Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: 2/12/00217/OUT Residential development of up to 168 dwellings (use class C3), incorporating landscaping, open space, access, highway works, up to 600 sq.m. FULL APPLICATION for a village hall and crèche/day nursery (use DESCRIPTION : class D1) and up to 400 sq.m. of ancillary commercial development (use class A1/B1). Outline application, all matters reserved apart from access NAME OF APPLICANT : Mrs Helen McCall Land Adjacent to Castlefields, Bournmoor, ADDRESS : Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham ELECTORAL DIVISION : Lumley Ann Rawlinson Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 0191 387 2002 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The Site
1. The application site is situated to the west of the Castlefields residential estate in Bournmoor, approximately 3 miles from Chester-le-Street. It is approximately 8.35 hectares in size, flat and roughly triangular in shape. The land has most been used for agriculture although has not been used for crop since 2011 and is currently ploughed. There are extensive trees and a high mature hedge surrounding the site. A field access leads from the A1052 to the south of the site.
2. The site is bordered by the A183, Chester Road, to the north, which then extends into Lambton Park historic estate and by the A1052 to the south with further agricultural land beyond. A semi-mature shelter belt woodland separates the eastern side of the site with the rear gardens of properties located on Castlefields. The village of Bournmoor extends to the east of this estate. To the western side the site narrows down and is separated by a group of mature trees at the point whereby the above two mentioned roads form a junction with Fore Lane which houses a small terrace of dwellings at the junction with pasture land extending beyond.
The Proposal
3. Outline planning permission is sought for a low carbon mixed use development comprising up to 168 family dwellings, a new village centre, including associated landscaping, open space and infrastructure works. Under this outline application, all matters, apart from access are reserved for future consideration. This application seeks to establish the principle of the proposed development on the site and seeks to set out the parameters to be followed in further detailed applications. Indicative plans have been submitted showing the following -
• Up to 168 homes ranging from one–six bed roomed terraced (31) semi-detached (18) and detached homes (56) as well as 10 bungalows, 28 flats, 8 townhouses, 5 executive homes and also 12 live/work units. • Seven residential character areas in groups of up to 10-15 houses incorporating a variety of parking solutions. • An appropriate level of affordable housing. • Homes would be built to the ‘Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5’ incorporating carbon reduction, renewable energy, grey water and sustainable materials. This also encompasses ‘Secured by Design’ and ‘Lifetime Homes Standards.’ • Non-domestic elements would be built to BREEAM ‘very good’ standard. • Two storey village Hall/community building facing onto village green (300-400 sq. m.). • Up to 400m2 of commercial floor space in the form of two, two storey buildings accommodating A1 (shop use, potentially for specialist provision) and A2 (office, potentially financial/professional service use, incorporating conference type facilities). • One or two storey building incorporating a crèche or day nursery (200 sq.m) with outside area. • Provision of a new village green, allowing for various configurations which could provide for a range of sport and recreation uses and additional general amenity space of various types, including childrens play areas. This would total 1.92 hectares in size..
4. Approval of the proposed vehicular access is sought from the A1052 to the southern side of the site. It is proposed to provide access to the majority of the development from a simple priority junction on the A1052 near the eastern end, closet to the proposed village centre. A separate access for five executive houses on a private road would be provided at a further priority junction near the western end of the site frontage. Internal roads would be designed along the ‘home zone’ principle.
5. The design concept is to develop a high quality sustainability led extension to Bournmoor, creating a diverse mix of housing options, some of which are not available in Bournmoor as well as providing a community hub of facilities to address current deficiencies and to provide an ‘exemplar scheme’.
6. The submitted masterplan approach ‘feathers out’ away from Bournmoor, reducing in density from east to west. The community hub would be created close to the front eastern edge, adjacent the main entrance which branches off to serve ‘pods’ (areas of housing) which would be defined by green informal woodland routes. Hedgerows would be retained and enhanced and a larger pond created in the north eastern corner, as well as smaller ponds created adjacent some of the housing areas. A gateway building would be created at the site entrance.
7. The community buildings would be located to the site frontage grouped around a central courtyard to the western side of the access. It is also envisaged that a dedicated outdoor space for young people would be provided, perhaps taking the form of a football pitch, skate park or all weather multi-purpose court with changing facilities potentially being located in the intended community centre.
8. The application is reported to committee because it constitutes a major residential and mixed use development.
PLANNING HISTORY
9. A similar application was withdrawn in early 2012.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK
10. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 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.
11. 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:
12. The NPPF outlines in paragraph 19 that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Paragraph 6 of the NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 goes on to set out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The economic role is to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.
13. NPPF Part 1 –Building a Strong Competitive Economy - In delivering sustainable development the government is committed to building a strong, competitive economy, securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. The planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. It should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.
14. NPPF Part 2 – Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres -Paragraphs 23- 27 recognise town centres as being at the heart of communities, with the pursuit of their viability and vitality as being paramount. Planning applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres firstly, then in edge of centre locations. Only when these are not available should out of centre locations be considered. 15 . NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy – Paragraph 28 states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.
16 . 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.
17 . NPPF Part 6 – Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes - Housing applications should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, for example where development may support services and facilities in a nearby village.
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 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.
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. This includes accessible developments and active street frontages, and the development and modernisation of shops, facilities and services.
20 . NPPF Part 9- Protecting Green Belt Land - The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Green Belt land serves 5 purposes; to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
21 . 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.
