways and infiltration and restrict runoff to greenfield run off rates. The Council’s Drainage officer recommends that this matter is controlled by planning condition. In terms of the disposal of foul water, Northumbrian Water advise that its infrastructure could accommodate the additional flows generated by the development.

Other Issues

161. Part of the application site lies within a High Risk Coal Mining Referral Area due to the presence of coal seams and a Coal Mining Risk Assessment has therefore been submitted. This indicates that it is likely that the site has been subject to previous coal mining activity and recommends a programme of investigation and mitigation to confirm the absence or otherwise of historic workings and appropriate mitigation

Page 43 measures. These requirements could be secured by condition as recommended by the Coal Authority in the event that planning permission was granted.

162. In terms of Archaeology, the NPPF sets out requirements for an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation, recording and publication of results. The submitted desk top study highlights the previous uses and developments on the site. In reviewing this documentation the Council’s Archaeology Officer advises that it is unlikely that there are any archaeology remains of significance that would require further mitigation. This is due to the disruption caused through the remodelling of the site for the previous golf course use. However it is recommended that a scheme of architectural recording is carried out in relation to any proposed works including the demolition of the existing buildings on site and this could be secured by condition.

CONCLUSION

163. The proposed development involves the provision of a major visitor attraction in Bishop Auckland and is very much linked to the ambitious plans of the Auckland Castle Trust to enhance the tourism related offer in the town and make it a destination of choice for visitors. The Trust has recently received planning consent for high quality heritage related developments around the Castle and Market Place. These are in the process of being implemented and further developments are proposed to ensure that deliver heritage experience. The 11 Arches scheme would complement this ongoing work by utilising the visual backdrop of the Castle and its story in a pageant that retells the history of the country within a local context. The night show which is derived from a successful French model and backed by the Puy du Fou organisation would be a unique event in this area and in the region. The physical technical and artistic works needed to deliver a show of the required standard would involve significant investment both financially and in the performance personnel and signals the commitment of the Trust and its partners to the project, the town and its people.

164. The use of the 11 Arches site to deliver the show is considered essential from the Trust perspective which would like the first performances to take place in the summer of next year. The need for the required infrastructure make this an ambitious target and there is only a limited window to utilise Puy du Fou resources due to other development commitments that this company has in 2017 onwards. The Trust believes it can meet all necessary requirements and deliver a show to the standard expected including in terms of environmental impacts and subject to receiving necessary consents

165. From the planning perspective the site is sensitive and the development raises a range of issues that need to be carefully balanced in coming to a judgement on whether the scheme represents an acceptable form of sustainable development. Much of the sensitivity of the site is derived from its location on the northern edge of Bishop Auckland. This gives it significance in terms of both the built and natural environments. It is bordered by heritage assets and provides landscape context and setting to these. As a large tract of open land in the flood plain the site also provides habitats for wildlife including protected species. Although the main residential areas of the town are further to the south there is a sizeable group of houses at various points within relative close proximity.

166. The NPPF provides the overarching context for considering development proposals and this outlines the 3 elements of sustainable development that need to be taken into account in decision making. These relate to its economic, social and environmental roles which should be regarded as indivisible.

Page 44

167. In considering the economic and social contribution of the proposed development it is considered it would perform well against these criteria and has the potential to provide real and lasting benefit. The identified levels of funding and investment would contribute significantly to the local and regional economy both in the short term via direct and indirect construction related spending and in the provision of a tourist attraction of regional significance. It is acknowledged that some of these outlays would be variable depending on the success of the show and may therefore only indirectly benefit traders in the town and the local area. However the proposal would still provide an economic boost within an area that would benefit from further economic growth and regeneration. Whilst the social benefits of the scheme are more difficult to quantify, a range of opportunities would be provided for local people and children and teenagers in particular, to participate in the shows and receive necessary training. The evidence from France in respect to the larger sister operation is that the volunteer focussed performance arrangements do build up the local skill base and positively affect aspiration and wellbeing. The proposal therefore also has the potential to improve social inclusion and cohesion through community involvement in the scheme at various levels.

168. In relation to the environmental element of sustainable development, there would be some benefits from the incorporation of areas of degraded land within the development. The site has had previous planning permissions for tourism and recreational related developments. These have not been proved to be viable over time and the existing landform retains the evidence of the abandoned and unfinished former golf course. These features would be removed or incorporated within the proposed scheme as buildings brought into productive use or as part of the re- profiled landscape treatment and enhancement.

169. Whilst it can be argued that the site is in need of redevelopment to overcome some of these legacy issues these would take place within a development that would have its own negative environmental impacts. Some of these affects would be significant and the main structures needed for the show would adversely impact on the setting of heritage assets including the Castle and Bishop Auckland conservation area. These impacts would be less than substantial in the wider setting of these assets and taking account of all the locational factors and perspectives that contribute to their importance. However the introduction of the distinctive elements of the show could only be justified in heritage terms if there are other reasons to support the scheme in terms of overriding public benefits. It is considered that the benefits on offer in this respect together with the proposed mitigation measures would outweigh the harm caused.

170. Whilst the development would be within the area of landscape and have some adverse effects on its character these would be generally be localised and contained and would moderate over time. For the most part this would also be the case in regard to ecological interests. There would be a severe and unavoidable impact on a badger colony given the land take requirements, layout configuration and physical containment of the site. This would be a local ecological negative of the scheme although it would not significantly impact on the wider representation of the species. Measures would be put in place to safeguard and where possible enhance other nature conservation interests in the medium to longer term. Bats are present on the site and it has been possible to build an overall profile from survey information of the likely numbers and species type. This evidence points to a level of disturbance and harm that is likely to be within acceptable levels and could be accommodated subject to mitigation. However, final confirmation of the position is dependent on the completion of the additional survey work that is underway so that the Council can

Page 45 satisfy its derogation test obligations under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

171. In relation to flood risk, other site related matter of note, it has been demonstrated that the proposed development would not give rise to increased flooding in the immediate vicinity or downstream subject to the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Providing for the arrival and departure of up to 8,000 people on the site on event days and served from a single access has proved challenging from a highways viewpoint. Nevertheless and despite some inevitable exit delays the proposed road infrastructure improvements and traffic management regime in and around the site would ensure that the associated levels of traffic can be safely accommodated on the highway network.

172. The main residential amenity consideration relates to noise although there would also be some lighting impacts. As the use of sound and lighting is also key to the delivery of the night show and the visitor experience there are fine margins for adjustment in these areas especially in a technical sense. It is considered that the lighting issues can be acceptably managed. Despite corroborative working between the parties and the exploration of alternative measures to reduce predicted noise levels, it has not been possible to do so. This issue therefore remains a concern.

173. It is accepted that there is still some scope to refine and test the sound arrangements in the period leading up to the show and that an event licence is being applied for that will also assess these matters. It is also noted that there is always likely to be a subjective dimension to actual noise impact and complaints. Nevertheless, at the current time and in view of the EHU comments it is not considered that the noise related impacts could be reduced to levels that would not adversely impact on the amenities of local residents to a significant degree. On this basis and because of potential enforcement ramifications around the achievement of necessary sound levels it is not considered that the scheme would acceptably meet all the essential elements of sustainable development.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application is REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development would generate an unacceptable level of noise disturbance which would detrimentally impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and would therefore not constitute sustainable development contrary to paragraphs 7 and part 11 of the NPPF and contrary to policies GD1 and TM1 of the Wear Valley Local Plan.

2. Insufficient information has been submitted to determine the full extent of the likely impacts on the local bat population which is designated as a European Protected Species and accordingly the local planning authority is unable to meet its obligations under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010(as amended)

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at the decision to refuse the application has sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application. However, in this

Page 46 instance the fundamental matters of the noise impact were unable to be addressed satisfactorily despite significant effort.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Practice Guidance Notes National Noise Policy Statement for England Wear Valley District Local Plan The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Committee Report with Instructions - Version 4 – Effective 25.6.2013

Page 47

Application ref. DM/15/00110/FPA Flatts Farm, Toronto, Bishop Auckland, Co Durham Planning Services This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey 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 201 5 Scale NTS

Page 48 Agenda Item 5b Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00763/FPA

Residential development of 149 no. dwellings with FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : associated access and landscaping

NAME OF APPLICANT : Storey Homes

Land to the west of Mount Park Drive and to the north of ADDRESS : Newbiggin Lane, Lanchester, County Durham

ELECTORAL DIVISION : Lanchester

Henry Jones Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 263960 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site:

1. The application site comprises of approximately 8.7 ha of agricultural land located in an elevated position immediately to the north of Newbiggin Lane. To the east lie residential properties on Ashleigh Gove, Thornlea Grove, Mount Park Drive and Alderside Crescent. Directly north lies the Lanchester Valley Railway Path, a former railway line now used as a recreational link by walkers, cyclists and horse riders whilst to the west are agricultural fields and open countryside.

2. The majority of the site comprises of open grassland with trees and hedges in part within the site and particularly to the boundaries. Overhead power lines cross the site at its southern end. Within the site the land slopes down from west to east and from south to north where the land drops away quite sharply to the adjacent railway path.

3. No statutory or locally designated landscape or ecological sites are located within or immediately adjacent to the application site. No recorded public rights of way are contained within the application site. The application site contains no watercourses, though the Smallhope Burn is located approximately 225m north of the boundary of the site. Ditches are located adjacent to the both the northern and eastern site boundaries.

Page 49

The Proposal:

4. Planning permission is sought for the erection of 149 dwellings with associated access and works.

5. The proposed house–types vary from 2 bed properties to 5 bed properties. There are 94 detached properties proposed with the remaining 55 being a mixture of semi– detached and terraced properties. Three housetypes called the Banbury are proposed which is essentially a bungalow but with bedroom accommodation within the roofspace. The remainder of the properties are two storey. Thirty properties are proposed to be affordable homes which would equate to 20% of the development.

6. An electricity substation to serve the development is shown on layout, located to the west of No. 4 Ridgeway.

7. Vehicular access to the site would be taken from Newbiggin Lane in the south–east corner of the application site. The access would be a simple T–junction arrangement with vehicles within the development required to “give way” to those on Newbiggin Lane. It is proposed to widen a section of Newbiggin Lane to 5.5m from a location adjacent to no. 2 Ridgeway to a location approximately 75m west of the proposed access at which point the road would return to its original width. The formation of the proposed access, associated visibility splays and road widening would result in the loss of trees/hedging and a section of dry stone wall.

8. Within the site, houses would be arranged off a series of small estate roads and hammerheads which would themselves lead from a main spine road through the centre of the site. A circular, multi–user route for pedestrians and cyclists is proposed around the periphery of the site that is proposed to link onto the Lanchester Valley Railway Path.

9. Landscape proposals accompany the application and key elements of this are the provision of landscape buffers where the site abuts agricultural fields to the west, Newbiggin Lane to the south with a further landscape buffer and recreational area adjacent to Ridgeway. Within more central locations two main areas of landscaping are proposed on east/west axis one roughly parallel with Thornlea Grove and the second with Ashleigh Grove. Further, “pocket parks” are also indicated within the masterplan.

10. Attenuation ponds, with associated soft landscaping, are proposed as part of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) within the northern boundary of the site.

11. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee as it constitutes a major residential development proposal over 4 hectares in area.

PLANNING HISTORY

12. A search of the planning register revealed no history of planning applications on the application site.

Page 50 PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

13. 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’.

14. 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.

15. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy . The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.

16. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

17. 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.

18. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

19. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well–being of communities and planning policies and decisions should achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments. This includes the development and modernisation of facilities and services.

Page 51 20. 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.

21. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

22. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment . Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

23. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this application is the practice guidance with regards to; air quality; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; design; flood risk; land stability; housing and economic development needs assessments; housing and economic land availability assessment; light pollution; natural environment; noise; open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space; planning obligations; travel plans, transport assessments and statements; use of planning conditions and; water supply, wastewater and water quality.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

The Derwentside District Local Plan (January 1997) (DLP)

24. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles . This policy aims to ensure that all developments incorporate a high standard of design, are energy efficient, protect landscape, natural and historic features, protect and manage ecology, protect valuable open land, provide adequate landscaping, incorporate crime prevention measures and improve personal safety, protect amenity and provide adequate drainage.

25. Policy EN1 – Development in the Countryside . States that development will only be permitted where it benefits the rural economy or helps maintain or enhance landscape character. Proposals should be sensitively related to existing settlement patterns and to historic, landscape, wildlife and geological resources.

26. Policy EN2 – Preventing Urban Sprawl. Advises that development outside existing built up areas will not be permitted if it results in; the merging or coalescence of neighbouring settlements; or ribbon development; or an encroachment into the surrounding countryside.

Page 52

27. Policy EN11 – Trees and Development. States that existing trees should be retained where possible.

28. Policy EN19 – Protection of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Features . Requires that appropriate assessments are carried out on sites that could affect a site of archaeological interest.

29. Policy EN25 – Development Affected by Pollution. States that residential or other sensitive development will not be permitted on sites affected by unacceptable levels of pollution from adjoining land uses.

30. Policy EN26 – Control of Development Causing Pollution. States that planning permission will only be granted for development which is not likely to have an adverse impact on the environment having regard to likely levels of air, noise, soil or water pollution.

31. Policy H07 – Development Limit for Lanchester and Burnhope. Establishes a development limit for the two settlements beyond which new housing development will not be approved.

32. Policy HO22 – Recreational Public Open Space within Housing Sites. Requires new housing developments to include public open space and play areas, in appropriate locations. Approval may be subject to condition or planning obligation to ensure that the area(s) will be set out and then maintained; or the developer agrees to make a financial payment in lieu of provision, where provision cannot be made on site.

33. Policy TR2 – Development and Highways Safety. Requires developments to make satisfactory and safe provision for access to the site, road and public transport network and parking provision in compliance with car parking standards.

34. Policy TR3 – Cycling. States that when considering proposals for new developments, the Council will ensure that the needs of cyclists are taken into account.

35. Policy RE4 – Protection of Public Footpaths. States that development directly affecting a public right of way, or other recreational route, will only be permitted if an acceptable route is provided.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

The County Durham Plan

36. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public in April 2014 and stage 1 of that Examination has been concluded. However, the Inspector’s Interim Report which followed, dated 18 February 2015, has raised issues in relation to the soundness of various elements of the plan. In the light of this, policies that may be relevant to an individual scheme and which are neither the subject of significant objection nor adverse comment in the Interim Report can carry limited weight. Those policies that have been subject to significant objection can carry only very limited weight. Equally, where policy has been amended, as set out in the Interim Report, Page 53 then such amended policy can carry only very limited weight. Those policies that have been the subject of adverse comment in the interim report can carry no weight. Relevant policies and the weight to be afforded to them are discussed in the main body of the report.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (Derwentside District Local Plan) http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

37. Lanchester Parish Council – Object to the proposed development on the grounds of flood risk; impact on local services; visual impact; that the development is beyond the development limit of the Lanchester; impact upon the setting of the village; ecological impacts and pressure on the existing sewerage system. It is considered that the development is contrary to established community aspirations of Lanchester demonstrated through the Parish Plan, Village Design Statement, Locality Map and having regard to the emerging County Durham Plan and Neighbourhood Plan. The submitted housing needs survey is contested with an inaccurate depiction of the population trends of the village and recent history of development. Objections to the traffic and highways implication are raised and data within the documentation in this regard.

38. The Highway Authority – Raise no objections to the development. The number of vehicles entering and leaving the village via the rural part of Newbiggin Lane is relatively low. Newbiggin Lane is capable of taking the additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposal. Following the submission of technical notes and road safety audit documents the proposed T junction access solution for the site is considered acceptable and previously expressed concerns with regards to the modelling of the Station Road/A691 junctions. A junction improvement would be necessary, however. Some requirements for relatively minor adjustments within the layout are raised principally to ensure the layout meets adoptable standards.

39. English Heritage – Raise no objections. It is considered that the development would have no direct or indirect impacts upon any historic environment asset for which it has a national remit. No detrimental impact upon the Lanchester Conservation Area would occur. Liaison with Durham County Council Conservation and Archaeology is advised.

40. The Environment Agency – Raise no objections to the development provided that the mitigation measures within the submitted flood risk assessment to limit surface water run-off so as to not exceed run-off from the existing undeveloped site are adhered to.

41. Northumbrian Water – Raise no objections subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted flood risk assessment limiting foul water discharge and prohibiting surface water discharge to the public sewer.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

42. Spatial Policy – Object to the proposed development. The proposal does not accord with the policies of the DLP or constitute sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. The development would represent an encroachment onto

Page 54 agricultural, greenfield land beyond the settlement boundary of Lanchester and is a form of development that would not serve to consolidate the built up framework of the settlement. Having regard to the requirement of the NPPF to consider the application in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is considered that an evidence base exists to demonstrate that a 5 year housing land supply exists and therefore the presumption does not prevail in this instance.

43. Officers advise that whilst specialist advice from the relevant consultees should be sought, concerns are raised with regard to landscape impact and highways matters that arose during the previous assessment of the suitability of the site for housing within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). It is considered that there are no any exceptional circumstances or benefits of the development demonstrated within the application that outweigh this harm. The site is therefore considered unsuitable for this development.

44. The Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) demonstrates an undersupply of allotments and parks and gardens within Lanchester. Further detail on the quantity and nature of open space within the development is requested. Financial contributions towards public open space improvements within the village should be requested.

45. Design and Conservation – Object to the development. It is considered that the proposed development would add substantially to existing urban sprawl to the west of the village, resulting in the loss of a large area of open countryside from key views in and out of the Conservation Area and replacing this with an extensive built form that would be particularly dominant within the landscape. Officers are of the view that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the key views and on the setting of the Conservation Area in this regard. Some views from the north and east take in the Longovicivm (Lanchester) Roman Fort (scheduled monument) and Conservation Area within the same vista. The proposal would have an adverse impact in respect to the interrelated views between the Conservation area, roman fort and rural landscape. The proposed site layout, landscaping and pedestrian links are considered to be well thought out, however.

46. Ecology – Raise no objections to the development. The content of the submitted Extended Phase 1 Survey Report is acceptable including the proposed mitigation measures. The submitted landscaping proposals do not show all the proposed mitigation measures and biodiversity enhancements though this could be resolved via condition.

47. Landscape – Object to the proposed development considering that a significant negative landscape impact would occur. Particular reference is made to the detrimental impact of the development from Newbiggin Lane. Objection is also raised to the impact of the development in longer views from higher ground across the Browney Valley. It is considered that the proposed removal of mature ash trees within the site would be acceptable on the understanding that the replacement tree planting distribution and numbers are respected in the detailed planting plan.

48. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – Consider that an assessment on the potential impacts of the development upon air quality should be submitted.

49. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Contamination) – Raise no objections. Having assessed the available information and historical maps with respect to land contamination there is no contamination potential and no need for a contaminated land condition on any approval. Page 55

50. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Noise, Dust, Light, Smoke and Odour) – Raise no objections to the application. It is considered that there are no noise emissions within the locality such as roads that would require specific mitigation measures for the proposed dwellings. Disturbance from the construction phase could occur and conditions should be applied to any planning permission to reduce impact. Due to the landscaping scheme proposed it is considered that the street lighting associated with the development would not cause any harmful impacts on neighbouring occupiers. Conditions to ensure the suppression of dust, control of burning of materials onsite to prevent smoke and control working hours are recommended. No concerns are expressed with regards to matters of odour.

51. Archaeology – Raise no objections to the proposed development. The necessary evaluation of the site and submission of the reports has been undertaken and the results demonstrate that there is a very low probability of unrecorded archaeological assets beneath the site. No conditions requiring further investigation or mitigation would be required.

52. Access and Public Rights of Way – Raise no objections to the proposed development.

53. Countryside Team – Provide comments with regards to the Lanchester Valley Railway Path which is within the freehold ownership of the Council. No objections are raised to the principle of the proposed access improvements to the railway path from the site. Concerns are raised over the ability of the drainage ditch on the railway path to cater for the proposed surface water discharge and a financial contribution towards future maintenance is requested as a result. It is also recommended that the applicant contact the Council with regards to an easement to accommodate for additional infrastructure and discharge to the drainage ditch.

54. Drainage and Coastal Protection – Raise no objections to the development. The proposed limiting of discharge rates of surface water would aid flooding issues in Lanchester as it would provide greater control over flood waters. The submitted drainage scheme is acceptable in principle though final details should be agreed via condition on any approval.

55. Sustainability – Have assessed the development site in regards to its degree of sustainability in terms of social (access to services), economic (access to employment and retail facilities) and environmental (such as landscape and ecological matters) factors. The site is considered to perform averagely in regard to the social and environmental determinates and poor against economic determinates. With regards to embedded sustainability and energy consumption reduction a detailed sustainability statement is considered to be required.

56. Employability Team – State that the proposed development is an opportunity to pursue targeted employment opportunities via a planning obligation.

57. Housing Delivery – State that the 20% affordable housing provision is acceptable. A split of 30% intermediate units and 70% affordable rent would be acceptable.

58. Neighbourhood Services (Streetscene) – Provide advice with regards to the adoption procedures of areas of open space within the development site and the necessary commuted sums for the transfer.

Page 56 59. School Organisation Manager – Advises that there is adequate secondary school capacity to cater for the development. However, it is noted that there are inadequate primary school places with 38 additional spaces necessary as a result of the proposed development. Financial contributions are therefore requested in order to address this capacity issue.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

60. The application was advertised within the press, on site and letters were sent to neighbouring properties. A total of 1366 letters of representation have been received with 1357 letters of objection, 7 letters of support and 2 letters raising both points of support and opposition. These objections include objections from local groups The Lanchester Partnership and The Campaign to Protect Rural Lanchester. The matters raised are summarised below.

Objection

• Objection is raised to the principle of the development in respect to the proposed building on agricultural, greenfield land and land beyond the existing established limits of the village. • The site is not identified for development within the emerging County Durham Plan nor within the established Lanchester Village Design Statement. Reference is also made to the continuing work on a Neighbourhood Plan for Lanchester and that development proposals should be in accordance with this document. • Some objectors consider that there is no need for new housing development. Reference is made to the number of properties on sale in Lanchester. • The submitted objectively assessed needs document is opposed with its findings considered inaccurate and the demonstration that Lanchester may be in decline is contested. • Objection is raised on the grounds that the development could set a precedent for other similar development. • The proposed development is considered to be out of proportion with the settlement. Services namely health, schools and utilities are considered to be at capacity and would be unable to cater for a development of this nature. Specific reference is also made to the considered inability for schools within Lanchester to be extended and whether the proposed new doctor’s surgery within the village could cater for this development. • The site is not considered to be located within a sustainable location with distances to bus services are too great and there is a lack of local employment. Some responses consider that the hail and ride bus service referred to within the application documents does not exist or that the service is too infrequent to be considered a service. • The impact of the increase in carbon emissions from such a scale of development is referred to. • Objection is raised to the visual impact of the development, with landscape harm considered to occur including through the loss of trees and landscape features. Specific harm upon the historic landscape of Greencroft Park. The detrimental impact of light pollution from the development is referenced. • Concerns are raised with regards to the future maintenance of all proposed planting within the development. • The design of the proposed dwellings is considered to be unacceptable and the development would contribute to a loss of local distinctiveness within the village. • The point is raised that the development would affect the existing sense of community and would turn the settlement into a dormitory, commuter village.

Page 57 • Flood risk is raised as a major area of concern. The letters of objection make reference to recent flood events within Lanchester. It is considered that the sewerage infrastructure of the village cannot cope with this development and reference is made to underground springs. • Objections are raised on highways grounds with concerns over congestion, that the village centre cannot cater for the additional visits that the development would raise. Further concerns are raised regarding the impact of construction traffic. Objections are raised to the content of the documentation and survey data accompany the application in regards to highways matters. • Pedestrian links could lead to anti-social behaviour nuisance. • Potentially harmful impacts upon ecology. • Harm to archaeological and heritage assets in the area. • Objections are raised on the grounds of the impact of the development upon residential amenity with regards to the proximity of the dwellings themselves, impact of the provision of new footpath routes close to existing property, the impact of the construction phase itself and the risk of subsidence. • Concerns are expressed over the potential for an increase in crime and anti– social behaviour and a breakdown in community cohesion. • It is considered that the development will not provide affordable homes but housing that will serve the executive market. • Detrimental impact upon Lanchester Valley Walk which is considered to be congested. • The proposed provision of attenuation ponds within the site raise concerns with regards to the safety of children and the potential for a “breeding ground” of bacteria to develop. • The proposal is considered to be causing stress and worry and the development process will affect the health of residents. • Loss of view. • Reference is made to the public consultation event held by the applicant prior to the submission of the application and that the response to this demonstrates the opposition to the development from the community. • Some objections reference economic matters, the development would not benefit the local economy as the village will be too busy to park visitors will be dissuaded from using facilities. The applicant is not a locally based business therefore local jobs may not be provided. • Objections are raised to the accuracy of some documents accompanying the application with references to local services and facilities in Lanchester being out of date. • The application is described as an example of profiteering. It is raised that any economic benefits of the development would be countered by the expenses of maintenance and management in the longer term for instance with regards to the road network and street lighting. • Concerns are expressed as to whether any financial contributions offered by the development would be spent on local facilities and whether the monies would be enough in the longer term. • Objections are raised on the grounds of the impact of the development upon existing house values.

Support

• The development is located in an attractive location for the market and would aid in attracting more highly qualified and higher earning residents to the region to help with the economy. • It is unfair to expect other communities to receive new housing and not Lanchester. Page 58 • The development would provide needed homes for families as well as affordable and lifetime homes. • The site is would be a more preferable location for development in Lanchester than the alternative of land at Cadger Bank. • Services in the village are considered to have declined and more development would help support these services. • Funding would effectively follow patient and the NHS/health authorities would have to react to demands so objection from residents in this regard is unfounded.

61. Pat Glass MP - Objects to the application. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Lanchester Plan and the emerging County Durham Plan. Development on greenfield land beyond the village is unacceptable. Concerns are expressed over flood risk, and it is understood that Northumbrian Water would not agree additional surface water entering their existing system. Concerns are expressed over traffic, the shortage of school places and the ability of utilities to cater for the development.

62. Councillor Johnson - Objects to the development considering that the proposal is contrary to the emerging County Durham Plan and the Lanchester Village Design Statement. He considers it to be inappropriate to consider the application whilst there is an intention to develop a Neighbourhood Plan.

63. The Campaign to Protect Rural England - Object to the application. It is considered that the applicant is applying differing levels of weight to the emerging County Durham Plan between this site which is not proposed to be allocated and their application for housing at Sedgefield which does form a proposed housing allocation. Objection to the development is raised on grounds of the need for the housing numbers at this location, that the development would result in the loss of greenfield land and land beyond a settlement boundary and that Lanchester is not considered a sustainable location for this form of development. The degree of weight the applicant is placing on the economic benefits of the development is disagreed with and objections are raised on the grounds of access/highways issues and flood risk.

64. The Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer - Raises concerns over the potential impact of the development upon parking within the village and flood risk. Concerns are raised over impact upon community cohesion due to the degree of public opposition towards the development. Advice on layout and pedestrian routes to lower the risk of crime is provided.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

65. Lanchester is located within a Local Service Centre with key services and facilities. This proposal presents a significant opportunity to deliver a high quality scheme which will meet housing needs in the County. It is pertinent to note that in the Inspector’s Interim Report on the emerging County Durham Plan, the Inspector considers that housing should be directed to settlements such as Lanchester, a Local Service Centre. The findings from a housing needs assessment carried out as part of this application confirmed; • If no additional housing is allocated to Lanchester this will result in population decline, the ageing of the population and significant reductions in working age people, resulting in a clear threat to the long term vitality and sustainability of Lanchester; • In order to secure a viable and sustainable future for Lanchester, and based on the amount of housing delivery proposed in other towns/villages throughout the Central Durham Delivery Area, the study identifies a need for 24 dwellings per annum within the sub-HMA (which includes Lanchester and Burnhope), equating to 332 dwellings over the Plan period for Lanchester. Page 59

66. The application proposes a sustainable residential development in Lanchester. This high quality design, landscape-led scheme creates a new strong settlement boundary to Lancheter and provides 20% affordable housing of a tenure mix specifically identified as being required in this area. Without affordable homes being cross subsidised by market homes no affordable provision will come forward in Lanchester. In addition, the proposals will complement the existing housing offer in Lanchester and widen the choice of high quality homes, a key message in the NPPF.

67. The policies contained within the Derwentside District Local Plan were only expected to run until 2006 therefore they are considered to be out-of-date for the purposes of determining this application.

68. We do not agree with the County’s opinion that they have a five year housing land supply. We therefore consider that policies in relation to housing supply, contained within the Derwentside District Local Plan to be out-of-date, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF.

69. The NPPF paragraph 14 prescribes that where the Development Plan is out-of-date, the presumption of sustainable development applies in decision-making, unless any adverse impacts significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

70. In this respect, it is understood that the authority are seeking to refuse the application as a result of landscape impact. However, it is demonstrated through the LVIA and Landscape Strategy that there is limited harm which is short term while mitigation measures take effect. This does not amount to significant or demonstrable harm.

71. In accordance with NPPF para 14, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies in this case and the application should be approved ‘without delay’.

72. Sustainable development is about positive growth making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. The submission demonstrates that the proposal strongly accords with the three dimensions of sustainable development, economic, social and environmental and it is clear in light of the evidence submitted that the scheme provides a significant amount of benefits meeting all three dimensions of sustainable development.

73. It is on this basis that the application should be considered acceptable by members.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at: http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

74. 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 planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development, landscape and visual impact, layout and design, impacts upon heritage assets, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology and matters of flood risk and drainage.

Page 60

Principle of Development

75. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out ‑of ‑date permission should be granted unless; any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

76. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable housing sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a persistent under delivery of housing this buffer should be increased to 20%.

77. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that development plan policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

78. Following the first stage of the Examination in Public (EiP) into the County Durham Plan (CDP) the Inspector concluded that an appropriate Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) figure for County Durham would be 1,435 dwelling per annum (dpa).

79. Taking this approach to the OAN, over the next 5 year period the housing requirement would be 7,175 units. As County Durham has not reached its housing target in any of the last four years it is considered that the 20% buffer should apply. This results in a 9,912 dwelling requirement over next 5 year period.

80. A Judicial Review challenge has been mounted by the Council to the Inspector’s interim report into the CDP but until the outcome of that challenge is known, it is considered that it has no material impact on these issues.

81. On the basis of the above housing requirement the Council has produced a statement to establish that there is sufficient land supply for the five year period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2020 across County Durham. This document updates the five-year supply information which was submitted to the EiP of the CDP in recognition that the housing completions data for 2014/15 are now known, and the supply position is constantly evolving in terms of new schemes receiving permission, and other permissions lapsing during the last financial year.

82. This statement demonstrates that the LPA has 5.80 years supply of deliverable sites as required by the NPPF, and confirms that there is sufficient potential capacity within the County to maintain a 5-year supply of deliverable sites. Therefore, having regards to paragraph 49 of the NPPF relevant policies for the supply of housing can be considered up to date. An assessment of the consistency of those relevant policies with the content of the NPPF must still be made in assessing the weight to be attributed to Local Plan Policies.

83. DLP Policy H07 provides a development limit to Lanchester, outside of which no new housing development is considered to be acceptable. The NPPF does not specifically advocate settlement boundaries nor prohibit all forms of housing beyond the established built up limits of a settlement. As a result DLP Policy H07 is Page 61 considered to be too restrictive with regards to its approach to any form of residential development in comparison to the guidance contained within the NPPF.

84. The fifth core planning principle within the NPPF references the need to take account of the different roles and character of different areas. DLP Policy H07 is more consistent with this principle which makes particular references the qualities of the setting of Lanchester including its historic centre and sloping landscape surrounds upon which this development would be sited.

85. Policy H07 is therefore considered only partially compliant with the NPPF.

86. The twelve core planning principles within the NPPF recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and encourage the re-use of previously developed land.

87. Policy EN1 sates that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it benefits the rural economy or helps to maintain or enhance landscape character. The justification to this policy states that as a general principle, most new development will be directed to sites within built up areas, or sites allocated for development, whilst the countryside should be protected from inappropriate development. This policy is considered NPPF compliant.

88. DLP Policy EN2 seeks to prevent urban sprawl and restrict development outside of existing built up areas where, amongst other criteria, the development would result in encroachment into the surrounding countryside. The justification to the policy states that areas of open land that provide a rural setting to development will also be preserved. With the NPPF identifying the need to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside this policy is considered NPPF compliant.

89. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside in conflict with DLP Policies EN1, EN2 and H07.

90. At this stage Policy 15 of the County Durham Plan (CDP) carries very limited weight. However, the Policy provides guidance on development on unallocated sites within the built up area. Development, including housing, can be compliant with CDP Policy 15 where it meets a number of criteria and where it is considered to be located within the “built up area”. The built up area is defined within the CDP and this definition includes reference to land on the edge of a settlement. The definition explains that land on the edge of a settlement can be considered to be part of the built up area where it is physically very well contained by existing built development and its development would not result in coalescence with neighbouring settlements or encroachment into the countryside such that it would cause significant adverse landscape or townscape impact.

91. The application site is not very well contained by existing built development and is considered to gain no support from CDP Policy 15 in this regard (whilst accepting that only limited weight could be attributed to any degree of compliance).

92. The County Durham Settlement Study (CDSS), an evidence based document in support of the CDP assesses the sustainability of settlements through considering the amenities that they possess including: health facilities; schools; shops; post offices; pubs; built sport and leisure facilities; community centres; employment (in terms of industrial estates); proximity to main town centres; and public transport services. The CDSS categorises Lanchester as a “local service centre” and therefore in the third tier of settlement sustainability and suitability for development.

Page 62 93. While all development within Lanchester should not be restricted to the extent that it would detrimentally affect its vitality, development permitted should be proportionate to the settlements role and function. The scale of development proposed within this development is considered too significant and out of kilter with the role and function of the settlement.

94. In this regard officer views align with some public objections to the development regarding the availability of services and facilities to cater for the development.

95. Some impacts could be mitigated. The School Organisation Manager advises that there are inadequate primary school places with 38 additional spaces necessary as a result of the proposed development. The applicant has confirmed their acceptance of providing a financial contribution under a S106 legal agreement to compensate for the development. Whilst no designs for a school extension have been devised it is considered that in principle existing school sites could expand.

96. In addition contact has been made with the NHS who stated that they have no specific health facility capacity issues within Lanchester.

97. The application is accompanied by an OAN for Lanchester and neighbouring settlement Burnhope. This report seeks to present a spatial portrait of current housing need, a consideration of a “do nothing” scenario and identify a level of new housing required to ensure a sustainable future for Lanchester.

98. Key elements of this OAN are the considered trend that Lanchester is subject to a decline of working age families and younger people and a growth of pensioners and retired people and that this would be extenuated without housing growth. That there is a demand for housing indicated by house prices and affordability ratios. That some housing growth would ensure the sustainability of the village through population increase and address the trend of fewer younger and working people.

99. The content and purpose of this specific OAN is contested by officers. The NPPF clarifies that OAN should be established at the level of the Housing Market Area (Paragraph 47 and 159). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirms that development needs should be established at the relevant market area. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMAA) (2013 Update) confirms that County Durham can be described as a self -contained Housing Market Area. On this basis, the CDP established an OAN of 31,400 dwellings over the Plan Period for County Durham as a Housing Market Area. The SHMA notes that within the County, none of the delivery areas can be described as self-contained housing market areas in terms of migration.

100. The specific OAN accompanying the application is considered to misinterpret the advice contained within the PPG with regards to assessments to identify the housing needs win a specific local area being undertaken, for example as part of the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan. The PPG at paragraph 006 (Reference ID: 2a-006-20140306) states that needs assessments may be relevant to town / parish councils and designated neighbourhood forums in connection with the preparation of a neighbourhood plan. In addition, PPG Paragraph: 017 (Reference ID: 2a-017- 20140306) states that local housing need surveys may be appropriate to assess the affordable housing requirements specific to the needs of people in rural areas. It is considered, that neither of these circumstances apply in this instance.

Page 63 101. In addition, paragraph 1.3 of the OAN accompanying the application states that the CDP identifies housing requirements for both the County as a whole, housing market areas and for specific settlements. This is not correct. The CDP does not identify OAN at housing market areas or for specific settlements.

102. The Inspector’s Interim views on the CDP suggest that an adjustment to the spatial distribution of development across the County proposed under CDP Policy 4 should be made and this includes a suggestion to redistribute some development allocation to Lanchester. Despite this it does not follow that this site or quantum of development at this site is appropriate.

103. Many representations received in opposition to the development raise points that relate to the principle of the development. Included within these are considered conflicts with the aspirations of the community demonstrated through the emerging County Durham Plan, the Parish Plan, Village Design Statement and Neighbourhood Plan.

104. The Lanchester Village Design Guide (LVDG) is supplementary planning guidance adopted by the then Derwentside District Council in May 2004. The LVDG provides advice on a wide range of matters including; the landscape of the village, its buildings, roads and drainage. Some guidance within supports the content of DLP Policies. Following Local Government reorganisation in County Durham the Consolidated Planning Policy Framework for County Durham set out what documents across the County formed the current adopted statutory development plan documents and those adopted planning documents which do not form part of the statutory development plan. The LVDG is one such adopted document that does not form part of the development plan. As a result whilst a material planning consideration it is considered that weight to be attributed to its content is limited.

105. The Lanchester Parish Plan (July 2005) provides guidance on a number of matters concerning the village ranging from those more directly related to planning such as the village streetscene and parking provision to those less relevant such as lifelong learning. It is considered that limited weight can be attributed to the content of the Lanchester Parish Plan in the decision making process.

106. The Lanchester Neighbourhood Plan is still at an emerging stage and as a result limited weight can be attributed to it.

107. Public opposition to the development includes opposition on the grounds that the development would affect the existing sense of community and would turn the settlement into a dormitory, commuter village. It is considered that there would be no clear and tangible harm to sense of community through the development that officers would attribute significant weight.

108. A number of benefits of the development at the site are presented by the applicant in support of the application including job creation, New Homes Bonus and Council Tax revenues. Public opposition includes that with regards to the considered economic benefits of the development suggested by the applicant.

109. Council Tax revenues are not material planning considerations and neither is the New Homes Bonus revenue unless it is known how the monies would be spent and that this is directly related to the development. None of these stated benefits are considered to be so significant or bespoke to the site and development as to outweigh the aforementioned objections to the principle of the development.

Page 64 110. With regard to the public objection regarding the loss of agricultural land NPPF paragraph 112 states that LPAs should take into account the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land and where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. Natural England classification maps for the North-East region show the entirety of the application site (approximately 8.7 ha) to be Grade 3 agricultural land. Grade 3a agricultural land is defined within the NPPF as best and most versatile agricultural land, Grade 3b land is not. Survey data is not available nor been undertaken to distinguish whether the land is Grade 3a best and most versatile land.

Conclusion on the Principle of Development

111. As a result the proposed development represents an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside beyond the development limit of Lanchester with subsequent loss of greenfield land. The scale of the development is considered out of proportion with the role and function of Lanchester.

112. The Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply therefore there is no need to give such a degree of weight to the contribution the development would provide to boosting the supply of housing that would outweigh the harm. The development is therefore considered contrary to DLP Policies EN1, EN2 and H07 and the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF.

Landscape and Visual Impact

113. Whilst the application site is located beyond the development limit of Lanchester and therefore within the countryside, the land has no specific landscape designations. Detailed NPPF commentary only relates to designated landscapes such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, the NPPF at core planning principle 5 recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and at Part 11 paragraph 109 aims to protect and enhance valued landscapes.

114. The application is accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) which seeks to demonstrate clearly what the landscape and visual impact of the development would be and how this impact could be mitigated. During the course of the application this has been supported further by an addendum report effectively seeking to provide a rebuttal and further information in response to concerns expressed by officers, consultees and the public with regards to landscape and visual impact.

115. Landscape Officers object to the application and particular reference is made to the detrimental impact of the development from Newbiggin Lane. Objection is also raised to the impact of the development in longer views from higher ground across the Browney Valley.

116. The submitted LVIA acknowledges the existing landscape conditions and specifically references the attractive country lane character of Newbiggin Lane as a gateway into the village. The assessment concludes that through compensatory measures in the form of a structural landscaping scheme, the residual effects would effectively be negligible.

117. Landscape officers consider that the impact of the development in views from Newbiggin Lane and at similar locations in the vicinity such as the Margery Flatts community allotments, the visual impacts of the development would be detrimental. The development would result in a significant westward urban extension to a site Page 65 with an attractive character on the urban - rural fringe. At present, in the vicinity of Ridgeway, the character of Newbiggin Lane changes from having an appearance of a built up settlement to that of a more rural character. The narrowing of the lane at this point and the presence of the boundary hedging adjacent contribute to this character. In addition to the proposed housing and the impact of this in views from Newbiggin Lane, the associated access, road widening, hedge, tree and wall removals would contribute further to the significant impact of the proposed development on the character of this part of Newbiggin Lane.

118. Newbiggin Lane is considered by officers to be a primary visual receptor in closer quarters of the site. However, Kitswell Road and the Lanchester Valley Railway Path would provide further close range public receptor points where the development would also have a significant visual impact.

119. Mitigation measures proposed within the proposal are acknowledged. Selected photomontages are supplied seeking to demonstrate the impact of the landscaping scheme including from the Lanchester Valley Railway Path and Newbiggin Lane. The submitted addendum note to the LVIA makes reference to the mix of species that could be planted to maximise depth of coverage and states that planting on the western and southern boundaries could be undertaken at an early juncture in the development so as to maximise the screening and filtering effects.

120. Whilst the compensatory landscaping works would help reduce the impact of the development in these closer range views it is considered that visual impacts would nonetheless be harmful.

121. At greater distances the development would be visible and would cause adverse impacts in views from the north and west as the land rises from the valley.

122. From the highest points on the crown of the spur to the north, the site becomes less visible and the impact would be reduced. This is due to a combination of distance, topography and screening features. Lanchester becomes predominantly hidden at these higher elevations. In this regard, officers agree with the content of the submitted LVIA that in views at these vantage points such Edge Lane and Tower Road the development proposals would not be harmful.

123. However, it is considered that from slightly lower viewpoints across the valley harmful visual impacts would occur. Officers consider that the impact of the development in views on the public footpath at Black Wood (Footpath no. 2 Lanchester Parish) are under emphasised within the LVIA. At several vantage points on this public footpath the expanse of the site can be viewed. The provision of 149 no. dwellings would appear as a significant extension to the settlement and one that would not relate well to the existing form of the settlement.

124. In views from Footpath No. 8 (Lanchester Parish) at Greencroft Park, it is also considered the development would be prominent and harmful. The width of the development site in this view and extent to which the settlement would be extended westwards is particularly noticeable and in this regard again would appear as a significant extension to the settlement into the countryside.

125. The LVIA assesses the view at the top of Gorecock Lane close to the junction with Tower Road. Officers consider that the specific viewpoint and photograph in the LVIA represents a less clear view of the site than is available with an adjustment in position. The application site can be viewed more prominently from the top of Gorecock Lane than presented within the LVIA and this presents another view from a north-westerly direction where the extension of the settlement into the countryside Page 66 would be demonstrable. Further views are available towards the site when travelling down Gorecock Lane and indeed neighbouring Lunds Lane.

126. Views of the application site and impacts of the development would also be apparent from the main A691 road. When travelling on the A691 the site and development would appear more prominent and less of a “ thin band” as referred to in the LVIA. There are views towards the site along the A691 within close proximity to Newhouses Farm and at farther distances close to the junctions of the A691 and Stockerley Lane and the A691 and Gorecock Lane where it is considered the development would appear more prominent than represented within the LVIA and as an adverse encroachment of the settlement into the countryside.

127. The significant removal of trees within the application site would contribute to the detrimental impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the area and landscape. These trees are not only visible at the closest receptor points such as Newbiggin Lane but in some of the longer distance views from the north and west outlined above. Removal of the trees within the site suffering from Ash Heart Rot is required as a result of the development proposal and the proximity of buildings and prospective occupiers that would result. In their current pastoral context there is no such urgency to remove trees that would enjoy a long and safe useful life expectancy into senescence. DLP Policy EN11 seeks to preserve trees within developments where possible.

128. It is therefore considered that the proposals would lead to a significant adverse landscape and visual impact causing harm to the intrinsic character and appearance of the countryside as a result of the prominent urban extension proposed on an elevated site with an attractive, rural character. The Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply therefore there is no need to give such a degree of weight to the contribution the development would provide to boost the supply of housing that would outweigh this harm. The development is therefore considered contrary to DLP Policies GD1, EN1, EN2 and HO7 and contrary to advice contained within the twelve core planning principles and Part 11 of the NPPF.

129. Much public objection to the development references such landscape and visual harm. A specific objection is raised to with regards to light pollution. The development would necessitate County Council adoption of highways and so street lighting columns would be required. Whilst officers would not raise a fundamental objection to the development on such grounds it would in part contribute to the identified landscape and visual impacts.

Layout and Design

130. Part 7 of the NPPF advocates good design and states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

131. Amongst other criteria, paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to ensure developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area and establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit.

132. This advocacy of good design principles is reflected in DLP Policy GDP1 and this policy is considered NPPF compliant in this regard.

133. The proposed development incorporates 13 housetypes ranging from two to five bed properties. The housetypes proposed are considered to be satisfactorily designed Page 67 with an acceptable design vernacular across the range. The properties are appropriately laid out within the development with the majority of properties addressing the internal roads.

134. The application is accompanied by a plan detailing the elevational treatment of the dwellings, including a mixture of brick, stone and render. On the submitted plan, brick is the dominant material, followed by render and then stone. Such materials are appropriate to the character and appearance of Lanchester. However, officers consider that the proportions of the materials proposed should be revised with an increase in the usage of stone to reflect the commonality of this material within the village. This matter has been raised with the applicant and it is considered that it could ultimately be resolved under condition in the event of an approval.

135. A feature of the development are the areas of public open space that cross the site on an east-west axis and properties are arrange to face these areas of open space and landscaping. This would provide attractive streetscenes and encourage surveillance of public spaces.

136. An area dedicated for landscaping and to provide a recreational route is proposed adjacent to Ridgeway and this would provide an attractive boundary with the existing development. Areas of landscaping are located immediately adjacent to the site entrance off Newbiggin Lane and this would provide an attractive entrance to the residential development.

137. Design and Conservation Officers, whilst objecting to the application (discussed in the section on heritage assets below) have raised no objections to the layout and design of the residential development itself.

138. The recreational route adjacent to Ridgeway and pockets of landscaping and open space within the layout are considered to provide adequate areas of amenity open space within the development. A landscape masterplan for the site indicatively proposes areas of natural play and an artistic entrance feature. Final landscaping details would have to be agreed via condition. The Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) shows that the Lanchester has an undersupply of allotments and parks and gardens. In the event of an approval a financial contribution under a S106 legal agreement could be made to address the areas of need. The applicant has stated their willingness to provide a financial contribution in this regard.

139. Public concerns are expressed with regards to the future maintenance of all proposed planting within the development. It is understood that the applicant proposes the management of the parkland by a private management company. Alternatively the Council has procedures in place to adopt land should the developer wish to apply for adoption.

140. Officers raise no objections to the layout and design of the proposed residential development itself which is considered to be compliant with DLP Policies GDP1 and H022 and Part 7 of the NPPF.

Impact upon Heritage Assets

141. Lanchester Conservation Area covers a considerable proportion of the village. The application site is outwith of the Conservation Area with the nearest sections to the east of Alderside Crescent approximately 210m from the application site. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has a statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of a conservation area. Consideration must be Page 68 had therefore to the potential impact that the development has upon the setting of the Conservation Area.

142. Whilst there is currently no Conservation Area Appraisal for Lanchester, Appendix G of the DLP provides some description and assessment referencing the historic core of the village being in the valley bottom with steep hillsides rising to the east and west. The justification to DLP Policy H07 highlights the need to protect and maintain the attractive setting of the village, in particular the slopes to the north east and south west.

143. Design and Conservation officers have objected to the application referencing the loss of a large area of open countryside from key views in and out of the Conservation Area and replacing this with extensive built form which would be particularly dominant within the landscape thereby harming the setting of the Conservation Area.

144. English Heritage, in some conflict with Design and Conservation officers, raise no objections to the development on the grounds of impact upon the Conservation Area.

145. Officers consider that harmful impacts upon setting of the Conservation Area would not occur and the character, appearance and setting of the Conservation Area would be preserved as a result.

146. The application is accompanied by a desk–based archaeological report, geophysical survey and trial trenching evaluation, a level of submission necessitated by the archaeological potential of the site having regards to the proximity to Lanchester Roman Fort (a scheduled monument) and Dere Street Roman Road. The results of the submission demonstrate that there is a very low probability of unrecorded archaeological assets beneath the site. Archaeology officers therefore raise no objections to the proposed development with no need for any further archaeological mitigation or imposition of planning conditions should permission be granted.

147. Design and Conservation officers make reference to the potential for the development being captured in the same views as the Roman Fort. This would include a view immediately adjacent to the Roman Fort at Cadger Bank. Archaeology officers raise no objections with regards to a potential harmful impact upon the setting of the Roman Fort.

148. Although the Roman Fort and the development could be captured within the same view it is considered that this would not result in a harmful impact upon the setting of the scheduled monument.

149. Listed buildings are located within the Lanchester Conservation Area and on eastern slopes overlooking the village. Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty under section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. The submitted Heritage Statement states that the proposed development would have no impact upon the special character and setting of those listed buildings. No specific concerns are raised in regards to the impact of the development upon listed buildings by Design and Conservation Officers. English Heritage, in regards to those listed buildings to which they would have a remit to comment, raise no points of concern or objection. Officers concur with these views and raise no objections to the development with regards to impacts upon listed buildings and their settings.

Page 69 150. The application site lies within relatively close proximity to two locally registered historic parklands. Greencroft Park lies approximately 620m to the north of the site and Greenwell Ford approximately 1100m to the south east. Concerns in relation to the impact of this development upon these sites have not been raised by Design and Conservation or Landscape officers. As the parklands are locally registered it is not within the remit of English Heritage to consider impact. Officers consider that at the distances involved no harm would occur upon the character of the locally designated historic parklands.