22 . NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environmen-. 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.
23 . NPPF Part 12-Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment- In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, 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.
REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY
24. The North East of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008, sets out the broad spatial development strategy for the North East region for the period of 2004 to 2021. The RSS sets out the region's housing provision and the priorities in economic development, retail growth, transport investment, the environment, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Some policies have an end date of 2021 but the overall vision, strategy, and general policies will guide development over a longer timescale.
25. In July 2010 the Local Government Secretary signalled his intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect, and that this was to be treated as a material consideration in subsequent planning decisions. This was successfully challenged in the High Court in November 2010, thus for the moment reinstating the RSS. However, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies when Orders have been made under section 109 of the Localism Act 2011, and weight can now be attached to this intention. For the time being, at least, the following policies are considered relevant.
26. Policy 1 – North East Renaissance – Developments should support a renaissance throughout he north east by delivering sustainable economic growth and conserving, enhancing and capitalising on the regions natural and built environment, heritage and culture.
27 . Policy 2 – Sustainable Development - Seeks to embed sustainable criteria through out the development process and influence the way in which people take about where to live and work; how to travel; how to dispose of waste; and how to use energy and other natural resources efficiently.
28 . Policy 4 – Sequential Approach to Development – Requires a sequential approach to development giving priority to previously developed sites in sustainable locations.
29 . Policy 7 – Connectivity and Accessibility – Requires the internal and external sustainable connectivity and accessibility of the North East of England, with focus upon the reduction in use of the private motor car and increase in green and sustainable infrastructure.
30 . Policy 8 - Protecting and Enhancing the Environment- Requires new development to maintain local distinctiveness.
31 . Policy 11 - Rural Areas - Proposals should support development of a vibrant rural economy whilst protecting the Region’s environmental assets from inappropriate development.
32 . Policy 24 - Delivering Sustainable Communities - All development within the Region should be designed and located to deliver sustainable communities. Proposals should assess the suitability of land for development and the contribution that can be made by design in relation to 16 detailed criteria, including concentrating development in urban locations, reducing need to travel, proximity to infrastructure, health and well-being, biodiversity and crime prevention/community safety.
33. Policy 29 – Delivering and Managing Housing Supply -Requires the re- use of previously developed land to meet national and regional targets.
34 . Policy 30- Improving Inclusivity and Affordability- Sets broad requirements that, when considering development proposals, including, addressing the problem of local affordability in both urban and rural areas and having regard to the level of need for affordable housing.
35 . Policy 33 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity -Proposals should ensure that the Region’s resources are protected and enhanced to return key resources to viable levels.
36 . Policy 35 -Flood Risk- Requires consideration to be given to the flood risk implications of development proposals adopting the sequential risk based approach.
37 . Policy 38 – Sustainable Construction – Planning proposals should seek to encourage sustainable design of new buildings and facilitate the generation of at least 10% of the Region‘s consumption of electricity from renewable sources.
38 . Policy 39 - Renewable Energy Generation - Planning proposals should, facilitate the generation of at least 10% of the Region‘s consumption of electricity from renewable sources by 2010.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
Chester-le-Street Local Plan (2003) (DLP)
39 . Policy NE2 - Development Beyond Settlement Boundaries - States that outside the settlement boundaries development will be strictly controlled. Planning permission for dwellings beyond settlement boundaries will only be granted where there is a need to support agricultural or forestry activities 40. Policy NE3 - Implementation of the North Durham Greenbelt- Seeks to implement and maintain the North Durham Green Belt from the north of Chester-le-Street town centre to the County Boundary, in the Lambton park area and the river wear valley, south of Lambton Park. This will; i) Check the unrestricted sprawl of the Tyne and Wear conurbation ii) Prevent Chester-le-Street town and its surrounding villages from merging into each other, and prevent the merging of Chester-le-Street town, Bournmoor and Fencehouses with the Wearside conurbation iii) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and iv) Assist in regeneration of built up areas by recycling brownfield sites and other urban land.
41. Policy NE4 - Appropriate Development in the Green Belt- Sets out the circumstances which would allow the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt.
42. Policy NE5 - New Dwellings in the Green Belt-There will be a presumption against construction of new dwellings in the green belt
43. . Policy NE6 - Development affecting the Visual Amenity of the Green Belt- Development within, or conspicuous from, the Green Belt will not be granted where the proposal by virtue of its scale, siting, materials or design is detrimental to the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
44 . Policy NE6 - Development affecting the Visual Amenity of the Green Belt- Development within, or conspicuous from, the Green Belt will not be granted where the proposal by virtue of its scale, siting, materials or design is detrimental to the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
45. Policy HP6 - Residential Development within Settlement Boundaries- Proposals for residential development not allocated in the Local Plan will only be permitted within defined settlement boundaries provided that the site is classified as previously developed land.
46. Policy HP9 - Residential Design Criteria-Sets out design criteria that residential development should comply with.
47 . Policy HP13 - Affordable Housing-Seeks the provision of 30% affordable housing on residential development sites of 15 or more houses or where the site exceeds 0.5 hectares.
48 . Policy HP15 - Community Provision-Aims to secure a contribution from developers on sites of 10 or more dwellings for the provision and maintenance of any related social, community infrastructure and/or recreational and leisure facilities where such provisions are necessary and directly related to the proposed development
49 . Policy R11 - Shop Front Design- Sets out the design criteria which shop front design should adhere to.