151. As a result officers raise no objections to the proposed development on the grounds of impacts upon heritage assets considering the development compliant with DLP Policies GDP1 and EN19 and Part 12 of the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

152. DLP Policy GDP1 requires development proposals to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and land users and to be designed so that they deter crime and increase personal safety. DLP Policy EN25 seeks to prevent sensitive developments on sites affected by unacceptable levels of pollution from adjoining land whilst Policy EN26 seeks ensure that development is only permitted which is not likely to have adverse polluting impacts.

153. These Policies are considered NPPF compliant. The core planning principle at paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Part 8 of the NPPF, amongst other guidance, advises on the need to create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of such are considered. Part 11 of the NPPF seeks to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of pollution.

154. Some objectors are concerned about the proximity of the proposed housing to existing housing, whilst concerns are also expressed over the proximity and impact of proposed pedestrian/cycle routes.

155. There are no residential properties located to the immediate west of the application site. To the south of Newbiggin Lane properties at Shepherds Barns and Margery Flatts Farm are located approximately 100m away and at such a distance it is not considered that the development would result in any detrimental impact through a loss of privacy, light or outlook. To the north of the application site beyond the Lanchester Valley Railway Path residential properties are located on Sunnybanks, Ashdown Grove, Kitswell Road and Elmfield. At the closest point the nearest properties would be located approximately 72m from dwellings within the application site. Intervening landscaping would also obscure some views between existing and proposed houses.

156. To the immediate east and south–east of the application site properties on Ridgeway, Ashleigh Grove, Thornlea Grove, Alderside Grove, Newbiggin Lane and Foxhills Crescent are situated. Distances between the proposed dwellings and those within the aforementioned streets would vary along this eastern and southern boundary coming to within approximately 39m from Ridgeway and 85m at Foxhills Crescent. The land within the application site slopes down towards these properties. Nevertheless, officers consider that adequate separation between the properties would be maintained to ensure adequate privacy and amenity for occupiers. The plans propose buffer landscaping on the eastern and southern boundaries which would further mitigate impact. Page 70

157. With regards to the public concerns expressed over the siting of the multi–user route, particularly where it is adjacent to Ridgeway, officers noted that at present a footpath is already sited immediately adjacent to Ridgeway so such a route and passing of at least pedestrian traffic is not an unfamiliar scenario at present. Whilst the degree of activity would increase, taking into account the distances involved and landscaping that would help mitigate impact, officers would not raise a specific objection to the impact of the proposed pedestrian and cycle routes on the periphery of the site.

158. With regards to the relationships of properties within the application site it is considered that adequate privacy and amenity would be provided for the prospective occupiers. DLP contains no “saved” policies or supplementary guidance recommending particular separation distances within a housing layout. In many instances the distances between main facing elevations are around or in excess of 21m. Distances between main elevations and a flanking gable in many instances are approximately 13m. Such distances are commonly cited as appropriate guidelines to provide adequate privacy and amenity. There are some instances where separation is more restricted this includes a distance between main facing elevations of 17.5m between plots 7 and 8 and the rear elevation of the plot 68 dwelling comes to within 10m of the two storey gable elevation of the plot 69 dwelling.

159. Within the range of housetypes submitted differing versions of the arrangement of windows for each housetype are included. This includes optional gable windows for the following housetypes . The Arundel housetype has an option where no windows are proposed to habitable rooms within the rear elevation. The submitted layout does not clearly identify which window arrangement applies to which plot. Within a minority of plots it would be inappropriate to utilise a particular window placement option as it would lead to habitable room windows facing at too short a distance. However, a condition could be utilised on any approval to define which window arrangement option applies to the affected plots. This would ensure that each property is provided with adequate privacy.

160. It is acknowledged that the application site does slope from west down to the east and from south down to the north. Final finished floor levels of the proposed dwellings do not accompany the application. In the event of an approval a condition could be attached to agree these levels. However, overall across the 149 no. dwellings proposed relationships between properties are considered satisfactory and would provide adequate privacy and amenity for prospective occupiers. Furthermore to a degree, future occupiers of the development can judge for themselves whether the space around dwellings is acceptable to them.

161. Existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the site are other residential properties predominantly to the east and south with Newbiggin Lane and the associated vehicular traffic to the south. The Lanchester Valley Railway Path is located to the north of the site and is a popular recreational route. A small allotment site is located on the opposite side of Newbiggin Lane. Land to the west is utilised as working farmland.

162. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection have not raised concerns with regard to any existing noise emissions within the area that could impact upon the proposed dwellings that would require any specific mitigation measures with standard double glazing and ventilation to building regulation standards being adequate. No concerns with regards to odour emissions are raised. Due to the extent of landscaping proposed within the development Environment, Health and Consumer

Page 71 Protection Officers also raise no concerns with regards to the potential for light pollution emanating from the development.

163. Potentially, disturbance from the construction phase could occur and Environment, Health and Consumer Protection recommend the imposition of planning conditions to ensure the suppression of dust, control of burning of materials onsite and controlling of working hours should planning permission be granted.

164. The advice from Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers is provided with regards to the potential for a statutory nuisance to result as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Officers agree with the views of Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers and consider that the views apply to the assessment of residential amenity.

165. Public concerns are raised with regards to the potential increase in carbon emissions. Taking into account vehicular movements as a result of the development, Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers consider that an assessment on the potential impacts of the development upon air quality should be submitted and this should relate to both the operational and construction phases.

166. The NPPF at paragraph 124 advises that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

167. The PPG provides more detailed guidance on air quality including in relation to how air quality as a material planning consideration can be considered in the development management process.

168. The scale of the development is such that the operational and construction phases have the potential to impact upon air quality. However, the application site is not located within or in close proximity to an established Air Quality Management Area. The locality is not identified as an area of poor air quality. As a result despite the absence of a specific assessment with regards to air quality officers consider that the impacts of the development upon air quality are unlikely to be so detrimental as to warrant refusal of the application.

169. The development of the site for housing generally is unlikely to diminish levels of residential amenity that those living nearby can reasonably expect to enjoy in their homes and gardens as required by DLP Policy GDP1.

170. Other matters of concern raised by members of the public relate to potential increases in crime, anti–social behaviour and breakdown in community cohesion. Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer has raised concerns regarding the degree of public opposition and potential impacts of the development upon community cohesion. Whilst matters of crime, anti–social behaviour and indeed fear of this occurring can be considered material planning considerations officers consider that there is no evidence that impacts of the development in this regard would be demonstrably harmful and therefore only limited weight to these concerns are given and no specific objection raised by officers. Public objections reference the concerns of Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer with regards to the provision of pedestrian routes that would encourage crime and anti-social behaviour. However, although the Durham Constabulary Architectural Officer provides general advise on layout and footpath matters no specific objection is raised Page 72 to the development in this regard and indeed the Officer states within the response that that houses set out in small cul-de-sacs, not connected by footpaths suffer less crime and that the layout for this site tends to follow those principles.

171. Public objections reference a loss of a view due to the development. However, weight should not be attached to the impact of the loss of a private view.

172. Officers raise no objections to the development on the grounds of any adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or land users. The development is considered to result in no unacceptable pollution. The prospective occupiers of the site would be provided with adequate amenity and privacy. The development is considered compliant with DLP Policies GDP1, EN25 and EN26 and Parts 8 and 11 of the NPPF.

Highway Safety

173. Concerns over highway safety, sustainable transport, parking provision and the traffic implications of the development are amongst the most significant concerns of the many public respondents.

174. The application is accompanied by a transport assessment (TA) which seeks to inform on and assess the key highway impacts of the development. During the course of the application and following initial objections raised by the Highway Authority additional information has been submitted in support of the application. These documents are technical note addendums to the submitted TA providing additional information in regards to; future years assessment; queuing at the Station Road/A691 junction; modelling of the Station Road/A691 junction and; Station Road/A691 junction improvement and; site access arrangements supported by a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.

175. Vehicular access to the application site would be by way of a simple T–junction arrangement with vehicles within the development required to “give way” to those on Newbiggin Lane. The Highway Authority originally considered that this represented poor junction design with the heavier flows of the development site having to give way to the more lightly trafficked Newbiggin Lane.

176. Despite these original concerns the submitted technical notes and road safety audit documents have demonstrated that the proposed T junction access for the site would be safe and it is considered an acceptable access solution for the site.

177. The Highway Authority states that the number of vehicles entering and leaving the village via the rural part of Newbiggin Lane is relatively low. Newbiggin Lane is capable of taking the additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposal. In addition to the T-junction access the development would involve the widening of a section of Newbiggin Lane to 5.5m from a location adjacent to no. 2 Ridgeway to a location approximately 75m west of the proposed access at which point the road would return to its original width. The Highway Authority raise no objections to these works.

178. The Highway Authority originally raised concerns with the modelling of the A691/Station Road junction within the submitted transport assessment. The TA models this junction as two separate junctions when it should be modelled as one. Contrary to the content of the TA currently, without the proposed development in place, there are already peak hour queues at the junction.

Page 73 179. The submitted technical note addendums to the TA present the results of manual classified counts and queue length surveys of the junction. In addition the junction modelling has been revised with future years assessment to 2024 undertaken.

180. Offsite highway works to improve the Station Road/A691 junction would be necessary, however, and would involve; the relocation of an existing traffic island to provide wider eastbound traffic lane; revised lane markings to encourage right turning traffic to queue to the right hand side of the lane; additional queuing space for undertaking the right turn; and, revised hatch markings to provide additional space for westbound vehicles. Minor widening on the south side of Station Road to accommodate larger vehicles travelling westbound and provision of a minimum footway width of 2m to be retained on the south side of Station Road is also proposed.

181. The Highway Authority has accepted the results of the revised documentation and their concerns in respect of site access and traffic implications have been overcome.

182. The Highway Authority raises no objections to the implications of the development upon the highway network elsewhere within the village nor to impacts upon parking in the centre of the village. Specific concerns are not raised with regards to the impacts of construction traffic travelling to the site. The NPPF advises at paragraph 32 that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. It is considered that the residual impacts of the development upon the road network and parking provision within the village would not be severe.

183. The application is accompanied by a travel plan which has been amended during the course of the application and this includes an assessment of the sites sustainable transport credentials.

184. Public objections refer specifically to matters of sustainable transport with the site considered to be located in an unsustainable location with distances to bus services too great. Some responses consider that the hail and ride bus service referred to within the application documents does not exist or that it is too infrequent and of a nature that cannot be considered a bus service as such.

185. It is considered that limited weight should be attributed to any voluntary hail and ride bus services that serve existing residential estates off Newbiggin Lane. The application site does suffer to an extent in accessibility terms to bus services and the village centre more widely due to the steep topography of the area with the application site located on a significant climb out of the village. This would make walking or cycling to and from the village centre more difficult, particularly for the elderly for example.

186. Accessibility guidelines advise that 400m is an appropriate distance to travel to a bus stop. The centre of the application site is located approximately 550m from the nearest bus stop. Such a distance even taking into account the local topography is considered acceptable.

187. The proposed layout contains a recreational route and proposes links to the Lanchester Valley Railway Path a popular cycle and pedestrian route. Recorded public rights of way would not be directly affected by the development

188. The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the development on the grounds of the access of the site to sustainable transport modes.

Page 74 189. Officers conclude that no objections to the development on the grounds of highway safety or matters of sustainable transport are raised be raised within the development considered compliant with DLP Policies TR2, TR3 and RE4 and Part 4 of the NPPF.

Ecology

190. The application is accompanied by an Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey report, which has been updated during the course of the application.

191. This report states that the likelihood of the site to support badgers, brown hare are low. There is limited potential for the site to support breeding birds. The southern boundary hedgerow may support the hedgehog though no evidence of their presence was found.

192. Two trees within the application site are identified as containing two bat roosts with further trees identified as having the potential to support bats. Removal of these trees is proposed as part of the development proposals as a result the loss of bat roosts would result.

193. The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) and Part 11 of the NPPF. In addition with regards to European Protected Species (EPS) under the requirements of The Habitats Regulations it is a criminal offence to (amongst other things) deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb a protected species, unless such works are carried out with the benefit of a licence from Natural England. Regulation 9(3) of The Habitat Regulations requires local planning authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising its functions. Case law has established that local planning authorities must consider whether the applicant might obtain a protected species license from Natural England. This requires an examination of the derogation provisions.

194. The development would require an EPS license from Natural England and consequently an assessment against the derogation tests is required.

195. The Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that; i) the development must meet a purpose of preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment ii) there must be no satisfactory alternative; and iii) favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.

196. Having regards to discussion elsewhere in this report outlining significant concerns relating to issues of principle of the development visual and landscape impact, it is considered that there are no reasons of overriding public interest, nor matters that would be necessary to preserve public health or safety.

197. With regards to the second test the “do nothing” approach must be considered and it would be a satisfactory alternative for the development to not occur at this site which would preserve the roosts in situ.

198. The submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey report proposes mitigation measures to compensate for the impacts of the development upon ecological assets including bats. These mitigation measures would include but not be restricted to; formation of a new habitat corridor; native species planting; erection of bat boxes and Page 75 artificial bat roosts within dwellings; works that could disturb habitats supporting breeding birds to occur outwith of the bird breeding survey (unless checking surveys are first undertaken.

199. Ecology Officers consider that the submitted Extended Phase 1 Survey report is acceptable including the proposed mitigation measures including with regards to bats. The submitted landscaping proposals do not show all the proposed mitigation measures and biodiversity enhancements, however and this should be resolved via condition on any approval.

200. With regards to the third derogation test it is considered that the favourable conservation status of the species would be maintained.

201. It is therefore considered that there is conflict with two of the three derogation tests. However, the bat roosts identified relate to Common Pipistrelle bats, the most frequently occurring of the bat species. Furthermore the roosts identified are not breeding roosts. As a result despite the degree of conflict with the derogation tests the specifics of the bats roosts to be affected are such that it is still considered likely that Natural England would grant an EPS.

202. There are no European Protected Special Areas (SPAs) of Protection or Special Areas of Conservation (SPCs) within 10km of the application site. Greencroft and Langley Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 2.6km to the north of the application site. Hurbuck Triangle Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is located approximately 750m west of the site.

203. Ecology Officers have raised no objections or concerns with regards to the potential impacts of the development upon these statutory and locally designated sites.

204. As a result officers raise no objections to the development on the grounds of impacts upon ecological assets and the development is considered compliant with DLP Policy GDP1 and Part 11 of the NPPF.

Flood Risk and Drainage

205. Concerns over the potential for flooding and drainage issues are amongst the most significant concerns raised within representations received on the application.

206. The application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA). The application site is located within flood zone 1 and is therefore located on land least likely to suffer from tidal or fluvial flooding.

207. The FRA makes reference to flooding events in Lanchester. Sewer flooding record maps and surface water flood risk maps are provided with the application. These identify sewer flooding in extreme events within the vicinity of the site at Newbiggin Lane and Margery Flatts and medium to high risk surface water flood risk on Newbiggin Lane, the Lanchester Valley Railway Path and the Mount Park Drive estate.

208. The FRA identifies a potential risk of overland flooding with a history of flood water being conveyed down Newbiggin Lane. In order to mitigate against this potential impact the FRA and accompanying drainage strategy and overland flood plan proposes the addition of four additional road gullies to the existing highway that would intercept flows and direct waters to an attenuation pond in the north of the application site.

Page 76 209. A ditch runs adjacent to the site on the northern boundary. At present surface water run-off can flow towards the ditch without restriction. In order to prevent the unrestricted discharge to the embankment and ditch, it is proposed that the attenuation pond and cut off swale is constructed along the northern boundary.

210. With regards to the ditch to the east adjacent to properties on Ridgeway a landscape buffer is proposed to capture run-off waters and reduce discharge into this ditch.

211. The FRA considers that the risk of groundwater flooding is low.

212. Durham County Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority and the SUDS Approval Body (SAB). Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers have been consulted on the application and objections are not raised to the development in principle and the restriction of surface water discharge from the site is welcomed. Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers advise that full details on the design, construction and maintenance regime for such a system would be required.

213. Developments should follow an established hierarchy of preference regarding surface water disposal and this requires that surface water is disposed of in the following order of preference; i) via infiltration or a soak away system ii) to a watercourse iii) to the sewer.

214. The preferred drainage solution for surface water proposed within the FRA is discharge via the ditch running along the northern boundary of the site. To control the flow water to this ditch an attenuation pond is proposed. Features such as rainwater butts and discharge from some hardstandings within the site to landscaped areas are also considered as potential solutions. The FRA states that the attenuation pond would be maintained by a management company.

215. However, in the absence of permeability tests to demonstrate the unsuitability of the sequentially preferable use of infiltration or soak away techniques, officers cannot at this stage fully accept the preferred preliminary surface water disposal proposals. Despite this officers consider that a final solution to surface water disposal could be agreed under a condition

216. Disposal of foul drainage is proposed to the public sewer. Northumbrian Water has raised no objections to this.

217. The development would result in the creation of approximately 3ha of hard-surfaced residential development. However, at the moment the surface water run-off from the field is essentially uncontrolled. A fully engineered surface water drainage solution for the site would permit for control and attenuation measures.

218. Officers consider that a suitable final solution could be devised under a condition to ensure a final engineered solution involving appropriate SUDS and/or blue and green infrastructure techniques. Objections have not been raised from the key consultees of Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers, Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water.

219. Public responses to the application reference concerns regarding health and safety risks posed by the SUDS water attenuation features and further concerns over their maintenance and management. The final engineered drainage solution for the development is not complete and in the event of any approval conditions/planning obligations would be required to finalise the proposals and their management/maintenance. CIRIA have published guidance with regards to SUDS features and this includes with regards to health and safety. CIRIA are an Page 77 independent construction and industry research and information association who work collaboratively across the construction industry to identify best practice. Such guidance presents principles so as to ensure that SUDS features are designed with health and safety in mind but also advices that there is a need for a balancing exercise between the risk and benefits of SUDS features. Blue and green infrastructure (water and landscape features) as a means to manage the drainage of sites through mimicking natural drainage features are likely to become more and more commonplace with a reduction in the less sustainable use of pipes and the like (grey infrastructure). Officers raise no objection to the incorporation of SUDS features in principle due to health and safety concerns.

220. The Countryside Team have raised concerns with the ability of the drainage ditch adjacent to the northern boundary of the site and the Lanchester Valley Railway Path to cater for the water discharges proposed and a financial contribution towards future maintenance is requested as a result. However, having regard to measures that can be incorporated into the development outlined above it is considered that discharge into the ditch can be undertaken in a controlled manner without harm to the ditch or creation of a maintenance liability as a result.

221. Despite the significant public concerns regarding matters surrounding flood risk, drainage capacity and related land stability issues officers consider that a solution to provide adequate and controlled drainage of the site can be devised and as a result objections to the development are not raised as a result. The development is considered acceptable and compliant with DLP Policy GDP1 and Part 10 of the NPPF in this regard.

Other Issues

222. The application is accompanied by a preliminary investigation into site contamination. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers state that there is no contamination potential and no need for a contaminated land condition on any approval.

223. Public objection is raised to the absence of an appropriate mix of housing including affordable housing and housing for the elderly. The application proposes 20% affordable housing provision which accords with the requirements of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for the housing delivery area.

224. Those making representations on the application have raised concerns regarding the impact of the development upon the stress and health of local residents. Health can be a material planning consideration and weight should be attributed dependent upon the specifics of each case. In this instance specific health concerns have not been raised. Whilst officers can appreciate how the development will be of concern to local residents and both the outcome of the planning application and indeed construction process could be stressful for residents it is considered that only limited weight can be attributed to these general concerns.

225. Objections are raised to the accuracy of some documents accompanying application. Whilst some inaccuracies in the submission have been identified, for instance reference to local facilities that are no longer used as such, on the whole the application submission is considered adequate and accurate enough so that an informed decision on the application can be made.

226. Concerns are expressed as to whether any financial contributions offered by the development would be spent on local facilities and whether the monies would be enough in the longer term. Any financial contributions sought via a S106 legal Page 78 agreement would be directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. Appropriate geographical restrictions can be placed upon the use of the monies within the legal agreement.

227. Public concerns are raised over the potential devaluing of property and harmful impact upon the ability of residents to sell their homes as a result of the development. However, such matters are not material planning considerations to be attributed weight.

CONCLUSION

228. The proposed development represents an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside beyond the development limit of Lanchester with subsequent loss of greenfield land. The scale of the development is considered out of proportion with the role and function of Lanchester.

229. It is therefore considered that the proposals would lead to a significant adverse landscape and visual impact causing harm to the intrinsic character and appearance of the countryside as a result of the prominent urban extension proposed on an elevated site with an attractive, rural character.

230. The Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply therefore there is no need to give such a degree of weight to the contribution the development would provide to boost the supply of housing that would outweigh this harm.

231. With regards to other key material planning considerations namely layout and design, impacts upon heritage assets, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology and matters of flood risk and drainage.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason;

1. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development is of a scale and form that would be out of proportion with the function and role of the settlement. The development would result in an unacceptable incursion into open countryside on greenfield land with resultant significant landscape and visual harm. The development is therefore considered contrary to Policies GDP1, EN1, EN2 and H07 of the Derwentside District Local Plan and advice contained within the “Twelve Core Planning Principles” of the NPPF at paragraph 17 and paragraphs 109 and 111 at Part 11 of the NPPF.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to refuse the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

Page 79 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 - Derwentside District Local Plan (1997) - The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) - Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Page 80

Residential development of 149 no. dwellings with associated access and landscaping at Land West of Mount Park Drive & North of Planning Services Newbiggin Lane, Lanchester, Durham (DM/14/00763/FPA) This map is based upon Ordnance Comments Survey material with the permission Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Date 2 June 2015 Scale 1:5000 copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005

Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 82 Agenda Item 5c Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/14/0 2017/FPA

Residential development of 134 no. dwellings (C3 use FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : class) with associated access and landscaping works

NAME OF APPLICANT : Bellway Homes Ltd

Land To The East Of A19 And South Of Dalton Heights ADDRESS : Seaham

ELECTORAL DIVISION : Murton

Henry Jones, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 263960 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site lies to the immediate south of Dalton Heights, a residential estate at the south-western edge of Seaham. The A19 road and adjacent landscaping borders the site to the west with the B1285 to the east. On the opposite side of the B1285 the site lies parallel to West Farm at its northern edge and the Overdene Estate within Dalton-le-Dale at its southern edge.

2. The application site itself comprises of 9.5ha of greenfield, agricultural land. A mixture of hedgerows and fencing form the boundaries to the site. The site contains no buildings or structures aside from a World War II pillbox which is situated within the southern half of the site.

3. No statutory or locally designated landscape or ecological sites are located within or immediately adjacent to the application site. No recorded public rights of way are contained within the application site. The application site contains no watercourses, though the Dawdon Dene within approximately 120m of the southern boundary of the site.

The Proposal

4. The application seeks a residential development of 134 dwellings. Proposed are 8 two bed properties, 76 three bed properties and 50 four bed properties with a total of 18 housetypes. The vast majority of dwellings would be two storey with 3 properties (the Oak housetype) being two and a half storey with accommodation in the roofspace. Five Aidan house type properties are proposed which are split level properties, appearing as a bungalow from the front but as a two storey dwelling to

Page 83 the rear with accommodation across two storeys. A range of garaging buildings and one electricity substation building are also proposed. Final details of external materials are not included within the application though illustrative detail within the submitted design and access statement suggest a mixture of brick and render elevations with tiled roofs.

5. The proposal seeks to divide the application site into two with the dwellings and associated roads and garaging located on the northern half with the southern half predominantly reserved for landscaped parkland. Amendments to the layout of the dwellings and housing mix have occurred during the course of the application. The most up to date masterplan layout does not show the full extent of the landscaped parkland. However, the accompanying landscape plans and design and access statement are clear in proposing this parkland which would include a pedestrian/cycle route. Whilst drainage solutions for the site are not in a finalised engineered form the submitted plans and accompanying documentation also propose sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) infrastructure within this southern half of the site including water attenuation areas.

6. Vehicular access for the development would be taken from the B1285 to the east at a point approximately 95m from the boundary of the site with Dalton Heights. This is the only vehicular access to the site proposed. A further pedestrian link is proposed through to the residential properties to the north adjacent to no. 11 Dalton Heights.

7. This planning application is being reported to County Planning Committee because it is a residential development with a site area in excess of 4 hectares.

PLANNING HISTORY

8. In July 1997 Easington District Council refused a planning application for the development of 80 dwellings and associated works on the application site.

9. The applicant appealed this decision and a public inquiry was held. The planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal in May 1998. In her decision the Inspector considered that the three main issues for consideration were; the impact upon the character and appearance of the locality; housing supply; and highway safety.

10. On the first issue the Inspector considered that the development would represent a significant intrusion into the open countryside which forms a fine setting for the southern part of Seaham. The proposal would erode separation of the urban area from the village of Dalton-le-Dale.

11. On the second issue the Inspector considered that the proposal would be likely to have a materially harmful effect upon the housing supply of Seaham, in conflict with planning policy guidance. With regards to the third issue the Inspector considered that the proposal would not be likely to have a materially harmful effect upon highway safety.

12. The applicant had also submitted the application site as a housing allocation for inclusion in the emerging Easington Local Plan. This was also dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in 1998.

Page 84 PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

13. 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’.

14. 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.

15. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy . The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.

16. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

17. 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.

18. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

19. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities and planning policies and decisions should achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments. This includes the development and modernisation of facilities and services.

Page 85 20. 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.

21. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

22. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment . Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

23. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this application is the practice guidance with regards to; air quality; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; design; flood risk; land stability; light pollution; natural environment; noise; open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space; planning obligations; travel plans, transport assessments and statements; use of planning conditions and; water supply, wastewater and water quality.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

The District of Easington Local Plan (December 2001) (ELP)

24. Policy 1 – General Principles of Development . Due regard will be had to the development plan when determining planning applications. Account will be taken as to whether the proposed development accords with sustainable development principles while benefiting the community and local economy.

25. Policy 3 – Protection of the Countryside. Development outside the “settlement limits” will be regarded as development within the countryside. Other than specifically allowed for by other policies, development in the countryside will not be approved.

26. Policy 14 – Protection of Special Areas of Conservation. Development that is likely to adversely affect a Special Area of Conservation will not be permitted unless certain exceptional criteria are met.

27. Policy 15 – Protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves. Development which is likely to adversely affect these designated sites will only be approved where there is no alternative solution and the development is in the national interest.

Page 86

28. Policy 18 – Species and Habitat Protection. Development which adversely affects a protected species or its habitat will only be approved where the reasons for development outweigh the value of the species or its habitat.

29. Policy 24 – Protection of Listed Buildings. Development which affect the character, appearance, special architectural features or setting of a listed building should not be approved.

30. Policy 35 – Design and Layout of Development. The design and layout of development should consider energy conservation and efficient use of energy, reflect the scale and character of adjacent buildings, provide adequate open space and have no serious adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents or occupiers.

31. Policy 36 – Design for Access and the Means of Travel. The design and layout of development should ensure good access and encourage alternative means of travel to the private car.

32. Policy 37 – Design for Parking. The design and layout of parking should seek to minimise the level of parking provision.

33. Policy 38 – Designing out Crime. The design and layout of development will be required to have due regard to personal safety and the secuirty of property, particulary in the hours of darkness.

34. Policy 66 – Provision of Outdoor Play Space. This policy requires developers to provide adequate provision for children’s play space and outdoor recreation space in new major housing developments.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

The County Durham Plan

35. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public in April 2014 and stage 1 of that Examination has been concluded. However, the Inspector’s Interim Report which followed, dated 18 February 2015, has raised issues in relation to the soundness of various elements of the plan. In the light of this, policies that may be relevant to an individual scheme and which are neither the subject of significant objection nor adverse comment in the Interim Report can carry limited weight. Those policies that have been subject to significant objection can carry only very limited weight. Equally, where policy has been amended, as set out in the Interim Report, then such amended policy can carry only very limited weight. Those policies that have been the subject of adverse comment in the interim report can carry no weight. Relevant policies and the weight to be afforded to them are discussed in the main body of the report.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3269/Easington-Local-Plan (City of Durham of Durham Local Plan) http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)

Page 87 CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

36. Dalton-le-Dale Parish Council – Object to the development. Objection is raised to the loss of the greenfield, agricultural land for the development. The location of the development is considered to be in conflict with both the Easington District Local Plan and the emerging County Durham Plan. Concerns are expressed over highway safety for vehicular, pedestrian and cycle traffic. Concerns are expressed over the impacts of the development upon ecological assets. Flooding and drainage is cited as a major concern with existing drainage infrastructure considered to be at capacity. Reference to the planning history of the site is also made.

37. Seaham Town Council – Object to the development. Objection is raised to the principle of the development on greenfield land and other more suitable sites for housing are considered to be available. Site specific objections are also raised. Concerns are raised over the potential for flooding and the potential for sink holes has not been thoroughly considered. Concerns over highway safety due to traffic increases and the access junction arrangements are raised. Services and infrastructure is already considered at capacity. Harm to heritage assets and impacts on ecological assets, a local wildlife site and the Heritage Coast and the Site of Special Scientific Interest also raised. Landscape mitigation measures are considered insignificant in comparison to the loss of the site to the development. Reference is made to the assessment of the site within the County Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which considered the site unacceptable for development. Reference is made to the refusal of housing development on the site previously.

38. Highway Authority – Consider that a scheme for the improvement of traffic signs and road markings on the B1285 is necessary. The junction to provide access to the site from the B1285 is considered acceptable. The junction would require the formation of a protected right turn lane and this would be necessary prior to significant works commencing on site. The submitted transport assessment is considered to be deficient in assessing the cumulative impacts of the development together with committed development particularly with regards to Dalton Park Phase 2. The Highway Authority requested a number of amendments to the layout of the development. Amended plans have been submitted and the Highway Authority has stated that these resolve the majority of these requests from the Highway Authority. However, the absence of a secondary vehicular access to Dalton Heights is considered regrettable. Conditions are recommended in the event of an approval.

39. Highways Agency – Raise no objections though recommend the implementation of a travel plan.

40. Northumbrian Water – Raise no objections to the development provided that the development is implemented in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment which states that surface water will not discharge to the public sewerage network.

41. Environment Agency – Raise no objections. Discussions with the Council so as to devise a suitable final surface water drainage solution should continue. The sewerage undertaker should be consulted with regards to foul water disposal. The mitigation recommendations within the submitted Extended Phase 1 survey should be undertaken.

Page 88 INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

42. Spatial Policy – Object to the development. The proposed development would not consolidate the existing settlement form and would erode the physical separation between Seaham and Dalton-le Dale.

43. With regards to matters of green infrastructure the large area of public open space is welcomed. . Pedestrian and cycle links to Dalton Heights are recommended and the design of new open space should include park-like features and be attractive to dog walkers.

44. Landscape – State that the key landscape related matters are the visual impact on the open countryside and the perception of sufficient separation space between Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale. The submitted landscape and visual impact assessment is considered a thorough document and conclusions are broadly agreed with namely that a minor-moderate change to landscape character would occur with moderate visual effects in identified views close to the development. Should the principle of the development be considered acceptable support for the proposals on landscape grounds are offered. Further points of detail are made on the detailed landscape proposals.

45. Design and Conservation – Raise no objections to the development with no harm considered to occur upon any heritage assets with particular reference made to the Grade II* listed St Andrews Church in Dalton-le-Dale. The large public open space is referenced and this is considered to provide mitigation against coalescence. No objections to the layout or other elements of the development are raised.

46. Drainage and Coastal Protection – The proposal to incorporate a sustainable urban drainage system is welcomed and complies with the Council’s requirements. Full details on the design, construction and maintenance regime for such a system would be required.

47. School Organisation Manager – Raise no objections stating that sufficient school places are available to accommodate the additional pupils from the development.

48. Employability – Request that targeted recruitment and training clauses are included within a S106 legal agreement in the event of approval.

49. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) – Raise no objections to the development with no need for a contaminated land condition on any approval.

50. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Noise, Dust and Odour) – Raise no objections. Officers agree with the methodology of the submitted noise report and most findings. A reservation is made with regards to the predicted external noise levels within some of the proposed properties. However, these predicted noise levels relate to only four of the properties proposed and the degree to which the noise level is predicted to be above recommended levels is marginal and can be accepted. Mitigation measures within the submitted report should be conditioned. Conditions are also recommended with regards to external lighting, noise, dust and smoke suppression and working hours.

51. Environment Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – Raise no objections. The application is accompanied by an air quality assessment and impacts on air quality from the residential development are shown as insignificant. A condition to ensure that a dust control management plan is implemented is recommended. Page 89

52. Ecology – Raise no objections. No objections are raised with regards to the submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey (amended during the course of the application). The Local Planning Authority has considered whether the application requires an appropriate assessment under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). The development is not considered to have any significant effects with no requirement for appropriate assessment.

53. Sustainability – In terms of locational sustainability the application site is considered to score averagely in terms of the economic, social and environmental determinants of sustainable development. Further advice is required on site specific matters from specialist consultees. In regards to embedded sustainability whilst the principles of the approach to reducing energy demand can be accepted more detail and evidence is required before the approach can be accepted.

54. Archaeology – State that the submitted desk-based assessment is well researched and comprehensive. The recommendations detailed for the retention of the World War II pillbox should be implemented. Noting the concerns raised by public respondents, careful consideration of drainage implications on Church of St Andrews is recommended. The geophysical survey undertaken covered a small area of the site and no invasive evaluation has been undertaken. As a result a condition is recommended for the implementation of a program of archaeological investigation.

55. Neighbourhood Services (Streetscene) – Provide advice on adoption procedures should public spaces within the development be sought for adoption.

56. Access and Public Rights of Way – Confirm that there are no recorded public rights of way within the site.

57. Travel Planning Team – Have assessed the submitted travel plan accompanying the application and some requests for amendments so as to accord with Council requirements are made.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

58. The application was advertised within the press, on site and letters were sent to neighbouring properties. A total of 83 letters of representation have been received. Of these responses 82 raise objections and concerns with regard to the application. No letters of support have been received though 1 letter raises points of support and objection to the scheme. The matters raised are summarised below.

Objection

• The houses are not considered to be needed with many properties for sale. • There are alternative sites more suitable for development with objection raised to the loss of greenfield, agricultural land and loss of agricultural heritage. • Objections are raised to the applicant’s arguments within the application that the Council’s preferred housing allocations are undeliverable. • The development would set a precedent for development on other greenfield sites. • East Durham has a high number of empty properties and such properties should be brought back into use. • Removal of the separation between Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale with subsequent loss of identity and harm to their character and heritage. • Objection to the visual impact including with regards to the acoustic barrier proposed adjacent to the A19. Page 90 • Objection to the design of the housing. • Concerns whether local services and facilities such as schools, nurseries and doctors can cope with the additional population. • Requests are made for extensions of time on the consultation period with resident due to delays in arrival of these letters. • Concerns over highway safety (including pedestrian safety), parking provision and traffic implications. Elements of the submitted Transport Assessment supporting the application are contested. • Construction works could cause delays on the roads and hamper emergency service vehicles travelling in the area. • Concerns over the potential for flooding are raised with reference made to previous flood events in the area. Drainage infrastructure is considered to be at capacity. The listed Church of St Andrew in Dalton-le-Dale could be at risk of structural damage from flood waters. • Concerns regarding the future maintenance and management of affordable, rented homes. • Loss of views. • Devaluing of property and impact upon the ability of residents to sell their homes. • The proposal fails to provide adequate social/affordable housing and housing for the elderly. • Harm to ecological assets and wildlife including through the loss of hedgerow (considered an important hedgerow) due to road widening. • Harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties from the proximity of the housing and the parkland and vehicles passing property. Further concerns are expressed with regards to landscaping that future occupiers will place in garden spaces blocking light. • The development would increase noise levels for local residents which are already affected by the noise emanating from the A19 traffic. Further concerns are raised with the content of the submitted noise assessment. • Increase in dog fouling. • The proposed pedestrian access route to Dalton Heights would leave properties vulnerable to theft. • Increase in light spillage with resultant impact on hobby of astrology. • SUDs water attenuation features could pose a health and safety risk for children. • Concerns raised that this development would compromise the ability for new business enterprises in the form of diversification to occur at neighbouring West Farm. • The New Homes Bonus, cited by the applicant as a benefit of the development is objected to as other more alternative development sites would also deliver this bonus. • Concerns are expressed with regards to the impact of the development upon air quality. • Concerns are raised that the applicants confirmation that they would be willing to provide monies for necessary off-site highway improvements is a form of inducement of the Council to grant planning permission. • Concerns over future maintenance and management of features such as the parkland and the SUDs attenuation features.

Support

• The development will bring investment and jobs to the area. • The development would involve the cutting back of a roadside hedge which has been requested for some time. • Traffic calming measures will be introduced as a result of the development.

Page 91 • The proposed parkland will be beneficial to the community and wildlife.

59. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) – Object to the application. Concern is raised with the proposed development of a greenfield site which is not proposed for allocation within the emerging County Durham Plan. CPRE challenge the number of houses proposed for development under the emerging County Durham Plan and furthermore alternative sites are available in Seaham that are proposed for allocation within the emerging County Durham Plan. The need for this proposed housing is therefore questioned. The application is considered deficient in the manner in which it addresses meaningful proposals for cycling. Concern is raised with regards to the potential for flood risk. The shallow ponds to the south of the site are welcomed, however.

60. Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer – Originally raised objection to the pedestrian link proposed to the rear of Dalton Heights considering that the link could become a crime generator by providing easy access to the rear of the existing and proposed properties. No comments have been raised to amended plans which remove this link.

61. Graeme Morris MP - Objects to the development. The development is considered unacceptable in principle contrary to the existing and emerging Local Plans. A strategic gap and greenfield site between Seaham, Murton and Dalton-le-Dale would be removed. Objection is raised on the grounds of highway safety and the potential for an increase in flood risk including potential impacts on the structural integrity of St Andrews Church, Dalton-le-Dale. The loss of a green corridor, ancient hedgerow and harm to wildlife is also cited. Graeme Morris MP also provides copies of letters and correspondence that he has received directly from his constituents raising objections to the development.

62. Cllr Napier and Cllr Maitland – Both object to the proposals. Joint comments are submitted raising objections in regards to; flooding/drainage; highways and traffic implications; impact on neighbouring settlements and loss of identity of Dalton-le- Dale; impacts upon ecological grounds; and conflict with the emerging County Durham Plan and the existing Easington District Local Plan.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

63. None received.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at: http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

64. 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 development, the layout and design of the development, residential amenity, highways issues, flood risk and drainage, ecology and impacts on heritage assets.

Page 92

The Principle of the Development

The Case for Housing

65. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out ‑of ‑date permission should be granted unless; any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

66. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable housing sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a persistent under delivery of housing this buffer should be increased to 20%.

67. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that development plan policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

68. Following the first stage of the Examination in Public (EiP) into the County Durham Plan (CDP) the Inspector concluded that an appropriate Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) figure for County Durham would be 1,435 dwelling per annum (dpa). Durham County Council has commenced Judicial Review proceedings with regards the Inspectors interim views.

69. However, taking this approach to the OAN, over the next 5 year period the housing requirement would be 7,175 units. As County Durham has not reached its housing target in any of the last four years it is considered that the 20% buffer should apply. This results in a 9,912 dwelling requirement over next 5 year period.

70. On the basis of the above housing requirement the Council has produced a statement to establish that there is sufficient land supply for the five year period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2020 across County Durham. This document updates the five-year supply information which was submitted to the EiP of the CDP in recognition that the housing completions data for 2014/15 are now known, and the supply position is constantly evolving in terms of new schemes receiving permission, and other permissions lapsing during the last financial year.

71. This statement demonstrates that the LPA has 5.80 years supply of deliverable sites as required by the NPPF, and confirms that there is sufficient potential capacity within the County to maintain a 5-year supply of deliverable sites. Therefore, having regards to paragraph 49 of the NPPF relevant policies for the supply of housing can be considered up to date. An assessment of the consistency of those relevant policies with the content of the NPPF must still be made in assessing the weight to be attributed to Local Plan Policies.

72. ELP Policy 3 seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and unless other ELP policies specify otherwise, development beyond established settlement boundaries will not be permitted. ELP Policy 1 supports Policy 3 in this regard. Page 93

73. The ELP establishes settlement boundaries for both Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale. The application site is located beyond the limits identified for both settlements, and is therefore, within the countryside. The justification to Policy 3 identifies housing for rural workers as an exceptional case whereby housing in the countryside can be considered acceptable in principle. The policy (Policy 69) relating to such development is, however, not “saved” under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. There are no saved ELP policies which accept the principle of the development of a major housing development beyond a settlement boundary and as a result the development is contrary to the ELP in this regard.

74. The NPPF does not specifically advocate settlement boundaries. However, the twelve core planning principles within the NPPF recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and encourage the re-use of previously developed land. Paragraph 111 of the NPPF reinforces this encouragement of the re-use of previously developed land. Furthermore, NPPF paragraph 112 states that LPAs should take into account the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land and where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. ELP Policy 1 equally seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land. Natural England have provided details of an agricultural land assessment dated September 1998 and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now superseded by Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) land classification map. The application site is identified as a mixture of Grade 2, 3a and 3b agricultural land. Grade 2 and 3a is defined within the NPPF as being best and most versatile agricultural land and this is the land upon which the residential development is proposed. Approximately 6.3ha of the application site is defined on the land classification map as best and most versatile land.

75. In regards to housing development on agricultural land beyond settlement boundaries, ELP Policies 1 and 3 are considered to remain largely consistent with the provisions of the NPPF.

76. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the NPPF significant weight should therefore be given to ELP Policy 3 and the supportive element of Policy 1.

77. At this stage Policy 15 of the County Durham Plan (CDP) carries very limited weight. However, the Policy provides guidance on development on unallocated sites within the built up area. Development, including housing, can be compliant with CDP Policy 15 where it meets a number of criteria and where it is considered to be located within the “built up area”. The built up area is defined within the CDP and this definition includes reference to land on the edge of a settlement. The definition explains that land on the edge of a settlement can be considered to be part of the built up area where it is physically very well contained by existing built development and its development would not result in coalescence with neighbouring settlements or encroachment into the countryside such that it would cause significant adverse landscape or townscape impact.

78. The application site is not very well contained by existing built development and is considered to gain no support from CDP Policy 15 in this regard (whilst accepting that only limited weight could be attributed to any degree of compliance). Further consideration of matters surrounding coalescence is provided in a sub-section below.

79. As a result, the proposed development represents an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside beyond the settlement limit of Seaham with subsequent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The LPA can demonstrate a 5 year Page 94 housing land supply (plus 20% buffer) and relevant ELP Policies are therefore considered not to be out-of-date, absent or silent. It is considered that there is no justification to attribute such an amount of weight to the site’s potential contribution to the housing land supply in respect to the next 5 years supply that warrants significantly reducing the weight to the attributed to relevant greenfield land and rural restraint policies and guidance.

80. Application documentation seeks to demonstrate support for housing on the site. Within the applicant’s case reference is made to what are considered to be obstacles to the delivery of the proposed housing allocations for the Seaham area within the CDP. Whilst only very limited weight can be attributed to proposed housing allocations within the CDP the identified sites are considered deliverable.

81. Reference is made to CDP Policy 4 and the applicant considers that there is an identified shortfall in the housing requirement for Seaham, strengthening the case for development on the application site. CDP Policy 4 is intended to present a distribution of the housing requirement based principally upon the role and function of the settlement in relation to the Plan's Spatial Approach. The figures are an indication of distribution and are neither a minimum nor a ceiling. Furthermore CDP Policy 4 has been subject to adverse comment in the Inspectors Interim Report and can be attributed no weight. The Inspector’s Interim views on the CDP suggest that an adjustment to the spatial distribution of development across the County proposed under CDP Policy 4 should be made and this includes a suggestion to redistribute some development allocation to Seham. Despite this it does not follow that this site or quantum of development at this site is appropriate.

82. Many public and Town and Parish Council respondents raise objections with regards to the principle of development. With regards to the concerns raised over the ability of services and infrastructure to cater for the development, Seaham is identified as a “main town” within the CDP and supporting evidence base document – County Durham Settlement Study 2012. Seaham has a range of services and facilities within a short distance of the site. Specifically regarding matters of education, the School Organisation Manager has raised no objections stating that sufficient school places are available to accommodate the additional pupils from the development. Officers raise no objections to the development specifically on matters surrounding availability of services and facilities.

83. Public opposition to the development contends that more housing is simply not needed with references made to a considered excess of housing development sought within the CDP and reference to the number of houses for sale or vacant in Seaham and the east Durham area.

84. Officers consideration that there is no justification to attribute significant weight to the site’s potential contribution to the housing land supply in respect to the next 5 years has been outlined above. Officers disagree that on a wider and more general basis housing within the Seaham or East Durham area are simply not required.

85. Public opposition to the development considers that a precedent could be established for the development of other similar greenfield sites should planning permission be granted for the development. The greenfield nature of the site contributes to officers’ objection to the principle of the development in this case. However, notwithstanding this, each application is assessed on its merits and as a result it is not considered that the decision made on this application establishes any precedent for other sites.

Page 95 86. Public objection is raised to the absence of an appropriate mix of housing including affordable housing and housing for the elderly. The application proposes 10% affordable housing provision which accords with the requirements of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for the housing delivery area. Two, three and four bed properties are all proposed and officers raise no objections to the proposed mix.

Impact of the Development upon the Character and Appearance of the Area and the Potential for Coalescence

87. The settlements of Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale, as defined by their settlement boundaries within the ELP, are separated by a relatively narrow area of countryside. The application site is considered to comprise one section of this countryside that preserves the separation of Seaham from Dalton-le-Dale.

88. The justification to ELP Policy 3 states that boundaries have been drawn around all settlements in the District to delineate the limits to development of the existing urban areas. The twelve core planning principles of the NPPF advise that planning should take into account the different roles and character of different areas.

89. The application site is considered to perform an important role in maintaining a physical and visual separation between Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale and in contributing to provide a fine setting to the settlements. NPPF paragraph 109 states that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced.

90. Whilst only very limited weight can be attributed to CDP Policy 15, the definition of the “built up area” within CDP clearly excludes land that, if developed, would result in coalescence with neighbouring settlements.

91. It is acknowledged that the proposal includes elements that in part seek to prevent a harmful coalescent impact. The proposed housing does not quite extend so far south as to physically meet properties within the Overdene Estate at Dalton-le-Dale. The proposed estate has also been designed so that the elements that extend farthest south are located slightly more towards the western boundary of the site rather than the eastern boundary and are therefore farther from the Overdene Estate which marks the closest point of Dalton-le-Dale. Most significantly, the southern section of the site is proposed to be reserved as landscaped parkland. The submitted landscape and visual impact assessment considers that such an approach will allow the existing visual separation between the urban areas of Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale to be retained.

92. It is acknowledged that Landscape and Design and Conservation Officers both reference the parkland proposed within the southern half of the site and the beneficial impacts upon reducing the potential for coalescence.

93. However, it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed would not suffice and that a harmful coalescent effect would occur as a result of the development.

94. The most southerly plots proposed within the residential development are located approximately 50m north of the curtilages of the dwelling houses located at the Overdene Estate. In comparison, the rear curtilage of No. 2 Dalton Heights is located approximately 210m from the curtilage of the nearest property at the Overdene Estate. The development would result in a significant reduction in the undeveloped land which currently and decisively separates Seaham and Dalton-le- Dale.

Page 96 95. From Falcon Point, an elevated vantage point within the recreational space at Dalton Park, the significant degree to which this area of countryside between Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale would be eroded would be clear to see. This view is assessed within the submitted landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). The LVIA considers that the visual effect of the development would be minor. The LVIA considers that the housing area within the proposed site would represent a low level of change within the view considering the adjacent residential backdrop and the many other urban elements in the view. Officers consider that this assessment fails to recognise how clearly properties at Dalton Heights, the southern limit of Seaham, and the Overdene estate at neighbouring Dalton-le-Dale can be viewed and in turn that in this view the development would effectively infill this green wedge of land between the settlements.

96. The view from the roadbridge over the A19 within the LVIA presents a similar view towards the site from the south though the coalescent impact would be less pronounced from this viewpoint.

97. The A19 is to the immediate west of the application site and provides a location where many passing motorists can view the site. The open nature of the field providing the separation between Dalton Heights and the Overdene Estate can be clearly viewed. There are a number of informal paths and pedestrian routes to the west of the site where similar views of the site can be gained and the submitted LVIA provide examples. Whilst landscaping proposals and an acoustic fence to the western boundary of the site would help in filtering views to the housing itself the proposed residential development would still be apparent in these views and in turn the erosion of the open countryside between the settlements of Seaham and Dalton- le-Dale.

98. A significant section of the mature hedge that currently forms a boundary of the site from the B1285 would be removed to facilitate the necessary road widening and access formation. Whilst compensatory planting could be undertaken to screen the development to an extent when travelling on the B1285 the extension of the built area of Seaham towards Dalton-le-Dale would be apparent.

99. The development would result in a significant intrusion into the countryside to the south of Seaham and erode the separation of Seaham from the village of Dalton-le- Dale.

Conclusion on the Principle of the Development

100. The proposed development represents an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside beyond the settlement limit of Seaham with subsequent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. This area of countryside plays a vital role in preserving the physical and visual separation between the settlements of Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale. The proposed development would result in a coalescent impact where the distinction and separation between the settlements would be eroded to the point at which a detrimental impact upon the character of those settlements would occur.

101. The development is considered contrary to ELP Policies 1 and 3 and contrary to the advice contained within the twelve core planning principles and Part 11 of the NPPF.

102. A number of benefits of the development at the site are presented by the applicant in support of the application including the provision of 10% affordable housing, job creation and construction value, New Homes Bonus and Council Tax revenues and a contribution to an increase in spending in the area. Council Tax revenues are not Page 97 material planning considerations and neither is the New Homes Bonus revenue unless it is known how the monies would be spent and that this is directly related to the development. None of these stated benefits are considered to be so significant or bespoke to the site and development as to outweigh the aforementioned objections to the principle of the development.

Layout and Design

103. Part 7 of the NPPF advocates good design and states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

104. Amongst other criteria, paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to ensure developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area and establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit.

105. This advocacy of good design principles is reflected in ELP Policies 1 and 35 (and supporting appendix 6) and these policies are considered NPPF compliant in this regard.