50 . Policy R16 - Retailing Beyond Local Centres- Sets out the criteria whereby new development for small scale retail use will be permitted beyond local centres, provided it is within settlement boundaries.
51 . Policy R16 - Residential Development and Local Retail Need-Major residential developments which are not within reasonable walking distance of existing shops will be required to make provision for small local shops to serve the everyday needs of their residents, which are not more than 100sq.m in floor area.
52 . Policy BE2 - Public Art-Aims to secure a contribution of 1% from development sites where costs total £500,000 or more towards the provision of works of art in new buildings and landscape projects accessible to the general or client public.
53 . Policy BE22 - Planning Obligations- Seeks planning obligations to enhance the quality of a proposal that is acceptable in principle, or enable a proposal to go ahead which might otherwise be refused.
54 . Policy RL1 - Sport and Leisure Opportunities: General-Seeks to ensure the highest possible standards in the range, amount, distribution and quality of sport and leisure opportunities is achieved through securing the creation of new recreation and leisure facilities.
55 . Policy RL4 - Standards for Outdoor Sport and Recreation-Sets targets for the provision of formal sports, children’s play provision and informal areas.
56. Policy RL5 - Outdoor Sport and Recreation in New Residential Development-Requires children’s play and informal space to be provided.
57. Policy RL6 - Maintainance of New Sport and Recreation Facilities- Seeks to ensure that facilities provided through Policy RL5 are maintained for a period of 10 years.
58. Policy T6 - Provision of Public Transport-Development Proposals should be consistent with a safe and accessible public transport network and should encourage its use in order to reduce reliance on the car. Access to new developments should be located on or near to existing bus routes and footpaths should be available to existing or proposed bus stops.
59 . Policy T8 - Car Parking Provision- The design and layout of new development should seek to minimise the level of parking provision.
60. Policy T12 - Cycling-Encourages the provision of cycle parking facilities and that cyclists needs are considered as part of new development.
61. Policy T13 - Cycle Parking- Seeks to ensure the provision of secure cycle parking facilities in association with community and social facilities.
62. Policy T15 - Access and Safety Considerations in Design-Sets out criteria which is required to be fulfilled, relating to, safe access, highway safety, public transport, pedestrians, cyclists, service and emergency vehicles.
63. Policy T1 7 -General Policy-Seeks to reduce the reliance on the private car and to encourage the use of walking, cycling and public transport.
64. Policy IN9 - New Industrial and Employment Uses in the Open Countryside-Sets out the circumstances whereby proposals for new industrial and employment uses will be permitted beyond settlement boundaries.
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
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
65. The Environment Agency – The flood risk assessment indicates that surface water drainage is to be directed to the public sewerage system at an attenuated rate. This being the case, no objections are made.
66. The Highways Agency (HA) - Has issued a direction that the Council does not grant planning permission for the next 6 months. This does not prevent the Council from refusing the application. The direction has been issued for the following reasons:
67. The transport assessment does not attempt to mitigate the impact of development by reducing the need to travel by car, or by encouraging and supporting car sharing or public transport. The travel plan is generic in scope and there are limited ways in which its implementation could be secured. By allowing the developer to delegate responsibility for the travel plan as soon as a residents group can be established, the Council would be unable to seek remedy from the developer if the plan is not fully implemented.
68. The developer has proposed a junction improvement at the A1 (M) J63 roundabout. The HA have serious reservations about the deliverability of the improvement currently proposed. The improvement is likely to be expensive to implement to a degree which would be outside the ability of the development to fund it. This would make the use of a Grampian- type condition inappropriate when considered against guidance in the Planning Circular 11/95. Before the HA secure a condition based on any scheme, it is vital that the HA check and agree the principles of the scheme, and that it is subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. Both of these issues could affect the deliverability and therefore viability of the improvement in the context of the development as a whole. Neither has yet been carried out.
69. Natural England - Advises that the proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development. The protected species survey has identified that bats, a European Protected Species may be affected. Natural England is broadly satisfied that the mitigation proposals, if implemented, are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the local population of bats and therefore avoid affecting favourable conservation status.
70 . Northumbrian Water - Has no objection. This is based upon the developers intention to manage the surface water using sustainable drainage system (SUDS) which will then discharge into a local watercourse. No surface water will use the existing drainage serving Castlefields estate. The foul flow will enter the existing public sewer at two separate locations each of which can accommodate the predicted flow rates generated by the development. It would only be the foul flow that enters the existing pumping station therefore any power supply issues to the pumping station will not put the Castlefield estate at flood risk due to the additional foul flows.
71. Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer ) -Advises that the crime risk assessment for this proposal is low, however it is important to ensure that the layout does not include crime generators. Advice is provided regarding site layout, footpaths, village green/play space, lighting, parking and garages.
72. The Coal Authority - The Coal Authority recommends a planning condition requiring site investigation works prior to commencement of development. In the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat the mine entries and/or areas of shallow mine workings to ensure safety and stability this should also be conditioned to ensure that any remedial works identified are undertaken. The Coal Authority considers that the content and conclusions of the submitted preliminary investigation report are sufficient. The Coal Authority therefore has no objection subject to the imposition of the above condition.
73. County Highways Authority – The Highways Officer advises that the surrounding roads have high vehicle speeds and are correctly subject to a 40mph speed limit. The lack of frontage development, given the large hedge makes it unlikely that a 30mph limit could be imposed or enforced.