106. It is considered that the development does not represent good design. Officers’ objection relates to the weakness of the design vernacular that would result from the range of housetypes proposed within the layout proposed.

107. Officers raise no significant objections to the design and appearance of the individual dwellings themselves.

108. However, there are a wide range of housetypes proposed (18 in total) within the development and some of these housetypes show a disparity in design vernacular between one another. Not all housetypes proposed lack this common design vernacular with one another. To provide an example the design of housetypes the Alder, Oak, Hawthorn and Willow present a distinctive design vernacular.

109. Other housetypes, however, incorporate design features which differ significantly such as the approach to fenestration detailing and use of flat and pitched roof elements.

110. The layout of the dwellings would not result in clearly defined and identifiable character areas. Housetypes of a design and appearance lacking commonality are located in close proximity to one another and in several areas across the site. An example is the proposed housetypes at plots 42 to 48 inclusive. In this streetscape the disparity in design between, for instance, the Juniper adjacent to the Oak and the Acadia adjacent to the Hawthorn that turns the corner would be clearly apparent and result in a streetscape that fails to establish a strong sense of place and distinctive character. This provides an example streetscape within the proposed development with design deficiencies but there are other areas within the layout where similar streetscapes would result.

111. Officers acknowledge that approaches to design should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation. It is also acknowledged that having too many similar or identical housetypes that results in repetition without benefit to architectural integrity can be just as inappropriate as a disparity in design vernacular. ELP Policy 35 is supported by Appendix 6 which amongst other guidance encourages complimentary but varied housetypes.

Page 98 112. However, officers conclude that the range of housetypes proposed within this development and in the layout proposed would result in areas and streetscapes being created that would fail to create an appropriate sense of place and fail to create a development that is appropriately designed and attractive.

113. Accordingly, it is considered that the development fails to adhere to the principles of requiring good design in development within Part 7 of the NPPF and would be contrary to ELP Policies 1 and 35. NPPF paragraph 64 states that planning permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

114. As the proposal seeks to provide a large landscaped parkland area within the southern section of the site the development provides a substantial amount of public open space within its bounds. The Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) shows that the Seaham, Dawdon and Deneside Electoral Divisions do show an under- supply of park and garden spaces and the development would contribute towards to the provision of such space. The OSNA also identifies that the Electoral Division hasan under-supply of children’s play space, which is not indicated as being provided within the landscaped parkland. The matter could be addressed by way of a financial contribution secured by way of a S106 legal agreement in the event permission is granted having regards to ELP Policy 66.

115. Public responses include specific objection to the inclusion of a bund and acoustic fence on the western boundary of the site. Officers consider that once the landscaping scheme had established and matured this particular feature would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

116. Public responses raise concern over the potential loss of an important and ancient section of hedgerow. An important hedgerow is defined by The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and must firstly have existed for 30 years or more and secondly must meet at least one further criterion within schedule 1 of those regulations which determine the value of the hedge having regards to its archaeological and historic and ecological and landscape attributes. A site specific assessment of the hedge to determine whether it can be defined as an important hedgerow is not included within the application though potentially the hedge in question does meet the necessary criteria. The Hedgerow Regulations make it clear that where removal of a hedge to which the Hedgerow Regulations apply is permitted by works approved under a planning permission then the notification procedures within those Regulations do not apply. Though the loss of the hedge would contribute to the impact of the development beyond the settlement boundary of Seaham officers raise no significant objections to the specific impact of the loss of the section of hedge as a result of the development.

Residential Amenity

117. ELP Policy 35 requires that the design and layout of development would have no serious adverse effect on the amenity of those living or working in the vicinity of the development site. Appendix 6 supports this policy further and specific space and amenity guidance and advice on security and crime prevention within residential layouts are provided. ELP Policies 1 and 38 (supported by Appendix 11) provide further support and guidance with regards to matters of amenity and security. These Policies are considered NPPF compliant with a core planning principle at paragraph 17 of the NPPF stating that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Part 8 of the

Page 99 NPPF amongst other guidance advices on the need to create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of such are considered.

118. With regards to the relationships within the proposed development itself, in many instances the siting of the dwellings meets or exceeds the separation distance requirements required by ELP Appendix 6. There are instances where this is not the case and distances between windows in facing elevations or distances between windows and flanking gables do fall short of the necessary standards. In the majority of these instances distances are slightly below the guidance contained within ELP Appendix 6 for instance distances between main elevations of between 19m and 20m rather than 21m and distances between habitable room window and flanking gables of between 12m and 13m rather than 13.5m

119. There are some instances where specific relationships are more significantly below the recommended standards in ELP Appendix 6. This includes a 17m separation distance between habitable room windows between plots 61 and 77 and 18m separation between plots 30 and 59. Verandas on the rear of the Aidan housetype come to within 17m and 18m of the rear elevation of the Chesterton housetypes at plots 74 and 75.

120. All these relationships relate to those between proposed dwellings within the residential development itself and to a degree future occupiers of the development can judge for themselves whether the space between dwellings is acceptable to them. Overall across the 134 no. dwellings proposed relationships between properties are considered satisfactory and would provide adequate privacy and amenity for prospective occupiers.

121. Public responses include concerns over the impact of the development upon their levels of amenity and privacy.

122. Properties on Dalton Heights are adjacent to the site to the north. Those properties on Dalton Heights closest to the flanking B1285 are considered to be provided with adequate privacy and amenity with distances exceeding guidance contained within ELP Appendix 6. It is noted that some of these properties at Dalton Heights have feature rear windows, conservatory extensions and balcony areas. Despite this, officers consider that taking into account the separation distances involved that the development would preserve the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of properties 2-8 Dalton Heights.

123. Farther from the B1258 the relationship between the development site and some properties on Dalton Heights becomes more intimate. Officers consider that the development would result in a serious adverse effect on the amenity of those living within Nos. 11 and 14 and 25 Dalton Heights.

124. No. 11 Dalton Heights has a conservatory extension located immediately adjacent to the proposed rear curtilages of plots 22 and 23. Final details of the finished levels of dwellings and the curtilages within the development have not been provided. At present the land rises up to meet the boundary fence of 11 Dalton Heights and when stood adjacent to 11 Dalton Heights within the development site the conservatory extension is overlooked. Officers consider that when the rear curtilages of the plot 22 and 23 dwellings are utilised there is significant potential for the invasion of privacy of the occupiers 11 Dalton Heights by reason of the proximity of the garden spaces to the existing habitable room and the potential ease at which views over a boundary fence could occur.

Page 100 125. No. 14 Dalton Heights is an L-shaped bungalow. The bungalow is orientated so that a side elevation including windows, a veranda area and a gable end elevation including windows to habitable rooms are located adjacent to and at close proximity to the development site boundary. A vehicular turning area and access to garage for the plot 68 dwelling and areas of front curtilage for plots 66 and 67 are proposed adjacent to 14 Dalton Heights.

126. The use of the vehicular turning areas and curtilages within the proposed development would lead to disturbance and loss of privacy for the occupiers of 14 Dalton Heights. It is considered that the relationship between these elements of the development and the south facing elements of 14 Dalton Heights would result in a relationship too intimate with a detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupies of 14 Dalton Heights.

127. No. 25 Dalton Heights has a conservatory extension located immediately adjacent to the proposed rear curtilage of the plot 69 dwelling. When within this conservatory a clear open outlook across the development site over the existing boundary fence can be gained. Final details of the finished levels of dwellings and the curtilages within the development have not been provided. At present the land rises up to meet the boundary fence of 25 Dalton Heights and when stood adjacent to 25 Dalton Heights within the development site a clear view into the conservatory extension is gained. The relationship is similar to the concerns expressed regarding No. 11 Dalton Heights though officers consider the potential for an invasion of privacy is greater still. It is considered that when the rear curtilage of the plot 69 dwelling is utilised there is significant potential for the invasion of privacy of the occupiers of no. 25 Dalton Heights by reason of the proximity of the garden space to the existing habitable room and the potential ease at which views over a boundary fence could occur. The feeling of an invasion of privacy for the occupiers of No. 25 Dalton Heights would be exacerbated by plot 69 dwelling incorporating a first floor veranda. This veranda is wide enough to provide a siting area and in this particular relationship the distance of 21m from the conservatory of no. 25 Dalton Heights is considered to be insufficient to prevent a harmful invasion of privacy.

128. Public responses raise further concerns regarding the loss of outlook that could occur through occupiers of the proposed development undertaking planting within garden spaces. If the application was approved officers consider it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to control future landscape works by occupiers of the properties in perpetuity.

129. Harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties from the proximity of the parkland is also cited in public responses. Glenville Lodge and Dalton Cottage would be in particularly close proximity to the southern edge of the proposed parkland. However, officers consider that final landscape proposals could ensure a suitable boundary solution that would allow for adequate privacy and amenity for occupiers.

130. Further public objection relates to the potential for the number of vehicles that could pass properties on Dalton Heights. However, the link shown on plan between 11 and 12 Dalton Heights is not a vehicular route.

131. The application is accompanied by a noise assessment report the scope of which was to assess existing noise levels and mitigation strategies in order to achieve acceptable noise levels for the proposed residential development. The report identifies that the A19 and surrounding road network are the principal noise sources that would affect the development and mitigation measures are required. Acoustic fencing and an earth bund are proposed adjacent to the A19 and glazing and Page 101 ventilation requirements for the properties are recommended for the dwellings themselves.

132. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers have assessed the submitted report agree with the methodology of the submitted noise report. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers have raised some reservation with the development as 4 no. properties are predicted to experience external noise levels above the World Health Organisation guidance limit of 55dB LAeq (despite the mitigation measures proposed). However, Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers conclude that the predicated noise levels are marginally above the guidance limits and these noise levels relate to a minority of properties within the site. As a result Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers do not raise objections to the development. It should be noted that these comments relate to the potential of the development to cause a statutory nuisance, as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, with regards to residential amenity officers concur with these views and it is considered that adequate amenity would be retained for the occupiers of the proposed development.

133. With regards to the impacts of the construction phase of the development Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers consider that there is potential for noise disturbance throughout the construction phase and conditions are therefore recommended on any approval.

134. Within the public concerns raised with regards to noise, a specific concern is raised that the development would increase noise levels for local residents which are already affected by the noise emanating from the A19 traffic. It is considered that the level of noise from the occupancy of the development would not result in noise levels that are significantly altered from the existing situation where the A19 and road network are the principal noise sources and officers do not object on these grounds.

135. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers also recommend conditions with regards to agreeing an external lighting scheme, dust and smoke suppression and working hours. In the event of an approval conditions to agree best methods of dust and smoke suppression can be attached and a condition regarding working hours. A condition regarding lighting is not considered necessary as standard street lighting to adoptable standard is considered to be acceptable.

136. During the course of the application amended plans have been received removing a previously proposed narrow pedestrian link between the rear of the properties on Dalton Heights and proposed properties within the development. This route attracted safety and security concerns from local residents and the Durham Constabulary Police Architectural Liaison Officer. The removal of the link is welcomed by officers.

137. Public respondents contend the submissions within the application with regards to the impacts of the development upon air quality. The application is accompanied by an air quality assessment and Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers consider that this does demonstrate that impacts on air quality as a result of the development would be insignificant. A condition to ensure that a dust control management plan is implemented is recommended, however.

138. Public objections reference a loss of a view due to the development. However, weight should not be attached to the impact of the loss of a private view.

139. Public concerns over a potential increase in dog fouling and an increase in light spillage with resultant impact on hobby of astrology are noted. It is not considered that these impacts would be significantly harmful and warrant officer objection. Page 102

140. Officers raise no objections to the development on the grounds of any adverse impact upon the amenity of those living or working in the vicinity of the development site. The development is considered compliant with ELP Policies 1, 35 and 38 and having regards to Parts 8 and 11 of the NPPF.

Highways Issues

141. Concerns over highway safety, parking provision and the traffic implications of the development are amongst the most significant concerns of public and Town and Parish Council respondents.

142. The application is accompanied by a transport assessment (TA) which seeks to inform on and assess the key highways related implications of the development. This includes highways matters such as the accessibility of the development; trip generation and traffic assignment; future year flows; operational assessment of junctions; highway safety; and present highways works necessary to facilitate the development.

143. In order to facilitate safe access for the development a 5.5m wide access road from the B1285 is proposed. This would be served by a 1.8m wide footway along both sides. A section of the B1285 itself would be widened from its present 6.7m wide carriageway so as to include a 3.25m wide northbound lane, 3.25m southbound lane and a 3.5m wide right turning lane. Two traffic islands on the B1285 are proposed, one north and one south of the right turning lane. To provide adequate visibility for the new access a 2.4m x 120m visibility splay is proposed.

144. The Highway Authority has assessed the submitted TA and the predicted hour trip generation is considered to be acceptable as is the assignment of the predicted trip generation to the local road network. Impact on local network junctions is considered to be acceptable. An accident analysis has demonstrated that the increased risk of collision would not be significant as a result of the development traffic and no specific mitigation measures are considered necessary to reduce accident risk.

145. The Highway Authority considers that the site access junction is acceptable. In the event of an approval it is considered necessary that this junction be constructed at an initial phase before works on the housing development occurs in the interests of highway safety. This could be conditioned.

146. Traffic calming measures are considered within the TA and the Highway Authority confirms that a scheme of signage and highway marking works on the B1285 from the junction of the B1432 at Cold Hesledon to the Graham Way roundabout (inclusive) should be undertaken.

147. During the course of the application it was noted that the submitted TA failed to recognise committed developments that should be considered due to the potential for cumulative impact. Most notably a second phase of the Dalton Park development, a significant mixed use development.

148. The applicant has not provided an amended TA to incorporate an assessment of the implications of the committed development at Dalton Park. However, despite the absence of this information the Highway Authority have advised that they can make an informed enough assessment of the cumulative impact and that determination of the application can occur despite the deficiencies in the TA in this regard. The Highway Authority considers that the cumulative impacts of the development

Page 103 proposal and the committed development in the area would not result in a severe impact.

149. With regards to the layout of the development. Originally the Highway Authority raised a number of amendment requests. This included but was not restricted to, requests to amend visitor parking provision and an amendment of a hard strip so as to meet adoptable standards.

150. Amended plans have been received which have addressed the majority of the requests of the Highway Authority. The exception to this is that the Highway Authority made a request for secondary and emergency vehicle access to Dalton Heights which is not proposed on the most up to date plans. The absence of such a link to provide increased permeability of the site and an alternative site access in the event of emergency is considered disappointing by the Highway Authority though not ultimately considered a reason to raise substantial objection to the development as a whole.

151. The Highways Agency has raised no objections to the development though do recommend that a travel plan is implemented.

152. Travel Planning Officers have assessed the submitted travel plan accompanying the application and some requests for amendments so as to accord with Council requirements are made. A revised travel plan could be resolved under a condition attached to any approval.

153. With regards to sustainable transport the application site is considered to be in a locality with acceptable access to sustainable transport modes. The nearest bus stop is identified as being approximately 380m from the centre of the site.

154. Concerns expressed by public respondents include concerns that construction works could cause delays on the roads and hamper emergency service vehicles travelling in the area. Officers consider that any development of this nature would require construction vehicles to attend. Officers consider that there are no specific issues with the local highway network that would result in the attendance of construction vehicles being particularly problematic. However, the Highway Authority do consider that the access junction should be formed as part of an initial phase of works so as to ensure the safe access and egress of construction vehicles.

155. Public concerns are expressed that the applicants’ confirmation that they would be willing to provide monies for necessary off-site highway improvements is a form of inducement of the Council to grant planning permission. This is not the case. Where off-site highway works are necessary for a development to be acceptable in highways terms it is the developer that is required to pay for said works.

156. In conclusion, despite the significant concern that has emerged out of the consultation process regarding matters of highway safety, sustainable transport and the adequacy of documentation in support of the application relating to highways issues, officers consider that the development is acceptable from a highway safety and sustainable transport perspective. The development is considered to comply with ELP Policies 1, 36 and 37 and Part 4 of the NPPF.

Flood Risk and Drainage

157. Concerns over the potential for flooding and drainage issues are amongst the most significant concerns of public and Town and Parish Council respondents.

Page 104 158. The application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA). The application site is located within flood zone 1 and is therefore located on land least likely to suffer from tidal or fluvial flooding.

159. The FRA considers the risk of the site to suffer from groundwater flooding. The assessment is desk-based without a detailed ground survey being utilised for the assessment. However, from an analysis of bedrock and superficial geology and soil types the FRA considers the risk of groundwater flooding to be low.

160. The FRA identifies some history of sewer flooding to the south of the application site in the vicinity of the Times Inn Public House. Disposal of foul drainage is proposed to the public sewer. Northumbrian Water has raised no objections to this.

161. Durham County Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority and the SUDS Approval Body (SAB). Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers have been consulted on the application and objections are not raised to the development in principle and the use of SUDS is welcomed. Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers advise that full details on the design, construction and maintenance regime for such a system would be required.

162. Developments should follow an established hierarchy of preference regarding surface water disposal and this requires that surface water is disposed of in the following order of preference; i) via infiltration or a soak away system ii) to a watercourse iii) to the sewer.

163. With regards to surface water disposal and the potential for flooding from overland flows the FRA does not incorporate final engineered solutions. The FRA proposes a preferred solution involving the discharge to the Dawdon Dene via an existing culvert to a small tributary watercourse travelling between the existing properties of Dalton Lodge and Rose Cottage.

164. In order to control the rate at which water would be discharged, means of attenuating water are indicated this may involve ponds, swales and storage tanks, however, details provided are at a preliminary rather than final engineered stage.

165. The submitted FRA considers that disposal via infiltration will unlikely be appropriate on the site due to the nature of the soils. The FRA therefore proposes disposal via the watercourse. However, in the absence of permeability tests to demonstrate the unsuitability of the sequentially preferable use of infiltration or soak away techniques, officers cannot at this stage fully accept the preferred preliminary surface water disposal proposals. Despite this officers consider that a final solution to surface water disposal could be agreed under a condition.

166. The development would result in the loss of approximately 2.7ha of greenfield land to a predominantly hard-surfaced residential development. However, at the moment the surface water run-off from the field is essentially uncontrolled. A fully engineered surface water drainage solution for the site would permit for control and attenuation measures.

167. Officers consider that a suitable final solution could be devised under a condition to ensure a final engineered solution involving appropriate SUDS and/or blue and green infrastructure techniques. Objections have not been raised from the key consultees of Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers, Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water.

Page 105 168. Public responses to the application reference concerns regarding health and safety risks posed by the SUDS water attenuation features and further concerns over their maintenance and management. The final engineered drainage solution for the development is not complete and in the event of any approval conditions/planning obligations would be required to finalise the proposals and their management/maintenance. CIRIA have published guidance with regards to SUDS features and this includes with regards to health and safety. CIRIA are an independent construction and industry research and information association who work collaboratively across the construction industry to identify best practice. Such guidance presents principles so as to ensure that SUDS features are designed with health and safety in mind but also advices that there is a need for a balancing exercise between the risk and benefits of SUDS features. Blue and green infrastructure (water and landscape features) as a means to manage the drainage of sites through mimicking natural drainage features are likely to become more and more commonplace with a reduction in the less sustainable use of pipes and the like (grey infrastructure). Officers raise no objection to the incorporation of SUDS features in principle due to health and safety concerns.

169. Despite the significant public concerns regarding matters surrounding flood risk, drainage capacity and related land stability issues officers consider that a solution to provide adequate and controlled drainage of the site can be devised and as a result objections to the development are not raised as a result. The development is considered acceptable and compliant with Part 10 of the NPPF in this regard.

170. The Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting. Public concern includes that related to the potential impact of the water discharges from the development detrimentally affecting the Grade II* Listed Church of St Andrew. However, with the controls that a finally engineered drainage solution of the site can devise officers consider that the development can be undertaken without increasing the risk to the Church of St Andrew in this regard and in compliance with ELP Policies 1 and 24 and Part 12 of the NPPF as a result.

Ecology

171. The application is accompanied by an Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey report, which has been updated during the course of the application, and in addition, a Habitat Regulations Assessment Scoping Opinion.

172. Durham County Council is the competent authority who must decide whether the application requires an appropriate assessment under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (The Habitats Regulations). This would be undertaken by the carrying out of a screening exercise on the planning application using the survey data submitted. Such an appropriate assessment would consist of a robust assessment of the implications of the proposed development upon a European site.

173. The submitted Habitat Regulations Assessment Scoping Opinion identifies a number of European Protected Sites within a 15km radius of the application site. These sites are the Castle Eden Dene Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Durham Coast SAC, Northumbria Coast Special Protection Area (SPA), European Marine Site and Ramsar Site and Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site. These sites vary in distance from the site from between 2.6km to 7.9km.

Page 106 174. In considering whether the application requires an appropriate assessment under The Habitats Regulations an assessment for the potential for significant effects on the relevant sites is made. In this instance those relevant sites are the abovementioned SACs and SPAs. The Habitats Regulations assessment also applies to the special features of the Ramsar sites identified above.

175. Key potential effects of the development proposal upon these sites are; the degree of habitat and species disturbance through an increase in recreational pressure; potential for detrimental impacts on air quality; potential for detrimental impacts on water quality; and potential hydrology impacts.

176. The judgement of Durham County Council as competent authority is that the effects of the development will not be significant upon the potentially affected sites and as a result an appropriate assessment under The Habitats Regulations is not required.

177. The submitted Extended Phase 1 Survey Report considers the potential for the development to affect protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Species.

178. The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) and Part 11 of the NPPF. In addition with regards to European Protected Species (EPS) under the requirements of The Habitats Regulations it is a criminal offence to (amongst other things) deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb a protected species, unless such works are carried out with the benefit of a licence from Natural England. Regulation 9(3) of The Habitat Regulations requires local planning authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising its functions. Case law has established that local planning authorities must consider whether the applicant might obtain a protected species license from Natural England. This requires an examination of the derogation provisions.

179. The submitted Extended Phase 1 Survey Report considers that the potential for the development site to be supporting roosting bats, badgers, great crested newts, otters, water voles, reptiles and red squirrels is considered to be low. There is potential for habitats on site to provide opportunities for nesting birds and the hedgehog is also more likely to be resident on the site and forage on the site.

180. However, it is considered that the development would not adversely affect any EPS with no requirement to consider whether an EPS licence would granted.

181. Suitable mitigation and enhancement measures could be implemented on site so that impacts on species are minimised. The proposed landscape parkland would provide valued habitat whilst other mitigation and enhancement measures are proposed within the submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey Report.

182. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within relative close proximity of the site include the Durham Coast approximately 2.6km to the east, Hesledon Moor East approximately 1.5km to the south and Hawthorn Quarry approximately 3km to the south-east. Non-statutory designated ecological sites are also located within relative close proximity of the site, notably Noses Point Local Nature Reserve (LNR) approximately 2.6km to the east, Dawdon Dene and Murton Meadows Local Wildlife Sites approximately 0.2km and 0.8km to the south.

183. Ecology Officers have considered the submitted ecological reports and ecological implications of the development and no objections are raised.

Page 107 184. As a result officers raise no objections to the development on the grounds of impacts upon ecological assets and the development is considered compliant with ELP Policies 1, 14, 15 and 18 and Part 11 of the NPPF.

Impacts upon Heritage Assets

185. The application is accompanied by a historic environment desk-based assessment and an archaeological geophysical survey.

186. The historic environment report seeks to identify designated and non-designated heritage assets within a defined study area within the vicinity of the site.

187. The study area identified a total of 16 heritage assets comprising of three listed buildings, one scheduled monument and the remainder a variety of archaeological sites and archaeological find spots. The listed buildings identified are Church of St Andrew (Grade II*), Dalton Bridge (Grade II) and the Lodge to Dalton Pumping Station (Grade II). Church of St Andrew is located approximately 80m from the application site boundary, Dalton Bridge 370m from the site and the Lodge to Dalton Pumping Station 1km from the site. The Grade II* listed Dalton Pumping Station is located just outside the study area approximately 1.2km south of the site. The scheduled monument identified is Dalden Tower and this is located approximately 1.4km to the east of the site. The application site itself contains one heritage asset (non-designated) of archaeological value, a World War II pillpox located towards the south-east corner of the site.

188. The Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting.

189. The public concerns expressed over the impact of drainage and flooding risk emerging from the development upon the Church of St Andrew have been considered within the “Flood Risk and Drainage” section of this report.

190. Design and Conservation Officers have considered the submitted historic environment assessment and the development proposals. Detailed consideration is focused only on the potential impacts of the development upon the Church of St Andrew which is located approximately 80m from the application site boundary and approximately 330m from the nearest proposed dwelling within the development.

191. Given the combination of the topography, landscape screening and physical separation from the site no concerns are raised with regards to the impact of the development upon the listed building or its setting.

192. Archaeology officers consider that that the submitted desk-based assessment is well researched and comprehensive and the recommendations for the retention of the World War II pillbox should be implemented. The geophysical survey undertaken covered a small area of the site and no invasive evaluation has been undertaken. As a result a condition is recommended for attachment on any approval to ensure the implementation of a program of archaeological investigation. However, no objections are raised to the development with regards to archaeological assets.

193. Officers raise no objections to the development on the grounds of impact upon heritage assets with the development considered compliant with ELP Policies 1 and 24 and Part 12 of the NPPF.