74. He advises that a satisfactory visibility splay can be achieved at the proposed eastern access. However the proposed western access is substandard and is even more remote from the settlement thus the eastern access should be the sole approved access to the site.
75. He is concerned that commitment is not shown in the travel plan and it is not clear what measures will be promoted to the business retail units and the community centre.
76. The methodology used for residential development generation within the Transport Assessment is acceptable. However trips associated with the other proposed uses have not been considered. This underestimates the junction analysis at the A1M junction 63. The proposed development should not create any operation inefficiency at the Chester Road/ High Primrose Hill junction.
77. The A183 Chester Road node at the A1M junction 63 is presently uncontrolled. It is proposed that this node in the junction is signalised, which would provide a significant improvement on the local A183 network. Any development must be conditional upon the provision of these signals. Should the Highways Agency accept signalisation of the A183 Chester Road, without resultant capacity issues on other local legs of the junction, then this aspect of the proposal is acceptable.
78. The site is not in an accessible location for public transport and walking distances to local facilities and other amenities are long. The site is poorly related to and fails to promote more sustainable transport choices, accessibility to jobs etc. by public transport, walking/cycling, and therefore fails to reduce the need to travel, especially by car.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
79. Spatial Policy Team- The Planning Policy Officer advises that the proposal presents significant conflicts in relation to the Development Plan and NPPF as it is located within the North Durham Green Belt.
80. He advises that the proposal would extend development beyond the defined settlement boundary as set out in Policy NE2 of the LP. While changes to national policy, within paragraph 215 of the NPPF and the out of date housing figures of the Local Plan denude the weight that can be apportioned to this policy it is nonetheless a saved policy and must be considered as a material factor overall.
81. The Planning Policy Officer advises that the scheme would conflict with the general aims of the RSS and the NPPF in that it would not amount to sustainable development.
82. The Planning Policy Officer outlines the direction of the overall spatial strategy for developing the County over the next twenty years and advises that Bournmoor is not included in the CDP as a settlement where housing allocations are being proposed as it is not a main town or secondary settlement. Indeed the application site has been considered and discounted during the allocations process for the plan on account of poor sustainability scores and it being located in the Green Belt.
83. The Planning Policy Officer takes the view that the proposal would not appear to present sufficient merit or satisfy the stated exceptional circumstances to surmount the restrictions relating to the designation of the land. He considers that the material benefits of the scheme would help to improve the sustainability of the site and settlement however are not sufficient to overcome the Green Belt status of the land.
84. Design and Historic Environment Team - The Design Officer advises that the current proposal has taken on board previous design comments, which has helped to improve the overall design and layout considerably. However there remain outstanding issues that would still need to be addressed. The Design Officer makes a number of suggestions that would improve the permeability and linkages, improve surveillance and appearance of the main frontage buildings, layout of housing mix, landscaping, materials, and car parking.
85. Landscape Team - The Landscape Architect advises that the development with have a medium to high adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area. The inclusion of street lighting will also have a visual impact on the local environment that at present has little or no artificial means of lighting. The proposal appears to reinforce the buffer planting along the A183 where there is a substantial screen at present but fails to create a similar buffer along the A1052 which is the boundary that will have the most adverse impact on the local visual amenity. A wide belt of buffer planting/screening needs to be incorporated along this south west boundary where it faces the open countryside to assist in mitigation of the developments visual impact.
86. Advice is provided to improve the layout in terms of improved landscaping, boundary treatment; surveillance, safety and security and long-term management.
87. Ecology Team - No objections are made, although the mitigation details in the ecology report would need to be delivered.
88. Sustainability Team - The proposed development would fundamentally change the character of the settlement. There is access to an existing primary school in Bournmoor 800m away. The nearest secondary school in the Local Authority area is in Chester-le-Street over 2600m away across the A1. It is likely that although Chester-le-Street is the nearest significant settlement because of the A1, residents are more likely to migrate towards Shiney Row and settlements within Sunderland. Whilst this is only natural Durham County Council’s services are situated mostly within Chester-le-Street.
89. The intention to build to Code Level 5 and use of renewable technologies is supported. As long as the proposal is supported by the provision of the office, village hall and retail unit along with the leisure provision the sustainability of the whole settlement would be improved.
90. Public Rights of Way Team - There are no registered or claimed public rights of way within or abutting the development site. The scheme would appear to offer little opportunity for improvement to the local public rights of way network, as there are no existing public rights of way linking the site with the wider countryside. The development would also be effectively 'hemmed in' by two very busy roads and an existing private development which appears to lack formal external footpath links.
91. Housing Development and Delivery Manager - Has advised that prior to the submission of any reserved matters or detailed planning application the applicant should enter into discussions with the Housing Strategy team to ascertain the local affordable housing provision within Bournmoor, taking into account the recommendations of the SHMA.
92. Pollution Control Team (Contamination) – The preliminary report recommends further investigation. The applicant needs to provide a full phase 2 contaminated land risk assessment which could be secured via the standard contaminated land condition
94. Archaeology Team - The archaeologist advises that no significant archaeological sites are known within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, as the site is Greenfield this represents an 'unknown' and in the wider landscape are the historically important parks of Lumley and Lambton, along with other sites of medieval date.
95. The subdivision of results of an assessment, and potentially evaluation, with any reserved matters application will suffice to determine the level of risk this development poses to archaeological remains. Surveying prior to the reserved matters will allow the results of this work to influence the implementation of the scheme. Should the geophysics suggest archaeological remains are present, they will need to be evaluated using targeted trial trenching and the results of this will also be required in support of the further application.
96. Pollution Control Team (Noise) - Recommends conditions to ensure good working practice during construction to ensure an appropriate standard of residential amenity.
97. Drainage Team – The Drainage Engineer advises that the discharge rate must be limited to the Greenfield run off rate which is calculated at 36.2 l/s QBAR, so any surface water drainage design must take this into account. As long as the design meets this criteria no objection are made. 98. In respect of concerns raised by residents regarding flooding, he advises that development would help the existing drainage situation as positive drainage would be installed for example, road gullies, pipelines, etc. He goes onto explain that if a field is developed any water that runs across the surface would be channelled into the new road gullies and drained away into a positive system. If the system has attenuation which all sites must have, this would also be of assistance.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
98. Bournmoor Parish Council object for the following reasons: • The proposal infringes the Local Plan. • The land is on designated Green Belt. • Inadequate consultation across the whole of Bournmoor. • Increase in traffic on local environment and the sustainability of the village as a community.
99 . Bournmoor Residents Association has the following concerns which are summarised below: • Application is premature as it could prejudice outcome of the development plan process. • Overdevelopment. • Site is Greenfield, any shortfall in housing should be located on sequentially preferable sites. • Site not sustainable. Case for exceptional circumstances not substantiated. • New village centre not justified and not supported by local community. • Layout does not consider relationship between the proposed development and rest of Bournmoor. • Mix of uses inappropriate. No evidence of need. • Ecological impact and drainage issues not be considered.
100 . Campaign for the Protection of Rural England - Have the following concerns which are summarised below: • Application premature pending consideration of the preferred options for the emerging Local Plan. • This site is not included in the Plan and other sites have been suggested to meet the alleged demand. • Protecting the Green Belt and assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment are core principles of the NPPF. • The site should be used to prevent further development of Bournmoor to the west.
101 . Durham Bird Club - There are numerous records for considerable numbers of Curlew, Golden Plover and Lapwing at the site. Inadequate ornithological assessment of the site has been undertaken. The site and surrounding area is important for birds. Believe there is important habitat in this area for waders that needs to be properly assessed.
102. The application was advertised as a major development, a departure from the prevailing development plan in the area, in the press and through the siting of public notices at locations adjacent the site and letters were sent to neighbouring residents. Forty letters of representation have been received. Residents concerns and comments are summarised below:
• No need in green belt. • Existing new housing not selling and residential and commercial properties available for rent. • Will merge Bournmoor with Houghton Gate. • Development should be on brownfield /sequentially preferable sites. • County Durham Plan has earmarked more appropriate building land elsewhere in County Durham. • Entrance/amount of traffic onto overused, noisy, unrestricted road would cause accidents. • Blind bend close to entry. • Current traffic saturation at the Picktree Lane/A183 roundabout. • Limited parking spaces. • Not sustainable development. • Case for exceptional circumstances is not substantiated. • Application is premature. • In line with Localism Bill residents should have a proactive influence on what kind of development is needed for maximum community benefit. • Already have a community centre in centre of village. No need for another on outskirts which will fragment community. • Plans would only serve to create two village centres serving two separate communities. • Existing village hall is regularly used and should be further developed • No demand for a new village centre. Previous shops closed down due to lack of business. Increase in 168 dwellings would not generate demand to run a profitable shop. • New shops would need to attract customers from existing shops thus risking the livelihoods of local traders. • Risk of flooding/drainage issues. • Water and electrical supply very poor, addition of houses would make this worse. • There are insufficient local facilities to support new residents e.g. lack of school places. Also, health centres, dentist, local police. • Decline in wildlife. • Increase in CO2 omissions noise and congestion. • No public transport. • Executive housing would not be taken up next to this development. • Reduction in quality of life and loss of property values. • Creation of a self contained community. • Greater wealth for the applicant. • Detrimental to the attractive rural landscape. • Maintenance and safety of water features and green areas. • Subsidence. • Would lead to undeveloped areas as hard to see where funding would be found to develop a village hall and commercial development. • The County Durham Plan is proposing to build 400 houses at Lambton Park, two incursions into the green belt in one small village. • High buildings would cause loss of privacy. • Density, height, design and character is alien to the existing village. • Once permission granted layout may change and become a free for all. • Need more agricultural land to fulfil crop shortages
APPLICANTS STATEMENT
103. The proposed development aims to provide an aspirational vision for housing in the region. The scheme strives to maximise sustainability, create an identifiable village centre with community benefits and create a thriving community that will greatly assist the viability of Bournmoor as a whole.
104. The existing greenbelt boundary should be relocated because: • The existing boundary consists of an arbitrary fence line across an existing field. • The boundary does not constitute a defensible boundary as directed by policy. • The boundary does not relate or correspond with any natural topography or movement routes. • The logical and defensible boundary would be the roads surrounding the site at Chester Road and Primrose Hill. • The Green Belt boundary proposed would ‘be defensible’ relating historically to the existing road system, and reinforce the existing boundary of the designated area. • Uphold all the principles and policies related to national Green Belt objectives. • Will not establish a planning precedent for encroachment into other Green Belt areas in the County.