Page 108 Other Issues

194. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers have assessed the submitted geoenvironmental appraisal accompanying the application which includes details of soil sampling from the site. The report demonstrates that there is no made ground on the site. No concerns are raised with regards to the potential for the site to be contaminated with no requirement for a contaminated land condition on any approval having regards to Part 11 of the NPPF.

195. Public responses include requests for extensions of time on the consultation period with residents due to delays in arrival of these letters. The application has been pending consideration for a significant period of time, well beyond the statutory consultation period and the concern in this regard is no longer considered relevant.

196. Public concerns are raised regarding the future maintenance and management of affordable, rented homes and the proposed parkland. Any affordable rented homes would be maintained and managed by a registered provider. It is understood that the applicant proposes the management of the parkland by a private management company. Alternatively the Council has procedures in place to adopt land should the developer wish to apply for adoption.

197. Public concerns are raised over the potential devaluing of property and harmful impact upon the ability of residents to sell their homes as a result of the development. However, such matters are not material planning considerations to be attributed weight.

198. Occupiers of neighbouring West Farm raise the concerns that this development would compromise the ability for new business enterprises in the form of diversification to occur. Officers consider that very limited weight could be attributed to the potential impacts of the development upon any diversification scheme which is uncommitted and the specifics of the diversification unknown.

CONCLUSION

199. The proposed development represents an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside beyond the settlement limit of Seaham on land identified as best and most versatile agricultural land. This area of countryside plays a vital role in preserving the physical and visual separation between the settlements of Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale. The proposed development would result in a coalescent impact where the distinction and separation between the settlements would be eroded to the point at which a detrimental impact upon the character of those settlements would occur.

200. The LPA can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply (plus 20% buffer) and relevant ELP Policies are therefore considered not to be out-of-date, absent or silent. It is considered that there is no justification to attribute such an amount of weight to the site’s potential contribution to the housing land supply in respect to the next 5 years supply that warrants significantly reducing the weight to the attributed to relevant greenfield land and rural restraint policies and guidance.

201. Officers therefore object to the development on the grounds of this incursion into the countryside and resultant harm to the character of Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale.

Page 109 202. The NPPF explains that good design is indivisible from good planning. Developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area and establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit.

203. The layout proposed would result in areas lacking defined and identifiable character and create streetscapes that would fail to establish a strong sense of place and distinctive character. Officers therefore object to the development in this regard.

204. The layout proposed would result in an unacceptable adverse impact upon the occupiers of Nos. 11, 14 and 25 Dalton Heights through the creation of relationships with the proposed dwellings that would be too intimate and result in a loss of privacy and creation of disturbance.

205. With regards to other key material planning considerations namely residential amenity, highways issues, flood risk and drainage, ecology and impacts on heritage assets officers consider that the development is acceptable and in compliance with relevant Development Plan and NPPF guidance.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable incursion into countryside that provides an important physical and visual separation between the settlements of Seaham and Dalton-le-Dale. This would result in an unacceptable coalescent effect contrary to Policies 1 and 3 of the District of Easington Local Plan and advice contained within the “Twelve Core Planning Principles” of the NPPF at paragraph 17 and paragraphs 109 and 111 at Part 11 of the NPPF.

2. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would result in the layout and arrangement of dwellings that would lack defined and identifiable character and create streetscapes that would fail to establish a strong sense of place and distinctive character. The development is therefore considered unacceptable in design terms and contrary to the requirements of Policies 1 and 35 (and accompanying Appendix 6) of the District of Easington Local Plan and having regard to paragraphs 56-60 and 64 at Part 7 of the NPPF.

3. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would result in a serious adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of Nos. 11, 14 and 25 Dalton Heights. The proximity of the curtilages of proposed plots 22, 23, 66, 67 and 69 to the identified properties on Dalton Heights would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the existing residents. This impact would be exacerbated in the case of No. 25 Dalton Heights by the proximity and overlooking impact of a veranda proposed at the plot 69 dwelling. The drive and turning area adjacent to the plot 66 and 67 dwellings would also create harmful disturbance to the occupiers of No. 14 Dalton Heights. The development is therefore considered contrary to ELP Policies 1 and 35 and the associated Appendix 6 and having regards to advice contained within the “Twelve Core Planning Principles” of the NPPF at paragraph 17.

Page 110

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to refuse the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

- Submitted application form, plans, supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant - The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) - National Planning Practice Guidance - District of Easington Local Plan - The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) - Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Page 111

DM/14/02017/FPA

Land To The East Of A19 And South Of Dalton Planning Services Heights Seaham

Residential development of 134 no. dwellings (C3 use class) with associated access and landscaping works

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey Comments material with the permission Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Date June 2015 Scale Not to scale Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005

Page 112 Agenda Item 5d Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

DM/15/00709/FPA APPLICATION NO:

Extension to distribution centre (B8 land use) in 2 phases (10,000m2 & 7,000m2) including to storage enclosure and FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : plant room, additional sprinkler tank and pump room, changes to HGV route and car park, and landscaping.

NAME OF APPLICANT : Lidl UK.

Moordale Road, Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe. ADDRESS :

Aycliffe East ELECTORAL DIVISION :

Peter Herbert, Senior Planner CASE OFFICER : 03000 261391, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site:

1. The Aycliffe based Lidl Regional Distribution Centre (RDC) is located on the southern edge of the Aycliffe Business Park to the south east of Newton Aycliffe Town Centre, approximately one mile from Junction 59 of the A1(M) motorway.

2. To the north lies open land, within the south west corner of which is positioned an informal RDC overflow car park. Beyond, the Millennium Way Business Park distributor road runs in an east-west direction, off which Moorland Road runs in a southerly direction to serve the RDC. To the south is open countryside. Bridleways 10 and 11 (Great Aycliffe) run to the south and west of the application site.

3. To the east is open land with the Compound Electronics factory beyond, while to the west runs a railway line in a north-south direction with open countryside beyond. There are no ecological designated sites within the site or vicinity. Immediately to the north-west is a piece of land known as Moordale Park. This is an enhanced habitat area, contained by a permanent amphibian barrier, to which a small population of great crested newts? were relocated when the RDC was built in 2007.

4. The present RDC building covers 38,929m2 in floor area, and measures 313m in length, 167m in width, and averages 17m in height. The structure has a shallow curved roof in muted grey and blue, and is of profiled cladded panel construction with exposed aggregate concrete plinth walling. Roughly rectangular, the building stands within a fenced compound, inside which is a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) circulation route and manoeuvring areas, parking, open pallet storage area and ancillary substation and tanks. Belts of trees grow along the site’s southern and western boundaries. Page 113

The Proposal:

5. The Newton Aycliffe RDC is one of nine Lidl regional warehouse and distribution centres in the UK serving the Company’s food stores. As part of an expansion programme additional warehousing and support accommodation is required to service both existing and proposed stores.

6. The RDC would be extended in an easterly direction onto open land between the existing building and Compound Electronics. The development would take place in two phases. The first would increase the floorspace by 10,000m2, and include the enclosure of the existing pallet store (1,561m2), the formalisation of the current overflow car park, additional sprinkler tank and pump room, and the reconfiguration of the HGV circulation route with associated landscaping. The second phase would comprise an additional 7,000m2 of floorspace, with associated amendments to the HGV circulation route to allow vehicular movement around the enlarged building in a clockwise direction.

7. The first phase extension would increase the building’s length by 63m. The second by a further 54m. The width would remain the same as that of the existing building, as would the height. Design and materials would also replicate what is currently there. Boundary fencing would match the existing at 2m in height and be of galvanised steel mesh between hollow steel posts.

8. Existing perimeter trees would be managed, with pruning carried out where necessary and additional tree planting undertaken along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries to soften the impact of the extensions.

9. The site currently employs 270 full and part time staff. Once fully extended this would increase to 340 full and part time staff. The RDC runs a 24 hour operation with shift working.

10. A total of 139 car parking spaces, of which 86 are formalised within the main fenced compound and the remainder located in the loose surfaced overflow car park, are currently provided. Parking for 15 cycles and 18 HGVs is also located within the main compound. It is proposed that car parking space numbers be increased to 179, with 86 within the compound and the remainder in an enlarged overflow car park formally laid out and surfaced. Two electric car parking spaces and a double charging point would be included within the compound. Cycle parking would be upgraded to 48 stands, half of which to be covered. HGV parking would be increased by 27 spaces to 45.

11. This application is reported to Committee as it represents a major development.

PLANNING HISTORY

12. The Aycliffe Lidl RDC was constructed in 2007 (Planning Permission No. 7/2006/0774/DM) and has been operating from the Moordale Road site ever since

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY :

13. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Page 114 Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. 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 dependent.

14. 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’. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:

15. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy . The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.

16. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

17. 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.

18. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment - The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (National Planning Policy Framework)

19. The Government has recently cancelled a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents and replaced them with National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The NPPG contains guidance on a number of issues, and of particular relevance to this proposal is guidance relating to design, flood risk, travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ (National Planning Practice Guidance)

Page 115 LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (1996) (SBLP)

20. Policy IB2 (A) – Designation of Type of Industrial Estate – identifies the application site as lying within a Prestige Business Area.

21. Policy IB5 – Acceptable Uses In Prestige Business Areas – allows (inter alia) business, general industry and warehousing land uses on such estates.

22. Policy IB13 – Extension to Industrial and Business Premises – states a presumption in favour of such proposals provided adjacent industrial and business premises are not adversely affected, the site is not over intensively developed and there are no negative impacts in respect of residential amenity, area character or traffic generation.

23. Policy D1 – General Principles for the Layout and Design of New Developments – states that new developments will be expected to follow specified principles in respect of layout and design to include (inter alia) account being taken of the site’s natural and built features, of neighbouring land uses and activities, energy conservation, accommodation of the needs of users and safe access.

24. Policy D2 – Design for People – requires new development to take account of personal safety, the access needs of users and the provision of appropriate facilities.

25. Policy D3 – Design for Access – requires developments to make satisfactory and safe provision for access by a range of transport modes.

26. Policy D4 – Layout and Design of New Industrial and Business Development – expects such development proposals to include an appropriate standard of design, safely accommodate the traffic generated, and have an appropriate standard of landscaping and screening, where appropriate.

27. Policy E15 – Safeguarding of Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows – seeks to protect areas of woodland and important groups of trees in the consideration of development proposals.

The County Durham Plan

28. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public in April 2014 and stage 1 of that Examination has been concluded. However, the Inspector’s Interim Report which followed, dated 18 February 2015, has raised issues in relation to the soundness of various elements of the plan. In the light of this, policies that may be relevant to an individual scheme and which are neither the subject of significant objection nor adverse comment in the Interim Report can carry limited weight. Those policies that have been subject to significant objection can carry only very limited weight. Equally, where policy has been amended, as set out in the Interim Report, then such amended policy can carry only very limited weight. Those policies that have been the subject of adverse comment in the interim report can carry no weight. Relevant policies and the weight to be afforded to them are discussed in the main body of the report.

Page 116 The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at: http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/durham/text/00cont.htm (City of Durham of Durham Local Plan) http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

29. Highways England – No objection is raised. The predicted additional traffic generated from this proposal is judged to fall short of having a severe impact on Junction 59 of the A1 (M). However, it is recommended that an existing Travel Plan operational at the RDC be updated to take account of the proposed increase in both operation size and staff numbers.

30. The Highway Authority – No objection is raised subject to conditions requiring a travel plan and approval of certain plans. It is concluded that predicted additional vehicle trip rates are unlikely to have a material impact on junctions within the local highway network. The number of parking spaces to be provided is considered acceptable, while the provision of additional cycle parking and two electric vehicle charging points is welcomed.

31. Environment Agency – No objection is raised but comments are provided in terms of surface water disposal and car parking area noting that drainage from parking areas being via an oil interceptor.

32. Northumbrian Water – No objection is raised, subject to it being a condition of any planning approval that a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water be approved prior to development commencing.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

33. Design & Conservation – No objection is raised. Whilst accepted as being significantly large within local views, the proposed extensions would be seen in context with other large buildings on the edge of the Business Park. Officers consider there would be no adverse impact on heritage assets in the vicinity due to an absence of intervisibility.

34. Landscape – No objection is raised. The site does not lie within any locally or nationally designated landscape. The proposed extensions will be clearly visible, particularly in views from the south, but the simple roofline will mitigate visual impact relative to other existing structures within the area.

35. Ecology – No objection is raised. The submitted Ecological Assessment has been reviewed and its conclusions accepted. It is recommended that the implementation of mitigation measures detailed within Section E of the report be a condition of any planning permission.

36. Archaeology – No objection is raised.

37. Access and Rights of Way – No objection is raised. Whilst Bridleways 10 and 11 (Great Aycliffe) run to the south and west of the application site, neither would be affected by the proposals.

Page 117 38. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Noise Action Team) – No objection is raised.

39. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – No objection is raised in terms of the impact the proposed development may have on air quality. The application site does not lie within, or in close proximity to, either a declared Air Quality Management Area or a known source of an air quality pollutant. The predicted increase in traffic movements falls below the threshold judged to trigger impact on local air quality.

40. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) – No objection is raised stating that officers have assessed the available information and historical maps with respect to land contamination and have no adverse comments to make.

41. Drainage & Coastal Protection – No objection is raised, subject to sustainable drainage principles being followed.

42. Business Durham – fully supports this application, stating that the proposed extension and associated job creation comes at a pivotal time to underpin the strategic development of Lidl. Furthermore it will support the on-going growth that is evident in Newton Aycliffe and provide sustainable job creation.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

43. This application has been publicised by means of press notice, site notices and individual letters to neighbouring properties.

44. Letters of support for this application have been received from Great Aycliffe Town Council and the former Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for the constituency of Sedgefield.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

43 Lidl UK have submitted a planning application to extend the existing Regional Distribution Centre located in Newton Aycliffe. The RDC is positioned on the southern boundary of a group of Industrial and business parks. The RDC shares Aycliffe Industrial Park with an adjacent factory unit. To the north on the opposite side of Millennium Way there is an established business park known as Heighington Business Park. To the south and west of the site there is open farmland apart from the railway line that runs north to south to the west of the site.

44 In addition to the existing RDC in Newton Aycliffe, Lidl currently distributes from 8 regional warehouses, located in Livingston, Lutterworth, Weston-super-Mare, Belvedere, Bridgend, Enfield, Runcorn and Northfleet.

45 As part of Lidl’s current expansion programme, additional distribution facilities are necessary to support the food store portfolio expansion across the North East of England. An extension to Lidl’s existing RDC in Newton Aycliffe is considered to be the most appropriate solution.

46 The application seeks approval for an additional 17,000sqm of warehouse space, which is planned to be implemented in two separate phases. The first phase is a 10,000sqm extension together with associated amendments to circulation and landscaping areas.

Page 118 47 The proposal also includes additional staff car parking facilities and an increase in cycle parking provisions. In addition, we are also committed to providing an electric vehicle charging point on site. There will also be up to 70 additional full & part time jobs available at the extended facility.

48 We have worked closely with the Local Authority and consultees to address any queries as they have arisen, and we are extremely pleased that the application has been recommended for approval.

49 We consider that the proposed extension and refurbishment of the existing Regional Distribution Centre will integrate successfully into the existing environment and will be of social and commercial benefit to the area.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

50 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 planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development; visual and landscape impact, highway safety and parking and ecology.

Principle of Development

51 An RDC building has operated from the application site since 2007, and it is located within a Prestige Business Area as defined by Policy IB2 (A) of the SBLP. Policy IB5 allows such land uses (B8 – storage and distribution) on such an estate. Accordingly, the acceptability of the principle of such development in this location has been firmly established.

52 It can therefore be concluded that the principle of the proposal is acceptable, and in full compliance with the objectives of Policies IB2 (A) and IB5 of the SBLP.

53 The acceptability of the extension of the building must also be assessed against Policy IB13 of the SDLP. These matters are considered in the relevant sections of this report.

Visual and Landscape impact

54 A Visual Impact Assessment supporting the application concludes that overall the proposed extensions can be assimilated into the existing landscape and built environment without any significant visual impacts. It concludes also that this development would not adversely affect the experience of those living and working in, or passing through, the immediate area, or negatively impact upon long distance views. This is broadly accepted. The proposed extensions are of a significant size, eventually increasing the existing building by approximately 44%. However, by continuing the existing building line, utilising a style and materials that replicate its appearance, and filling a gap between the Lidl building and the Compound Electronics factory, both sizeable structures, the proposal would not look out of context and nor would the character of the area change.

Page 119 55 In the judgement of the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, the design, scale and massing are acceptable within the site’s context, and there are no residential properties adversely affected, the nearest approximately 330 m to the south east, Hill House Farm, being of sufficient distance away not to be affected and having not raised any objection.

56 The nearest heritage assets lie approximately 800 m to the north east in the form of Aycliffe Village Conservation Area and the grade 1 listed St Andrews Church. However, as a result of intervening topography, mature trees and buildings, there is virtually no intervisibility between the application site and the heritage assets. Therefore their setting and significance would not be affected by this proposal.

57 In respect of impact on the landscape, the proposal’s location on the southern edge of the business park will render it visible from countryside to the south. However, this is not locally or nationally designated landscape. By virtue of the extension’s simplicity and linear form, it will be less visually intrusive than other large industrial buildings in the vicinity, and the bulk will over time be visually tempered by the proposed boundary planting, which would be established at the time of extension’s first phase implementation to enable it to mature prior the implementation of the second phase. No existing trees would be affected.

58 The extension of the building is deemed to be acceptable when measured against Policy IB13 of the SDLP as it is not considered that adjacent industrial and business premises would be adversely affected, the site is not over intensively developed, and it is not considered there would be negative impacts in respect of residential amenity, or area character.

59 Accordingly it is concluded that the objectives of Policies D1, D4, E15 and IB13 of the SBLP and NPPF Part 7 have been met.

Highway Safety and Parking

60 The Transport Assessment accompanying this application concludes that the anticipated increase in staff numbers of approximately 70 will occur gradually as distribution demand from an expanding Lidl store network increases, and all would not be present on site at one time due to shift working. Moreover, it is estimated that the maximum total increase in staff movements would be around 32 which would occur around the midday changeover period.

61 To accommodate staff increases an additional 40 parking spaces would be provided which, in association with a revised Travel Plan, is said to satisfactorily address additional demand. The applicants are prepared to implement both these measures in advance of either of the phases of warehouse extensions being operational. The revised HGV circulation arrangements are a logical and effective extension to the existing arrangements necessitated by the extended building.

62 Traffic generated by an expanded RDC are stated to have a de minimis impact on the local highway network and on Junction 59 of the A1 (M) in particular, with a maximum potential increase in vehicular traffic movement predicted as 25 in each direction per hour, to include staff, visitor and HGV movements.

63 Both the local Highway Authority and Highways England accept these predictions and offer no objections, subject to appropriate planning conditions designed to secure the additional parking provision and updated Travel Plan. The Highway Authority and Highways England are satisfied that traffic generation levels would not impact on the local road network in a harmful manner. Highway impact is considered acceptable. Page 120 The objectives of Policies D2 D3, and IB13 of the SBLP and Part 4 of the NPPF are therefore considered to have been met.

Ecology

64 An Ecological Assessment accompanying the application concludes the application site to be low risk in terms of protected species. When the RDC was originally built great crested newts on the site were relocated to adjacent land, and the current proposal would not impact on this, nor have great crested newts recolonised the land upon which the current proposal would be constructed. However, a mitigation strategy relative to the protection of nesting birds has been proposed. The Council’s Ecologist accepts the Assessment’s findings, and subject to the mitigation measures being undertaken the objectives of NPPF Part 11 are considered to have been met.

CONCLUSION

65 This proposal represents a significant and welcome financial investmentment in one of County Durham’s key business parks, with clear economic benefits to the region both directly in terms of on-site jobs and indirectly by supporting the expansion programme of Lidl stores throughout the North East.

66 Although of considerable size, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed phased extensions can be visually assimulated within their surroundings and the wider landscape through simplicity of form, materials choice and additional tree planting.

67 The additional traffic predicted to be generated is not considered to be significant in terms of the smooth and safe operation of the local highway network, its junctions and Junction 59 of the A1(M). This would be reinforced by an updated Travel Plan.

68 No ecological impact would result from this proposal, subject to proposed mitigation measures being undertaken. In addition there would beno negative impact upon neighbouring businesses or residential amenity.

69 No letters of objection have received, and the application has the support of Great Aycliffe Town Council, a former local parliamentary candidate and Business Durham.

70 Therefore this proposal is considered to be a sustainable form of development offering considerable economic benefits, and fuly compliant with relevant policies of the SBLP and relevant sections of the NPPF, including in particular Part 1 that seeks to build a strong and competetive economy.

RECOMMENDATION

That application DM/15/00709/FPA is APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved plans and specifications contained within following documents:

Page 121 SITE LOCATION PLAN K15/0001 001 REV B PROPOSED SITE & ROOF PLAN (10,000 m EXTENSION) K15/0001 202 REV B PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (SHEET 1 OF 2) 10,000 m EXTENSION K15/0001 206 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (SHEET 2 OF 2) 10,000 m EXTENSION K15/0001 207 PROPOSED SECTIONS (10,000 m EXTENSION K15/0001 205 REV A PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN (10,000 m EXTENSION) K15/0001 203 REV A PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN (10,000 m) EXTENSION) K15/0001 204 REV A PROPOSED SITE & ROOF PLAN (17,000 m EXTENSION) K15/0001 102 REV E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (SHEET 1 OF 2) 17,000 m EXTENSION K15/0001 106 REV A PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (SHEET 2 OF 2) 17,000 m EXTENSION K15/0001 107 REV A PROPOSED SECTIONS (17,000 m EXTENSION) K15/0001 105 B PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN (17,000 m EXTENSION) K15/0001 103 REV C PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN (17,000 m EXTENSION) K15/0001 104 REV C LANDSCAPE PROPOSALS DLA-1644-(02)-01 REV A PROPOSED SPRINKLER TANK & PUMP HOUSE K15/0001 101 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CAR & CYCLE PARKING PROVISION SCP/15025/D01 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BARRETT ENVIRONMENTAL FEBRUARY 2015) SECTION E (MITIGATION)

Reason: To secure an acceptable form of development that meets the objectives of Policies IB2 (A), IB5, IB13, D1, D2 & D4 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996.

3. Prior to development commencing a scheme for the disposal of surface and foul water, to include the provision of car park oil interceptors, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved scheme shall be carried out in full.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable drainage and reduced flood risk, in accordance with the objectives of Policy IB13 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996. The required information is necessary prior to the approved development commencing due to its particular nature.

4. Prior to the first occupation of phase 1 (10,000 m extension) of the hereby approved development the additional car and cycle parking provision shown in drawing SCP/15025/D01 shall be carried out in full.

Reason: To provide an appropriate level of off-street parking that meets the objectives of Policies D1, D2, D3 & D4 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996.

5. Prior to the first occupation of phase 1 (10,000 m extension) of the hereby approved development an updated Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be carried out in full.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel, in accordance with the objectives of NPPF Part 4.

6. The proposed landscaping shown in drawing DLA-1644-(02)-01 REV A shall be carried out during the first planting season following the granting of this planning permission and thereafter fully maintained with failures replaced.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to meet the objectives of Policies IB13 & D4 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996.

Page 122

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to approve the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant • National Planning Policy Framework • National Planning Policy Guidance • Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996 • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Page 123

DM/15/00709/FPA Extension to distribution centre (B8 land use) in 2 phases (10,000 sq. m & 7000 sq. m ) including to Planning Services storage enclosure and plant room, additional sprinkler tank and pump room, changes to HGV route and car park, and landscaping.

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey 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 2015 Scale Not to scale

Page 124

Agenda Item 5e Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/ 14/03879/FPA Installation and operation of 5MW solar farm and FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : associated infrastructure

Lightsource SPV 170 Limited NAME OF APPLICANT : Land to the West of Preston Road, Aycliffe Business ADDRESS: Park, Newton Aycliffe

Aycliffe East ELECTORAL DIVISION : Colin Harding, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 263945, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

Site

1. The application site is located on 10.6ha of pasture/grazing land to the west of Aycliffe Business Park and to the east of School Aycliffe. The site is bounded by to the east by the premises of Ineos, to the north by School Aycliffe Lane and the Oakleaf Sports Complex, and to the south and west by agricultural fields. Residential properties in School Aycliffe lie approx. 150m to the west of the site.

2. The site in its entirety straddles the administrative boundary between County Durham and the Borough of Darlington. The boundary crosses the site, running east to west, with a little less than half of the site lying within County Durham. The southern part of the site is situated within County Durham, with the northern part lying within the Borough of Darlington. Approximately 500m to the east lies The Snipe Local Wildlife Site, and approximately 500m to the north west lies School Aycliffe Wetlands Local Wildlife Site. Middridge Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest lies approximately 2km to the south. The site itself has no specific ecological or landscape designation.

3. The site is relatively unconstrained, with the nearest public right of way lying over 750m to the west, although a public footpath does exist immediately to the west of the site. Similarly, the nearest listed buildings are situated approximately 450m away.

The Proposal

4. The proposal is for the establishment of a solar farm with an electricity generating capacity of up to 5MW, together with associated equipment and works. It is proposed that the use of the site would extend to 30.5 years.