105. Within existing standard Green Belt polices the scheme we feel can be justified as an exceptional case: • The proposals will reinforce the proposed relocated Green Belt boundary with the planting of hedgerows and infilling existing, tree planting, provision of woodland planting along the Northern boundary and threading through the development, enhancing the tree dominated character of the area and ensuring tree longevity. • The tree belt planting proposed, together with the development of the existing area of ponding to the North East corner of the site, will provide wildlife corridors. • The provision of an identifiable village centre, forming the hub for social activities. This would be distinctive in character echoing the patterned brickwork of the existing church and surrounding buildings. • The area of proposed executive housing is to be located in the area previously defined by Houghton Gate House. Together with woodland planting this will ensure the visible recognition and identity of the hamlet of Houghton Gate. • The proposed layout avoids the amorphous mass of housing prolific in recent years, by creating housing groups to achieve a sense of place. • Proposed exemplary sustainable construction methods, integrating visual natural and renewable energy sources within the individual house type designs. • As outlined in the sustainability report, the scheme aims to achieve Code 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. This supports both national and local policy objectives. The Government has set a clear map towards zero carbon at a national level, whilst local government has targeted the sustainability sector as key area for growth in the region. • The site presents a singular opportunity to achieve the skills necessary to secure our low carbon future in house building as there are no large scale implementation of Code 5 or 6 housing in the region. • The landowner wishes to support community facilities and has planned to set aside part of the site for community uses, to include a village community building with associated parking and public open space provision. The open space at present allocated, could accommodate either tennis courts and bowling green, or five aside football area, allowing the area to become village green for community gatherings, fetes etc. The land owner is prepared to work with the Local Parish Council or other interested bodies to independently develop this area. They could manage this themselves or set up a community trust company and work together with the community to establish the exact makeup of these facilities and possible funding sources. This will address the current shortfall of open space and community facilities and benefit Bournmoor Village as a whole. • The design and composition of the proposals, although for outline permission, illustrates the landowners commitment of delivering a high quality scheme. • The design team have gone through several design iterations over the last four years, incorporating design advice from the councils planners and urban design team and the local parish council to ensure an exemplary scheme. • The application commits to a robust design code being established to guide the detailed design of the development. • The mix of housing includes for a broad range of accommodation enabling both social and marketing demands to be met, and due to the conceptual layout affords inherent flexibility. The inclusion of an area for innovative live/work units that would be suitable for independent consultancy (IT), art and crafts. This would also provide excellent synergy with the proposed retail and crèche facilities proposed for the Village Hub. • Looking at the strategic development and the Preferred Option in the Local Plan, the adjacent proposed development of the Lambton Estate is given support. The development for the Lambton Estate will pull the centre of gravity of the Bournmoor settlement further west and lends support to the Village Centre facilities proposed in the Bournmoor development. • The application proposed, together with the development of the Lambton Estate will create a vital critical mass to allow the proposed local facilities to flourish and secure a positive long term future for the village of Bournmoor.
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 Chester- le-Street
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
106. 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 a mixed use residential development, sustainability, affordable housing, design and layout, impact upon residential amenity, access and highway safety, flood risk and drainage, impact on ecology and trees, archaeology and contamination.
Principle of Development
107. The starting position when weighing up the acceptability of a scheme in planning policy terms is the Development Plan, which in this case is the Chester-le-Street Local Plan and for the time being, at least the RSS. The proposal presents several conflicts in relation to the Development Plan.
108. The site is located within the North Durham Green Belt which is designated in the Local Plan. The CLSLP seeks to restrict development in this area under policies NE3, NE4, NE5 and NE6 except in the following exceptional circumstances; for agricultural and forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, replacement of existing dwellings and the re-use or conversion of existing buildings. The proposals do not meet any of these exceptional circumstances.
109. For schemes coming forward on unallocated sites, policies NE2 and HP6 of the CLSLP seek to direct such development to areas within defined settlement boundaries and strictly control development outside these boundaries. The Local Plan identifies a settlement boundary for Bournmoor and the application site is located outside this boundary.
110. The proposal would extend development beyond the defined settlement boundary as set out in Policy NE2 of the CLSLP. Furthermore the settlement is surrounded by the Green Belt which in effect preserves the settlement boundary in this instance.
111. The main thrust of the NPPF aims to achieve sustainable and inclusive patterns of development. It sets down a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Development should support existing communities and contribute to the creation of sustainable inclusive communities that have good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community while maintaining the quality of the natural environment.
112. While the NPPF presents a positive platform for housing growth, the presumption it establishes is in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF sets down policy relating to the Green Belt which is in essence a continuation of the protection enshrined in the CLSLP. As with previous Green Belt policy, the NPPF confirms that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
113. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF requires that established Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. Essentially the appropriateness of existing Green Belt boundaries should not be considered in the determination of planning applications.
114. Paragraph 88 advises that when considering planning applications LPA’s should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm in the Green Belt. ‘Very Special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Paragraph 89 is clear that LPA’s should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt, unless they meet certain exceptions, very similar to that set out within Local Policy, which it is clear that this proposal would not meet.
115. Taking these matters into consideration it is considered that the application site does contribute to the purposes of including land in Green Belts and that the proposal would represent an expansion of the built up area and an encroachment of development into the countryside. In this context the proposal comprises inappropriate development and is in conflict with the NPPF and policies of the CLSLP.
116. The emerging County Durham Plan has been progressed to Preferred Options Stage. It now sets down with reasonable clarity the ‘direction of travel’ in terms of the overall spatial strategy for developing the County over the next twenty years. In relation to Green Belts, when preparing or reviewing local plans LPA’s should consider the green belt boundaries having regarding to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring the plan period (paragraph 83 of the NPPF).
117. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF requires that when reviewing green belt policies LPA’s should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, essentially development should be channelled towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages within the Green Belt or towards locations beyound the outer Green Belt boundary.
118. The County Durham Plan Preferred Options document identifies five delivery areas to help frame the objectives for growth. The application site is contained within the North Durham Delivery Area. The Plan indicates that most new dwellings will be directed to Chester-le-Street main town. Of the remaining allocation, this proposed to be shared between the smaller settlements of Burnopfield, Fencehouses and Pelton Fell over the plan period (i.e. to 2030) and not in Bournmoor owing to lower levels of sustainability and Green Belt constraints.
119. Bournmoor is not included in the latest draft of the Plan as a settlement where housing allocations are being proposed at all. The intentions overall are to direct growth to main towns and, to a lesser extent, secondary settlements to permit better access to facilities. Bournmoor is within the fourth tier in the latest version of the Settlement Study (2012), given its level of service provision and access to facilities. The application site has been considered and discounted during the allocations process for the Plan on account of poor sustainability scores and it being located in the Green Belt.
120. While a large site to the north of the proposal site (in Lambton Park) is allocated for housing, it is considered justified on the grounds that it will deliver the identified requirement for executive housing and help to restore and open up the historic parkland.
121. In terms of whether there is a requirement for this site to be realised for housing purposes to serve an identified need, paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that LPA’s should effectively have a 5 year housing land supply with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The applicant contends that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This is rebutted and clearly demonstrated below. Specifically the former Chester-le-Street area is able to maintain a 5 year supply of deliverable sites without a contribution from this site.
122. The Plan needs to deliver at least 30,000 new homes up to 2030. The housing allocation for the North Durham delivery area is 6,600 units. The majority of this new housing, approximately 4,380 units will be directed to sites in the three main towns, Consett, Chester-le-Street, Stanley/Tanfield Lea. The remaining units will be directed to smaller towns and larger villages, Annfield Plain, Pelton/Newfield, Great Lumley, with a smaller residual stock of 350 units delivered from existing commitments and two sites selected from the next most sustainable settlements (Urpeth and Burnopfield, both are regarded as Local Service Centres, tier 3 settlements, in the Settlement Study).
123. For Chester-Le-Street the main town will receive 1,300 units, up to 400 of these will be at Lambton Park which is the location that has been selected to deliver the identified need for executive housing in an appropriate location (in terms of quality of setting and location, proximity to A1/rail) as well as facilitating the restoration and development of the Lambton Estate. Pelton/Newfield will receive 500 units and Urpeth 40 units. Given that the housing requirement will be met in these settlements there has not been a need to look at less sustainable locations and lower tier settlements such as Bournmoor, which is regarded as a tier 4 settlement.
124. The proposal would not accord with the Part 9 of the NPPF in that it would be located in the Green Belt which is protected in much the same way as it is in under policies NE3, NE4, NE5 and NE6 of the Local Plan.
125. The applicant seeks to apportion significant weight to the economic benefits which will accrue from new housing development on the site, more specifically that it comprises highly sustainable development which will deliver wider economic and regeneration benefits to the whole community. In essence that an ‘exceptional case’ has been justified. Whilst these are not disputed, many of these benefits would apply equally to housing developments within the built up area and not be dependent on a Green belt location thus this should be afforded limited weight in determining this application.
Sustainability
126. The RSS sets out a clear hierarchy for directing growth to previously developed land in the most sustainable locations via the sequential approach to selecting development. This aims to link development to key facilities and services to reduce the need for people to travel to access them. The scheme would conflict with the general aims of the RSS insofar as the scheme would not be within a main town and would take up Greenfield land.
127. A key objective of planning policy is to achieve a sustainable form and pattern of development which prioritises directing new development to existing main settlements to ensure access to and support for services and where possible reusing previously developed land.
128. Policy T6 of the CLSLP requires that proposals should be consistent with a safe and accessible public transport network and should encourage its use in order to reduce reliance on the car. Access to new developments should be located on or near to existing bus routes. Policy HP9 of the CLSLP requires that development provides a safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access to recreational facilities and other local services e.g. shops and public transport. T15 of the CLSLP also requires adequate links and access to public transport.
129. To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs Paragraph 70 of the NPPF requires that planning decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities such as meeting places and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments.
130. Paragraph 38 of the NPPF encourages larger scale residential developments to promote a mix of uses on site to provide opportunities to undertake day-to-day activities and key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be within walking distance of most properties. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF requires that developments should be located where they have access to high quality public transport facilities.
131. In this case A1 (retail) space, A2 (office) space, a crèche or day nursery and village hall would be provided as well as sports space which could be utilised by the proposed new residents and also existing residents. However given the distance from the site to the majority of Bournmoor, it is likely existing residents would have to travel to the site by car as the site is not located on an existing bus route. The nearest existing bus stops are located at Rose Crescent, approximately 680-720m from the site (a walk of approximately 9 minutes). New residents would also not be within close convenient proximity to the existing facilities, including local primary school in Bournmoor (a distance of between 800-1000m away) nor the wider area, normally accessible by public transport. There proposals would therefore conflict with the requirements of polices T6, T15 and HP9 of the CLSLP.