Page 125 5. The panels themselves would number 19,458, and measure 1.65m x 0.992m and would be mounted at an angle of 20 degrees, resulting in a maximum height of 2m above ground level. They would be attached to mounting frames, arranged in a regular pattern and would be fixed in place.

6. The mounting frames would be pile driven into the ground to a depth of approximately 1.5m, with no concrete foundations required. At the end of the life of the development, the frames would simply be pulled out of the ground.

7. The arrays would be accompanied by ancillary equipment, such as inverters, transformers and substations, which allow the electricity generated to be fed into the National Grid. 4 inverters are proposed, to be housed in blockwork cabins measuring 2.92m x 4.42m x 1.52m. Three transformers are also proposed, measuring 3.1m x 6m x 2.5m, and two substations are also included in the application. The site would be surrounded by a 2m high agricultural post and wire fence.

8. The electricity output is estimated to be equivalent to the power requirements of 1,276 typical households per year.

9. The application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it is a major development.

10. An identical application has been submitted Darlington Borough Council for their consideration, but has yet to be determined.

PLANNING HISTORY

11. There is no planning history in respect of the application site.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

12. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. 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.

13. 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’. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.

14. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Decisions should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.

Page 126 15. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Rural Economy – Requires planning policies to support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development, supporting all types of business and enterprise, promoting development and diversification of agricultural and rural business and supporting tourism and leisure activities that benefit rural businesses, communities and visitors whilst respecting the character of the countryside.

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 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.

18. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

19. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. Working from Local Plans that set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, Local Planning Authorities should require applicants to describe the significance of the heritage asset affected to allow an understanding of the impact of a proposal on its significance. In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the asset and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character. Opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas that enhance or better reveal their significance should be treated favourably, acknowledging that not all elements of a Conservation Area contribute to its significance.

20. 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 below.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)

21. Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this development proposal is the practice guidance with regards to visual impact, glint and glare, loss of agricultural land,

Page 127 impact upon heritage assets and the use of planning conditions with respect to renewable energy projects, and specifically solar farms.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ (National Planning Practice Guidance)

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

The Sedgefield Borough Local Plan

22. Policy E15 - Safeguarding of Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows – seeks to safeguard woodlands, trees and hedgerows by not allowing development that would damage areas of ancient woodland, making tree preservation orders where necessary, and expecting development proposals to retain other important groups of trees wherever possible.

23. Policy D1 – General Principles for the Design and Layout of New Developments – requires new development to have a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach with takes account of the site’s natural and built features and its relationship to adjacent land uses, provide safe access and incorporate satisfactory landscaping where required.

24. Policy D3 – Design for Access – states that developments should normally make satisfactory and safe provision for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, cars and other vehicles.

25. Policy D4 – Layout and Design of New Industrial and Business Development – The layout and design of all new industrial and business development will normally be expected to have a standard of design appropriate to its location, accommodate traffic generated by the development and have an appropriate standard of landscaping.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

The County Durham Plan

26. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public in April 2014 and stage 1 of that Examination has been concluded. However, the Inspector’s Interim Report which followed, dated 18 February 2015, has raised issues in relation to the soundness of various elements of the plan. In the light of this, policies that may be relevant to an individual scheme and which are neither the subject of significant objection nor adverse comment in the Interim Report can carry limited weight. Those policies that have been subject to significant objection can carry only very limited weight. Equally, where policy has been amended, as set out in the Interim Report, then such amended policy can carry only very limited weight. Those policies that have been the subject of adverse comment in the interim report can carry no weight. Relevant policies and the weight to be afforded to them is discussed in the main body of the report.

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/article/3269/Easington-Local-Plan (Easington Local Plan) and http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3273/Waste-Local-Plan (County Durham Waste Local Plan) http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)

Page 128 CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

27. Great Aycliffe Town Council – Indicates that it supports the application.

28. Environment Agency – No objections, although records of local water vole and Great Crested Newt populations are noted.

29. Highway Authority – No objections are raised. It is considered that none of the receptors highlighted in the Glint and Glare Study as falling within the highway are located within County Durham. Neither does the existing public highway network in the immediate vicinity of the site.

30. National Air Traffic Services – No objections are raised.

31. Ministry of Defence – No objections are raised.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

32. Sustainable Development and Energy – No objections in principle, although ideally the solar farm should provide energy directly to businesses on Aycliffe Industrial Estate.

33. County Archaeologist – No objections. The pre-determination geophysical survey and desk based assessment show that there do not appear to be any potential archaeological anomalies which could be negatively impacted upon.

34. Design and Conservation – No objections. The setting of designated heritage assets within 5km would not be adversely affected by this development due to the low level nature of the proposal, the lack of noise or light pollution, the low lying topography and intervening landscape and built environment features that intervene.

35. Environmental and Consumer Protection – No objections. This is provided that the inverters are located to the east of the site, construction hours are limited to Monday – Friday 8am – 6pm, and the use of the mini-piler restricted to Monday – Friday 9am – 5pm

36. Drainage and Coastal Protection – No objections.

37. County Aboriculturalist – No objections

38. County Ecologist – No objections. The likely risk of impact to protected and priority species is likely to be low. It is recommended that the use of the method statements and implementation of mitigation is secured by condition.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

39. The application was advertised in the press, by site notices and letters to neighbouring residents. No representations have been received from the general public.

Page 129

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

40. The proposed School Aycliffe Solar Farm presents an excellent opportunity to reduce the carbon footprint of School Aycliffe, Newton Aycliffe and the Aycliffe Industrial Estate. The proposed 5MW solar farm will be capable of generating enough clean electricity to power the equivalent of 1276 typical households, reducing the area’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2178 tonnes annually, the equivalent of taking 484 large family cars off the road.

41. Natural England and the RSPB have recognised the potential benefits that solar farms can offer for biodiversity enhancement. Over 60% of British wildlife is in decline, primarily due to agricultural intensification. The site has been assessed as being of poor ecological value and a number of biodiversity measures have been incorporated into the development to provide a net benefit to local wildlife: around 1km of new and infill native hedgerow and tree planting is proposed; nectar-rich wildflowers will be sown in the field margins; and, a number of bird and bat boxes will be erected on surrounding trees, including a barn owl box. A number of amendments have been made to the proposed planting and ongoing management of the site to reflect comments received from the County’s Landscape and Ecology Officers.

42. The entire area of the site within Durham constitutes poorer quality agricultural land of Grade 3B. It is proposed to graze sheep on the site to ensure a continued agricultural use. Following the expiration of the temporary planning permission, the infrastructure and all equipment will be removed from the site and the land returned to a sole agricultural use.

43. The site is not located within any national or local level landscape designations. The site is exceptionally well screened from properties in School Aycliffe by mature trees and hedgerows. Infill planting and sensitive ongoing management of the site vegetation will ensure any existing views are minimised.

44. Significant public consultation has been undertaken, including a site visit with members of Heighington Parish Council, an advertisement in the local press, information packs sent to 572 local residents and business, a community consultation evening, and members of Lightsource attending a meeting of Great Aycliffe Parish Council to present our proposals. The suitability of the site for a solar farm is further demonstrated by the fact that no letters of objection from members of the public have been received to our planning application to Durham Council and the proposed development has the support of Great Aycliffe Town Council. A community benefit fund of around £2,500 per year forms part of the proposed development, to be split between Heighington Parish Council and Great Aycliffe Town Council.

45. The proposed development is well located, has the support of the local community and is in line with planning policy and it is therefore respectfully requested that this committee grant planning permission in line with the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NNO42YGD0BJ00

Page 130

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

46. 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 planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of development, use of agricultural land, landscape and visual impact, impact on the historic environment, ecological impact, drainage and flood risk, highway safety, noise and residential amenity, and other matters.

Principle of development

47. The UK Government is committed to increasing domestic renewable energy provision to address the projected growth in global energy demand and concern over long term fossil fuels supplies.

48. Together, these issues place long term energy supply at risk. In addition to these trends, global warming and climate change necessitates ensuring that renewable resources are brought forward to provide a secure basis for the UK’s future energy needs. These aims were reflected in the 2009 UK Government Energy Strategy White Paper which states within its Executive Summary that: “We need to radically increase our use of renewable electricity, heat and transport. (The Strategy) sets out the path for us to meet our legally-binding target to ensure 15% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020: almost a seven-fold increase in the share of renewables in scarcely more than a decade.’

49. Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy generation is a renewable power technology that uses solar panels to convert light from the sun directly into electricity. The electrical output of PV solar panels is dependent upon the intensity of the light to which it is exposed and this part of the country experiences good light levels that make solar panels an efficient form of renewable energy production. Photovoltaic cells do not need to be in direct sunlight to work, so even on overcast days PV solar panels will still generate a limited level of energy output.

50. It is now widely accepted that climate change is actively progressing and that carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels are a key contributory factor. The increased production of energy from renewable sources, such as solar PV, has very real benefits in off-setting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and reducing the potential impact of greenhouse gases on climate change. It will also ensure a constant and affordable source of energy, contribute to economic stability and provide a further form of farm diversification to support rural economies.

51. Producing electricity with PV emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases and uses no finite fossil-fuel resources. Where, as has been generally recognised, the current consumption of and reliance on fossil fuels is considered to be unsustainable, there is a very real need to find a viable long term alternative solution.

52. Solar power is considered to be such a solution. Despite the coverage of ground based sites they are, as a whole, one of the most low-key types of renewable energy generators available. The low height of the arrays, the lack of noise and the minimal maintenance required all ensure that, once installed, the system causes no disturbance to the occupants of properties in the surrounding area.

Page 131 53. Ideally, large scale solar PV arrays should be directed towards previously developed land. However, with there being relatively few sites of appropriate size in the County, it is considered that, subject to other considerations set out below, the principle of the proposed photovoltaic development on this undeveloped site in the countryside is endorsed by planning policy as a suitable source of obtaining renewable energy to meet the energy demands of County Durham.

54. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at paragraph 98 that applications for renewable energy developments should not be required to demonstrate the need for renewable or low-carbon energy and that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Applications should be approved if the project’s impacts are, or can be made, acceptable.

55. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes dedicated guidance with regards to renewable energy and in principle also supports renewable energy development considering that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable

56. The scheme is designed to produce renewable energy sufficient to meet the needs of some 1,276 local houses and thereby offsetting emissions of carbon dioxide. This would materially add to the County’s renewable energy provision and national targets for the achievement of a diverse energy supply, as well as tackling the effects of climate change and these are benefits that attract very considerable weight.

57. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle, and in accordance with relevant national policy contained within the NPPF in this respect.

Use of Agricultural Land

58. An assessment of the land upon which the proposal would be located has been submitted and this entailed both a desk based study and follow up fieldwork. The study concludes that the land classification across the site in its entirety can be considered to be 68% Class 3b and 31% Class 3a, with the Class 3a land being located in the northern part of the site, which lies outside of County Durham.

59. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be utilised in preference to that of a higher quality. Grades 1, 2 or 3a are defined within the NPPF as being best and most versatile agricultural land. Much of the site and in particular the extent of the site that lies with County Durham is considered to not constitute best and most versatile agricultural land.

60. Furthermore, the proposed development is not regarded as being permanent with the land being restored to its original condition post development. The development would not result in the permanent or irreversible loss of agricultural land as the installation of the solar array is a temporary, albeit long-term, use of land which would incorporate the on-going agricultural activity, through sheep grazing, alongside the energy generation function of the solar array.

61. On the basis of the existing use and the policy advice set out at paragraph 112 of the NPPF it is concluded that the temporary removal of land from agricultural production does not represent an overriding objection to this proposal.

Page 132 Landscape and Visual Impact

62. In its broadest sense it could be argued that any development of this scale and nature represents the introduction of alien structures that are at odds with the intrinsic natural characteristics of the open countryside. However, in balancing policy objectives (not least that of supporting the provision of renewable energy), there will likely be some locations and sites within the countryside where the local landscape has a greater capacity to accommodate such forms of development than others.

63. Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (SBLP) Policies D1, D3 and D4 relate to design and layout of new developments, but provide no specific advice for developments such as solar farms. However, the general principles of ensuring that new development relates to its surroundings, be adequately screened and be of an appropriate quality of design, can all be considered to be relevant to this scheme. This advice is largely reflected in the NPPF, notably in Part 7.

64. Furthermore, National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) acknowledges that whilst large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, that the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm could be zero.

65. In order to adequately consider the impact of the proposed solar farm would have, the applicant has provided a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, which finds that the site is of medium sensitivity, but due to potential existing and proposed perimeter planting, that the resultant overall significance of landscape effect is considered to be minor. The Council’s Landscape officers have agreed with the methodology and findings of the assessment and raise no objections to the proposal, in this respect.

66. The site is located directly adjacent to Aycliffe Industrial Estate, and consequently is seen in the context of a developed landscape to the east. It is considered that a development of this nature, being large but relatively lightweight, would appear transitory between the open countryside to the west, and the industrial development immediately to the east. Whilst the solar farm would be likely to be visible from a number of residential properties, the closest being 150m to the west, it is considered that it would not be visually dominant. Whilst the solar panels and associated structures would introduce new features and structures that create a strong new pattern this would have the effect of adding a different texture and colour to the existing landscape, but not one that could be considered to be necessarily unattractive.

67. In terms of the associated structures such as inverter housings, these are not considered to be obtrusive due to their scale and location. The only notable landscape features within the site and immediate surroundings are the boundary hedgerows and these would be retained and enhanced by management and planting. There is no requirement to light the solar panels overnight for security, therefore, overall, landscape impacts are considered to be minimal.

68. The actual removal of the solar farm structures and infrastructural facilities at decommissioning would result in some temporary construction impacts but, once this is complete, there would be no adverse residual effects on the site or its setting. The landscape effects of the scheme are reversible in the longer term, though the beneficial effects associated with new planting provided within the site would be permanent.

69. In terms of ‘glint and glare’ – glint refers to reflection produced as a direct reflection of the sun off a surface whilst glare refers to a continuous source of brightness, being the general reflection of a bright sky rather than a direct reflection of the sun. The Page 133 glass used to make the panels is not the same as normal window glass as it is specifically designed to absorb as much daylight as possible to convert to electricity. The surface of a PV panel is intentionally rough to disperse and absorb the sunlight reflecting only between 2 and 9% of incoming sunlight compared to calm water at approximately 11%, standard glass at approximately 22%, bare soil at 30%, snow at 80% and steel at 95%.

70. The potential for glint and glare from a solar farm is therefore much lower than the potential for glint and glare from other man-made structures such as poly tunnels and glass houses, as well as natural features such as water or snow. In summer, once the sun reaches sufficient height in the south eastern sky, sunlight would fall directly on the panels and there may be a slight chance of glint occurring. The potential for glint will not exist where cloud, rain or other weather event obscures the sun from the panels.

71. The application was supported by a site specific Glint and Glare Assessment and this indicates that whilst a degree of both glint and glare is theoretically possible, such impacts are expected to be limited, and in many cases intervening landscape features would obscure direct views of the solar farm. Consequently, the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

Impact on the Historic Environment

72. NPPF, at Part 12, states that LPAs should take heritage impact assessments into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal. The NPPF advises that LPAs should take account of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality.

73. Having regards to this advice, the application is supported by a Historic Environment Settings Impact Assessment, as well as an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment. Furthermore, a geophysical survey of the site has been carried out, and the results submitted.

Conservation Areas

74. There are five Conservation Areas within 5km of the application site. The closest being Heighington Conservation Area, situated 1.25km away, and Aycliffe Conservation Area, situated 1.5km away.

75. It is considered that the proposed development would not have any impact upon the significance of any of the Conservation Areas, due to the distances involved, intervening landscape features and existing built development.

Listed Buildings

76. The closest listed buildings comprise Old Farm Cottage and Nurses’ Teaching Centre in School Aycliffe. Both are Grade II listed, and situated approximately 430m from the application site.

77. The Impact Assessment notes that the setting of listed buildings in the wider vicinity of the site generally comprises of their environs within the settlement, and that no views of the proposed development would be afforded at ground level. Given the level the visual separation, it is considered that there would be no impact upon significance.

Page 134 78. Heighington Hall is a Grade II* listed house situated within the village of Heighington, dating at its earliest phase from the late 17th Century. Whilst topography would suggest that there would be some intervisibility with the proposed development, it is considered that intervening landscape features, such as tree cover would prevent direct views, resulting in there being no impact upon the hall’s setting.

79. The Church of St Michael in Heighington is a Grade I listed building and is highly prominent within the village and beyond. Again however, intervening landscape features means that it is unlikely that the proposed development would be visible in any key views of the church, or impact upon the appreciation of the tower in longer views. Consequently, its significance would be preserved.

80. At further distance, other listed buildings in the local area include a collection of farm buildings at Middridge Grange, various church and residential properties in Aycliffe Village and railway buildings at Heighington Station. Again, the low profile of the proposed development, and intervening landscape features and existing built development means that there would be clear visual separation between these heritage assets and the proposed development.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens

81. Four Scheduled Monuments (SMs) can be found within 5.5km of the site, the closest being Coatham Mundeville medieval village and fishpond, situated some 3km away. Additionally, the Registered Park at Windlestone Hill lies within 4km of the application site. Given the distance between these heritage assets and the proposed development, and in addition to intervening landscape features, it is considered that there would be no impact upon significance.

Archaeological Remains

82. The submitted Archaeological Desk Based Assessment identified that the site has the potential to host archaeological remains, and consequently, a full geophysical survey of the site has been carried out, in order determine what the extent of such remains might be.

83. The findings of this survey have been considered by the County Archaeologist who agrees with the findings of the report that there are no potential archaeological anomalies which could be negatively impacted upon by the proposed development.

84. In conclusion therefore, the application is considered to be acceptable with regards to its potential to impact upon the significance and setting of heritage assets, and is therefore considered to be in accordance with paragraphs 14, 128, 129, 131 and 132 of the NPPF.

Ecological Impacts

85. The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) and Paragraph 119 of the NPPF. In addition under the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and as amended in 2012) (referred to as the Habitats and Species Regulations hereafter) it is a criminal offence to (amongst other things) deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb a protected species, unless such works are carried out with the benefit of a licence from Natural England. Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations requires local planning authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising its

Page 135 functions. Case law has established that local planning authorities must consider whether the applicant might obtain a protected species license from Natural England.

86. An Ecological Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The assessment finds that the site is generally of limited ecological value, although ground nesting birds may use the site between March and August. It is also noted that existing drainage ditches to the west and south of the site may have the potential to provide habitat for Great Crested Newts (GCN) and Water Vole, although appear to not be supporting populations at this time.

87. It is considered unlikely that the development in itself would be likely to have any impact upon any species of protected species, either now or in the future. However, maintenance works relating to the existing ditches may do so. Consequently, the applicants have produced a method statement for the ongoing management of these features to ensure that their potential for hosting Water Vole and GCN are maintained and improved.

88. The County Ecologist has indicated that these measures are acceptable and that no objections are raised with regards to the ongoing conservation of the population of protected species. It is considered that adherence with the required management measures can be secured via planning condition.

89. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with advice contained within paragraph 119 of the NPPF, and that the Local Planning Authority can discharge its obligations with regards to the Habitats and Species Regulations.

Drainage and Flood Risk

90. The NPPF states at paragraphs 99 – 104, that development should be directed away from areas at highest risk of flooding. In particular, a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development should be applied to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property.

91. The site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1, as defined by the Environment Agency and is therefore considered to be at the lowest risk of flooding from watercourse. With regards to surface water flooding, the site is largely at low risk, although there are areas of higher risk, most notably at the eastern boundary of the site.

92. The nature of the development means that runoff rates will not be excessively impacted upon. Although the panels themselves are impermeable, water running off them would still drain through the natural field surface upon which they are placed. Largely, run-off rates would not be significantly increased.

93. Nevertheless, the applicant has indicated that a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) in form of swales around the southern and eastern boundaries of the site will be provided. Although not strictly necessary, these features will improve the site’s capability with regards to storm events and also to allow for climate change over the lifetime of the development.

94. Neither the Environment Agency, nor the Council’s Drainage and Coastal Protection Team have raised any objections to the application in this respect, which is therefore considered to be in accordance with paragraphs 99 – 104 of the NPPF.

Highway Safety

95. Policy D3 of the SBLP states that new development should make safe provision for vehicular and pedestrian access, whilst the NPPF states that developments should Page 136 only be resisted on highway grounds, where any impact can be considered to be severe.

96. In terms of traffic generation once operational, the proposal would generate only low levels of traffic, with only occasional maintenance visits expected. These would extend to 2 or grass cuts per year, between 2 and 4 panel washing visits per year, up to 20 maintenance visits per year and up to 4 visits a year to monitor the electricity meter. In total, it is expected that annually, no more 30 visits to the site would be expected. Consequently, the proposed field access is considered to be acceptable.

97. During the construction phase, a 7.5 tonne weight limit on School Aycliffe Lane means that a temporary access will be created to the site from the east, accessing the site from within Aycliffe Industrial Estate. This will allow construction access without the need to utilise the weight restricted road. This access will cease to be used following the completion of construction.

98. It is expected that the construction phase would attract 90 HGV movements in total, and decommissioning, 120 HGV movements. The discrepancy in vehicle numbers is due to the looser packaging of the equipment. Likely staff numbers during commissioning and decommissioning is unlikely to exceed 10. The construction period would be expected to last 6 – 8 weeks, with typically up to a maximum of 10 deliveries to the site in a single day.

99. The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposed access methods, and the application is considered to be in accordance with Policy D3 of the SLP and the NPPF in this respect.

Noise and Residential Amenity

100. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that that the planning system should contribute to the local environment by preventing new development from contribuiting to unacceptable levels of pollution, including noise pollution.

101. On the whole, solar farms are considered to have the potential to have only a limited impact upon residential amenity, being relatively low profile developments, with no emissions. Noise generation is generally limited to substations and inverters. In this instance, the proposed layout locates the inverters towards the eastern side of the site, closest to the Ineos site, and farthest from residential properties.

102. In addition to this, the applicant has provided a full noise report which finds that the level of noise produced by the development would be unlikely to be at such levels that it would have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity

103. The Council’s Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Section concurs with the findings of the submitted noise report and that the proposed development is unlikely to result in an unacceptable level of residential amenity. However, it is acknowledged that construction works, and particularly the use a mini-piler would generate a degree of noise, and suggest that a condition restricting construction working hours be attached to any planning permission.

104. Overall, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with paragraph 112 of the NPPF in this respect.

Page 137 Other Matters

105. Officers acknowledge that the applicant has stated that their intention would be to provide a Community Fund of £2,500 per year to be shared between Heighington Parish Council and Newton Aycliffe Town Council. Based on the current proposal this would amount to around £75,000 over the life of the development. However, such a contribution is not proposed under a S106 legal agreement and it is considered that the community fund would not meet the tests of when it is appropriate for the entering into of such a planning obligation, particularly with regards to the contribution directly related to the development. As a result officers cannot attribute weight to the offer in the planning balance.

CONCLUSION

106. The proposals have been carefully considered for potentially damaging effects on the environment and on local amenity and compliance with Policy.

107. It is considered that overall, in view of the context of the site the development is an appropriate use of land. The proposal would provide technology for renewable energy production thereby reducing dependency on existing non renewable energy sources.

108. Whilst the site lies within an undesignated landscape and there will be some limited visual / landscape impacts, these would not be of overriding significance (including cumulative impacts), subject to appropriate controls over array siting, protection of hedgerows, suitable fencing and strategic planting. Accordingly it is considered there are no conflicts with paragraphs 14 and 98 (renewable energy) of the NPPF.

109. In respect of impacts on the historic environment, it is considered that the temporary use of land for the solar farm would not adversely affect historic assets such as Scheduled Monuments or the setting of any Listed Building. There are no conflicts with paragraphs 14, 128,129,131 and 132 (heritage assets) of the NPPF.

110. There are no significant adverse impacts on ecological interests subject to appropriate mitigation measures controlled by conditions. Accordingly there are no conflicts with paragraphs 14, 109, 117 and 118 of the NPPF.

111. With appropriate measures in place to cater for site drainage / flood risk and protection of water interests, it is considered there are no conflicts with paragraphs 14 and 98 of the NPPF.

112. In regards to impacts on local amenity, the key consideration relates to noise potential during construction and operation but it is concluded therefore that with appropriate controls there are no conflicts with paragraphs 14 and 123 of the NPPF.

113. In terms of highway safety it is concluded that with appropriate controls the local roads have the capacity to cater for the traffic anticipated with the development including during the construction phase. There are no conflicts with paragraphs 14 and 32 of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions

Page 138 1. The development hereby approved must be begun no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Road_Cross_Section CCTV_01 CB_01 – Communications Building Details Deer Fence Including Mammal Gate DNO_01 DNO Building Details CSR_01 Client Sub-Station Details XXX_01_A GRP Cabinet 20445 Topographical Survey TD_01 Transformer Enclosures ID_01 Inverter Details TYP_P_E_4L Panels Elevation 4 Landscape Site_Aux_Transformer_01 SB_01 Storage Building Details SAF_01_Rev F – School Aycliffe_Proposed_Layout_Rev F SAF_02 – Site Location Plan Proposed Layout Detail Rev 03 1 of 2 Proposed Layout Detail Rev 03 2 of 2

3. Within 6 months of the cessation of energy generation from the site, or within 6 months of a period of 30 years following completion of construction, whichever is the sooner, all infrastructure associated with the solar farm will be removed from the site.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity in accordance with paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. Not later than 6 months prior to the expiry of the 30 year period of planning permission, or 6 months prior to the cessation of electricity generation from the site, whichever is sooner, a scheme for the restoration of the site, including the dismantling and removal of all elements above ground level and the removal of the concrete piling, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out and completed within 6 months from the date that the planning permission hereby granted expires.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity in accordance with paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the mitigation and biodiversity enhancement strategy set out in Section 4 of the “Ecological Assessment”, “Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan (April 2015)” and “Water Vole and Great Crested Newt Method Statement (May 2015).

Reason: To ensure that biodiversity interests are protected Reason: In the interests of local amenity in accordance with paragraph 119 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 139 6. All electrical cabling between the solar farm and the on-site connection building shall be located underground. Thereafter the excavated ground shall be reinstated within 3 months of the commissioning of the solar farm to the satisfaction of the Local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity in accordance with paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. No construction activities, including the use of plant, equipment and deliveries, which are likely to give rise to disturbance to local residents should take place before 0800 hours and continue after 1800 hours Monday to Friday. The use of a mini-piler shall not take place outside of the hours of 0900 – 1700 Monday – Friday. No works should be carried out on weekends or bank holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity in accordance with paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. Prior the commencement of operation, details of a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved works shall be implemented prior to the solar farm being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of protecting against flood risk and climate change in accordance with paragraphs 99 – 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework

9. All transformer, storage building and inverter enclosures will be coloured RAL6005 Moss Green and will be retained in that colour until removal from the site.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity in accordance with paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant. − The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) − National Planning Practice Guidance Notes − Sedgefield District Local Plan − The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) − Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.

Page 140

DM/14/03879 Installation and operation of 5MW solar farm and associated infrastructure Planning Services

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission Comments o Ordnance Survey 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 2015 Scale Not to scale Page 141

Page 142 Agenda Item 5f Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/15/ 01366/FPA FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : 4MW Solar Farm and associated infrastructure

Durham County Council NAME OF APPLICANT : Land to the south of Comeleon House, Tanfield Lea ADDRESS : Industrial Estate, North Stanley

Tanfield ELECTORAL DIVISION : Chris Shields, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 261 394, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

Site

1. The application site is located on 7ha of pasture/grazing land to the south of Tanfield Lea Industrial Park. The site itself lies immediately to the south of Comeleon House, which is on Tanfield Lea South Industrial Estate, and comprises of a single agricultural field (pasture/ grazing meadow which is equivalent to grade 4), which is situated on a plateau that gently slopes towards the south-east and covers an area of 7 ha in total.

2. The site is bounded by Tanfield Lea Marsh Local Wildlife Site (LWS) to the east Tanfield Lea Local Nature Reserve (LNR) to the east and south-east, a substantial tree belt to the west and the industrial estate to the north and north-west. The site is therefore very enclosed, with limited available viewpoints. Public Footpath No. 43 (Stanley Parish) passes through the site on the western side linking the industrial estate to Shield Row.

3. The nearest residential properties are approximately 70m from the site to the west, with a substantial intervening tree belt. There is a telecommunication mast on the site, on the northern boundary adjacent to the industrial estate. There are no other on-site infrastructure constraints.

The Proposal

4. This application is for the installation of a 4MW solar farm consisting of 15,100 Photovoltaic (PV) panels with each panel measuring approximately 1m by 1.6m. This would provide enough electricity to power approximately 1020 homes. The panels would be arranged on site in rows and angled at 27 degrees to face due south for maximum solar exposure. The panels would be supported on steel frames connected to concrete piles in the ground. The panels would, at their peak, have a height of 2.38m and would be a minimum of 1m from the ground. This would allow the site to continue to be grazed by sheep if necessary. In addition to the PV panels ancillary

Page 143 equipment in the form of 4 inverters contained within a sub-station would be required (measuring approximately 5.5m x 5m and 4.5 m in height), as well as the cable link to the adjacent Comeleon House to export the electricity to the grid. The site would be secured by a 2m high deer fence and passive infrared motion-sensing CCTV cameras would be installed.

5. The application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it is a major development.

PLANNING HISTORY

6. The site has been subject to former mineral extraction in the form of brick clay and open casting but there is no record of any built development.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

7. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. 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.

8. 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’. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.

9. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Decisions should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.

10. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. States that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

11. 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

Page 144 an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

12. 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.

13. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

14. 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 below.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)

15. Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this development proposal is the practice guidance with regards to visual impact, glint and glare, loss of agricultural land, impact upon heritage assets and the use of planning conditions with respect to renewable energy projects, and specifically solar farms.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ (National Planning Practice Guidance)

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

Derwentside District Local Plan (1997)

16. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles – The policy states that as well as assessing each application against other policies in the Plan it is expected that, where appropriate, specific measures are incorporated within each scheme. Especially relevant are criteria on protection of existing landscape, natural and historic features; protection of important national or local wildlife habitats, no adverse effect upon, or satisfactory safeguards for, species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), no harmful impact on the ecology of the District and promotion of public access to, and the management and enhancement of, identified nature conservation sites; the protection of open land which is recognised for its amenity value or the contribution its character makes to an area; protection of ground water resources and their use from development.

17. Policy EN1 – Protecting the Countryside – states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it benefits the rural economy or helps to enhance landscape character. Proposals should be sensitively related to existing settlement patterns and to historic, landscape, wildlife and geological resources in the area. Page 145

18. Policy EN22 – Protection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – states that development will only be permitted which would not lead to the loss of or cause significant harm to sites of nature conservation importance including, amongst others, Tanfield Marsh.

19. Policy EN26 – Control of Development Causing Pollution – states that when determining planning applications consideration of potential pollution by the proposed development must be taken account of. Planning permission will only be granted for development which is not likely to have an adverse impact on the environment having regard to the likely levels of air, noise, soil or water pollution.

20. Policy RE4 – Protection of Public Footpaths – states that development which would affect a Public Right of Way or other recognised recreational path will only be permitted if an acceptable and equivalent alternative route is provided but where possible development should facilitate the incorporation rather than diversion of Public Rights of Way and recreational paths.

21. Policy TR2 – Development and Highway Safety – indicates planning permission for a development will be granted if the council can be satisfied that; there is a clearly defined and safe vehicle access and exit, adequate provision for service vehicles, adequate vehicle manoeuvring and access for emergency vehicles at all times.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

The County Durham Plan

22. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public in April 2014 and stage 1 of that Examination has been concluded. However, the Inspector’s Interim Report which followed, dated 18 February 2015, has raised issues in relation to the soundness of various elements of the plan. In the light of this, policies that may be relevant to an individual scheme and which are neither the subject of significant objection nor adverse comment in the Interim Report can carry limited weight. Those policies that have been subject to significant objection can carry only very limited weight. Equally, where policy has been amended, as set out in the Interim Report, then such amended policy can carry only very limited weight. Those policies that have been the subject of adverse comment in the interim report can carry no weight. Relevant policies and the weight to be afforded to them is discussed in the main body of the report.

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/article/3269/Easington-Local-Plan (Derwentside Local Plan) and http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

23. Environment Agency – has raised no objections and provides information in relation to water voles noting that records show they could be in the area.

24. Highway Authority – has no objections to the proposal. Page 146

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

25. Landscape – has raised no objections to the proposed development. Officers note that there would be a significant landscape or visual effect in respect of users of the footpath that crosses the site but this effect would be set against the other benefits of the proposal.

26. Ecology – has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the development being carried out in accordance with sections 7 and 8 of the Ecology Assessment.

27. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – has raised no objections to the development in relation to noise, light and dust but has commented that a condition should be attached to any permission restricting the construction hours.

28. Contaminated Land – has raised no objections following an assessment of the available information and historical information.

29. Design and Conservation – raise no objections to the proposal and consider the conclusions of the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment to be acceptable.

30. Public Rights of Way – has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to a 3m wide band allowed for the existing Public Footpath to allow for maintenance and access.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

31. The application was advertised in the press, by site notices and letters to neighbouring residents. No representations have been received.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

32. Durham County Council is proposing to develop a Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Farm adjacent to Comeleon House on Tanfield Lea South Industrial Estate, County Durham, DH9 9NX.

33. Of great importance is the location of the Solar Farm next to Comeleon House. Comeleon House is a Council owned building which houses IT servers and offices and as such uses a substantial amount of electrical energy. The solar farm will provide will generate up to 4MW of electrical energy, which will be used, in its entirety by Comeleon House. This will ultimately provide a cost saving for the Authority and ultimately the public purse.

34. The application site is located within the semi-rural part of County Durham, Tanfield Lea, which is approximately 1.6km north-west of Stanley and 15km north-west of Durham City. A Transport Statement has been carried out to accompany this application, which concludes that there will be an increase in traffic movements during construction, however after this initial period there is likely to be very little maintenance involved and as such the development will not lead to impacts on the local highway network.

35. The site itself lies immediately to the south of Comeleon House, which is on Tanfield Lea South Industrial Estate, and comprises of a single agricultural field (pasture/ grazing meadow which is equivalent to grade 4), which is situated on a plateau that gently slopes towards the south-east and covers an area of 7 ha in total. All perimeter vegetation screening will be retained and consideration will be given to any potential Page 147 for ecological enhancement. There are not considered to be any significant landscape or visual impacts from the proposed development

36. The proposed development on site will consist primarily of a steel framework to support the panels secured by concrete piles, the panels themselves, and ancillary development (e.g. a sub-station, several small-scale inverters and security fencing).This is the minimal level of development necessary to ensure that the site performs effectively with regards to its main purpose of generating renewable energy.

37. At this stage it is not possible to confirm the precise PV panel technology to be used. This is due to the availability of panel types on the market and contractor agreement. However, as presented in the Electricity Generating Capacity Statement, it is anticipated that the installed capacity is estimated to be 4MWp, which would require 15,100 PV modules (this assumes 265Wp modules).

38. The application is supported by national and local policy and seeks to reduce CO2 emissions and subsequently costs for the Council, through the provision of zero carbon energy generation technology

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NNO42YGD0BJ00

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

39. 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 planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of development, residential amenity, landscape and visual impact, public rights of way, ecology, highways and access, heritage and other matters.

Principle of development

40. The UK Government is committed to increasing domestic renewable energy provision to address the projected growth in global energy demand and concern over long term fossil fuels supplies.

41. Together, these issues place long term energy supply at risk. In addition to these trends, global warming and climate change necessitates ensuring that renewable resources are brought forward to provide a secure basis for the UK’s future energy needs. These aims were reflected in the 2009 UK Government Energy Strategy White Paper which states within its Executive Summary that: “We need to radically increase our use of renewable electricity, heat and transport. (The Strategy) sets out the path for us to meet our legally-binding target to ensure 15% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020: almost a seven-fold increase in the share of renewables in scarcely more than a decade.’ The UK Renewable Energy Road Map (2013 update) affirms this position stating that “The Government strongly supports renewable energy as part of a diverse, low carbon and secure energy mix. Alongside gasrenewable energy offers the UK a wide range of benefits from an economic growth, energy security and climate change perspective” (page 11). It also adds, “the Coalition has consistently made clear that it is committed to achieving the UK’s legally binding target of 15% of renewables by 2020 in the most cost effective way”.

Page 148 42. Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy generation is a renewable power technology that uses solar panels to convert light from the sun directly into electricity. The electrical output of PV solar panels is dependent upon the intensity of the light to which it is exposed and this part of the country experiences good light levels that make solar panels an efficient form of renewable energy production. Photovoltaic cells do not need to be in direct sunlight to work, so even on overcast days PV solar panels will still generate a limited level of energy output. The UK Solar PV Strategy (Parts 1 & 2) published in October 2013 and February 2014 respectively confirms the central role that this technology has to play in the UK energy mix and it enjoys the highest approval rating of any energy technology, typically above 80%.

43. It is now widely accepted that climate change is actively progressing and that carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels are a key contributory factor. The increased production of energy from renewable sources, such as solar PV, has very real benefits in off-setting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and reducing the potential impact of greenhouse gases on climate change. It will also ensure a constant and affordable source of energy, contribute to economic stability and provide a further form of farm diversification to support rural economies.

44. Producing electricity with PV emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases and uses no finite fossil-fuel resources. Where, as has been generally recognised, the current consumption of and reliance on fossil fuels is considered to be unsustainable, there is a very real need to find a viable long term alternative solution.

45. Solar power is considered to be such a solution. Despite the coverage of ground based sites they are, as a whole, one of the most low-key types of renewable energy generators available. The low height of the arrays, the lack of noise and the minimal maintenance required all ensure that, once installed, the system causes no disturbance to the occupants of properties in the surrounding area. In respect of the application scheme, the proposed site has been selected because it is well screened and the equipment will not be intrusive within the surrounding countryside.

46. The DLP contains no specific saved policy providing guidance on renewable development. DLP Policies GDP1 and EN1 seek to protect the countryside, identifying the need to safeguard this natural, non-renewable resource. DLP Policy EN1 establishes a presumption against development in the countryside except where it benefits the rural economy or helps to maintain or enhance landscape character. The proposed development would occupy a semi-rural site that is in use for grazing. Although the development would not directly benefit the rural economy it would provide a sustainable supply of energy that would benefit everyone and the solar panels would allow the site to remain in use as grazing land in accordance with the PPG. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not conflict with DLP Policies GDP1 and EN1.

47. One of the twelve core principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) supports “the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate.. and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy).”

48. The NPPF also advises at paragraph 98 that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and that applications should be approved (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are or can be made acceptable.

Page 149 49. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes dedicated guidance with regards to renewable energy and in principle also supports renewable energy development considering that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable.

50. In summary, it is clear that national planning policy guidance generally supports renewable energy schemes. Measured against this, and in the absence of any relevant Development Plan policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the NPPF, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle, and a demonstration of need for the turbine is not required. The following sections of this report consider the specific impacts of the proposed development.

Residential Amenity

51. The site is located to the east of Tanfield Lea, immediately south of Tanfield Lea North Industrial Estate on a plot of land enclosed by dense tree planting on the south, east and west sides. Beyond the tree planting lies further pasture/grazing land. Further to the south is Tanfield Lea South Industrial Estate and beyond this the settlements of Kip Hill and Shield Row. The nearest residential properties are Manor House and Leaholme in Tanfield Lea approximately 75 metres to the west. The nearest properties in Shield Row and Kip Hill are located approximately 550m and 770m to the south, respectively.

52. The development would be almost entirely passive with no movement, sound or light emitted. The only element of the proposed development that could create noise would be the sub-station. Sub-stations have been associated with noise issues specifically relating to low frequency hums, however due to the proposed location, behind existing industrial units, and the building encapsulating the substation it is considered that noise would not be an issue once in operation.

53. Although the development would require a relatively short construction period of 8 weeks there is still the potential of noise problems during the implementation phase and it is therefore recommended that a condition be included to restriction operating hours to 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Subject to this condition being imposed it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon local amenity in accordance with DLP Policies GDP1 and EN26.

Landscape and visual impact

54. The application site is not within any locally or nationally designated landscape. It is situated on the West Durham Coalfield; an upland fringe landscape of well-defined ridges and valleys running generally eastwards from the North Pennines to the lowland valleys of the Tyne and Wear. Its character is transitional between the two, with a strong upland fringe quality on higher ground in the west becoming less marked as the land falls and merges with the lowlands to the east. The application site itself is tightly bounded by plantation tree cover and from adjacent viewpoints is fully screened on the south, east and west sides.

55. The local settlement pattern, as described in the County Durham Landscape Character Assessment, is that of semirural mining towns and villages. Agricultural fields are interspersed with settlements, industrial estates and woodland plantations. Other industrial features such as electricity pylons are also present and there is a telecoms mast on the site. It is considered that this landscape has a low sensitivity to change. Page 150

56. In its broadest sense it could be argued that any development of this scale and nature represents the introduction of alien structures that are at odds with the intrinsic natural characteristics of the open countryside. However, in balancing policy objectives (not least that of supporting the provision of renewable energy), there will likely be some locations and sites within the countryside where the local landscape has a greater capacity to accommodate such forms of development than others.

57. DLP Policy GDP1 relates to general development principles. There is no specific advice for developments such as solar farms. However, the general principles of ensuring that new development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and protects existing landscape features can all be considered to be relevant to this scheme. This advice is largely reflected in the NPPF, notably in Part 7. Furthermore, National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) acknowledges that whilst large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, that the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm could be zero.

58. The proposed solar array would have a recessive industrial appearance but while it covers a large area it is low in profile and has a relatively neutral colour. Visibility into the site is limited by the industrial estate to the north west and by tree plantations to the remaining three sides. There would be some restricted visibility from viewpoints and individual dwellings on higher ground to the south east at distances over 500 metres. In these views the solar array would be seen together with the industrial estate beyond it, in the generally busy landscape and the visual impact in respect of these dwellings would be low.

59. Landscape officer consider that there would be a significant negative landscape or visual effect resulting from the proposed development in respect of users of the footpath that crosses the site. At present when crossing the site footpath users enjoy views of pasture with trees around three sides; however the approach from the north west is beside the industrial estate, while if travelling north west the view is most noticeably of the industrial estate.

60. Landscape officers raise no objections to the proposal considering there would be no considering impacts upon the wider landscape. Visual impacts upon users of the public rights of way would be for the duration users walks the footpath, nevertheless these visual effects should be set against the other benefits of the proposal as set out in this report. The proposal would accord with DLP Policy GDP1 and Parts 7 and 11 of the NPPF in terms of the general principles in terms of design and landscape impact.

Public Rights of Way

61. Public Footpath No. 43 (Stanley Parish) passes through the proposed development on the western side. The footpath would be retained on the line identified in the definitive map and fenced either side to provide security for the solar farm. This would change the nature of the path, which currently enjoys an open aspect. The Access and Rights of Way Team have recommended that a 3 metre wide band be left for users of the footpath and this would also ensure easy access for grass cutting machinery which will be necessary as the land occupied by the path will no longer be grazed. This can be achieved within the proposed scheme and although the outlook and openness of the path would be reduced this would only be for 200m of the path. It is considered that the proposed development would not detrimentally impact upon the Public Right of Way in accordance with DLP Policy RE4.

Page 151 Ecology

62. The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) and Paragraph 119 of the NPPF. In addition under the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and as amended in 2012) (referred to as the Habitats and Species Regulations hereafter) it is a criminal offence to (amongst other things) deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb a protected species, unless such works are carried out with the benefit of a licence from Natural England. Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations requires local planning authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising its functions. Case law has established that local planning authorities must consider whether the applicant might obtain a protected species license from Natural England.

63. An Ecological Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The assessment sets out the relevant policy and legislation in relation to protected species, a desk based assessment, Phase 1 habitat and protected species assessment. The assessment identified that the site is entirely improved grassland used for pasture/grazing and does meet any criteria for Priority Habitats. The Tanfield Marsh LWS is located 120m to the east of the site but the proposal would not be directly affected by the development.

64. The assessment concludes that the development is unlikely to impact on Bats, Badgers, Otters or Reptiles. Although Great Crested Newts have been recorded in the area the site does not contain any suitable breeding habitats or shelter for this species and any potential impacts can be mitigated through a working method statement. The Environment Agency has states that its records show that there could be water vole in the area but raise no objection in this respect.

65. The Council’s Ecology officers have raised no objections to the proposals provided that a condition is included to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the mitigation and biodiversity enhancement strategies set out in sections 7 and 8 of the Ecological Assessment accompanying the application. It is therefore considered that the proposals would accord with DLP Policies GDP1 and EN22 and paragraphs 109, and 118 of the NPPF which require that impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and net gains provided where possible.

Highway and Access

66. The proposed development would be accessed via Tanfield Lea North Industrial Estate from either the B1673 road to the north-west. Access to the site would be required for installation of the solar equipment and, once the development is complete, minimal routine maintenance. It is anticipated that construction works would take 8 weeks based on a 6 day working week. Over the course of the 8 weeks there would be a total of approximately 60 HGV’s delivering supplies and equipment. On a daily basis there would be construction workers and sub-contractors arriving and leaving with parking provided on site.

67. The applicant has submitted a Transport Management Plan in support of the application which identifies the site access, site operations and traffic movements. The Highway Authority has assessed the application and considers the proposed development to be acceptable. It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with DLP Policy TR2 and Part 4 of the NPPF.

Page 152 Heritage

68. NPPF, at Part 12, states that LPAs should take into account the particular significance of any heritage asset when considering the impact of a proposal on that asset to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal. The NPPF advises that LPAs should take account of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality.

69. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted to accompany the application. The assessment sets out the legislation and policy in relation to heritage assets and a study of the Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas within 5km of the application site. The assessment identifies that due to the topography of the area, limited height of solar panels, distances involved and screening from vegetation and built development that the proposed development would not have an impact upon the setting or significance of the designated heritage assets in the surrounding area.

70. Design and Conservation officers have assessed the application and consider that the submitted documentation meets the requirements of paragraph 128 of the NPPF and the conclusions are considered to be reasonable. Whilst covering a large area the proposal is relatively low profile and finished in muted colours which will relate visually to the surrounding mixed industrial landscape. As a result of the distance of the proposal from any sensitive heritage assets, the intervening topography and the presence of other buildings and vegetation the conclusions are considered to be acceptable and on this basis no objection is raised to this proposal.

71. It is considered that the appearance of the proposed development would be to a good standard and would be appropriate in this area and would therefore accord with DLP Policy GDP1 and Part 7 of the NPPF.

Other matters

72. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and as the development covers an area of more than 1ha a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application. The FRA concludes that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon flooding in the area. The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal.

73. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be utilised in preference to that of a higher quality. Grades 1, 2 or 3a are defined within the NPPF as being best and most versatile agricultural land. The application site is all previously disturbed and of a low quality categorised as Grade 4 and is therefore preferential for development. Notwithstanding this and as mentioned earlier in this report; the site can still be used for livestock grazing with the solar panels in place.

74. The site is also located within a Coalfield Development Low Risk Area, is within a Groundwater Vulnerability area, was adjacent (south) to the former Tanfield Lea Colliery and has a history of mining activity. Environmental Health Officers have raised no objections in relation to contaminated land and Coal Authority Standing Advice applies in relation to the Coalfield Development.

Page 153 CONCLUSION

75. Planning policy is generally supportive towards proposals for renewable energy development. The proposal would provide 4MW of electricity from solar energy thereby contributing to renewable energy generation and reducing the use of, and dependence upon, fossil fuel derived energy. The development itself is passive with the PV panels requiring no energy input to operate.

76. The application site has historically been subject to mineral workings and consequently has no archaeological value. The present use of the site as pasture/grazing land significantly limits its priority species habitat potential and the ecological value of the site is therefore also very limited. The landscape and visual impact of the proposal have been assessed and would be acceptable considered against the benefits of the proposal.

77. With regard to impacts on local amenity, the key consideration relates to noise potential during construction and operation but it is considered that with appropriate controls there are no conflicts paragraphs 14 and 123 of the NPPF.

78. With appropriate controls in relation to highway safety, the local roads have the capacity to cater for the traffic anticipated with the development including during the construction phase. There are no conflicts with paragraphs 14 and 32 of the NPPF.

79. The NPPF sets out in Paragraph 14 the presumption in favour of sustainable development and it is stated that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out ‑of ‑date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. In this case the policies contained within the Derwentside Local Plan are out of date and there no policies relating to solar farms or renewable energy. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the development of the application site would not have a noticeable impact on the openness or amenity value of the countryside bordering the settlements of Tanfield Lea, Shield Row and Kip Hill.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby approved must be begun no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Tanfield Lea Site Boundary Dated 30/4/2015 Tanfield Lea Site Zones Dated 30/4/2015 Tanfield Lea Layout with PV Dated 30/4/2015

Page 154 Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation and biodiversity enhancement strategy set out in sections 7 and 8 of the submitted Ecology Assessment.

Reason: To ensure that biodiversity interests are protected (Derwentside Local Plan Policy EN1).

3. Within 6 months of the cessation of energy generation from the site, or within 6 months of a period of 25 years following completion of construction, whichever is the sooner, all infrastructure associated with the solar farm will be removed from the site.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).

4. All electrical cabling between the solar farm and the on-site connection building shall be located underground. Thereafter the excavated ground shall be reinstated within 3 months of the commissioning of the wind turbine to the satisfaction of the Local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).

5. No construction activities, including the use of plant, equipment and deliveries, which are likely to give rise to disturbance to local residents should take place before 0800 hours and continue after 1800 hours Monday to Friday, or commence before 0800 hours and continue after 1300 hours on Saturday. No works should be carried out on a Sunday or Bank Holiday.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).

6. Not later than 6 months prior to the expiry of the 25 year period of planning permission, or 6 months prior to the cessation of electricity generation from the site, whichever is sooner, a scheme for the restoration of the site, including the dismantling and removal of all elements above ground level and the removal of the concrete piling, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out and completed within 6 months from the date that the planning permission hereby granted expires.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).

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.)

Page 155

BACKGROUND PAPERS

− Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant. − The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) − National Planning Practice Guidance Notes − Derwentside District Local Plan − The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) − Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.

Page 156

DM/15/01366/FPA 4MW Solar Farm and associated infrastructure Planning Services This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey 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 2015 Scale Not to scale

Page 157

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 158