132. It is considered that commitment is not shown in the travel plan and no attempt has been made to mitigate the impact of development by reducing the need to travel by private car, or by encouraging and supporting car sharing or public transport, a view shared by the Highways Agency and the County Highways Authority. It is accepted, by officers that this could however be improved at reserved matters stage.
133. Essentially though the site is not in an accessible location for public transport and walking distances to local facilities and other amenities are long, although cycling distances to those amenities are acceptable, there is little cycle infrastructure available. The site is poorly related to and fails to promote more sustainable transport choices, accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling, and therefore fails to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. The location of the proposal is considered at odds with paragraph 34 of the NPPF which requires that development that may be a significant traffic generator should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable modes can be maximised.
134. HP15 of the CLSLP aims to secure a contribution from developers on site of 10 or more dwellings for the provision and maintenance of any related infrastructure where such provisions are necessary and directly related to the proposed development.
135. The indicative layout shows new village centre facilities in the form of a village hall and crèche/day nursery and ancillary commercial development. There is however no mechanism proposed to ensure how or that these will be delivered or maintained in the long term and by whom. Although these elements, in theory are positive and beneficial to the local community as a whole, limited weight is attached to them at present due to the unreliability of their delivery, particularly a village hall facility that would undoubtedly rely on an element of public sector, voluntary or charity delivery as opposed to a private developer.
136. Policy BE2 aims to secure a contribution of 1% from development sites where costs total £500,000 or more towards the provision of works of art in new buildings and landscape projects accessible to the public. The submitted draft section 106 ensures that this would be delivered.
137. The illustrative layout provides for a village green type space as well as less formal green routes through the development. It is proposed to create 0.27 hectares for outdoor sport space, 0.3 hectares of amenity open space and 1.35 hectares of semi-natural green space, totalling 1.92 hectares.
138. The County Durham Open Space Needs Assessment identifies deficiencies in all these typologies within the Bournmoor area and thus it is recognised that the proposal would assist in relieving deficit in the ward. In this respect the illustrative layout would comply with polices Policy RL1 and RL6 of the CLSLP which seeks to secure the creation of new recreation facilities and maintenance of these provisions could be secured for a maximum period of 10 years as required by policy RL6 of the CLPS through an additional clause within the section 106, should the applicant be agreeable.
139. Policies RL4 and RL5 of the CLSLP sets out required standards of open space per 1000 population and per hectare of land, consisting of formal provision for sport, equipped play areas, and casual/informal space. HP9 also requires the provision of children’s play areas. Given the size of the site and the indications already shown within the submission and illustrative layout, it is considered that the required standards could potentially be met within the submission of reserved matters via the imposition of detailed planning conditions.
140. Policy RL17 of the CLSLP requires that major new residential developments that are not within reasonable walking distance of existing shops should make provision for small local shops to serve the everyday needs of their residents. The provision of up to 400 sq.m. of ancillary commercial development compromising class A1 and B1 would meet this requirement. It would be possible to restrict the retail element of this to 100 sqm in floor area as required by policy R17, via planning condition which would not undermine the viability and vitality of existing nearby retailing areas.
141. However policy R16 of the CLSLP, although permitting small scale retail uses beyound defined local centres, does so on the basis that this would be within existing settlement boundaries and within reasonable walking distance of residential areas, both of which this development would not conform with.
142. Furthermore policy IN9 of the CLSLP requires that new employment uses (which a new crèche and proposed commercial development would be) shall only be permitted beyond existing settlement boundaries where they involve re-use of existing buildings, diversification of agricultural enterprise and in relation to mineral workings, agricultural or forestry. The proposals would thus not comply with policy IN9 of the CLSLP.
143. The scheme would provide financial benefits for the Council and where these are directly related to the application, the Localism Act, which has replaced the Town Planning Act, states that these can be considered as material considerations in support of the development. The Localism Act has introduced ‘local financial considerations’ as a legitimate material consideration providing they are material to the application. Local financial considerations are defined as:
a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy.
144. In terms of the application, while it would not deliver any Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions due to the Council not yet having an adopted CIL, it is the case that the scheme would deliver economic gains via the New Homes Bonus mechanism which would satisfy point (a) in the above definition of what constitutes a legitimate financial consideration.
145. Part 10 of the NPPF highlights the general need to improve energy efficiency in new development. Policy 38 of the RSS seeks to ensure that within all major development proposals a 10% energy efficiency reduction is achieved. It has been indicated that the intention of the scheme is to build to Code Level 5, which would fully supported. The applicant hopes to make the development an exemplar site by building to this level. The use of the proposed range of renewable technologies would also be supported.
146. In terms of the likely material benefits that would be realised from the scheme (community facilities, open, play and sports space, high standards of efficiency/renewable energy generation and, financial benefits), while these would help to improve the sustainability of the site and settlement they are not sufficient to overcome the Green Belt status of the land.
147. Given the above deliberations it is considered that the site is not suitable for housing development. The site presents significant conflicts in relation to the Development Plan and NPPF owing to its Green Belt location and its approval would not be a justified departure from the development plan. Furthermore the site is not one that is required for the strategic aims of the County as set down in the emerging County Durham Plan. The proposal would not present sufficient merit or satisfy the stated exceptional circumstances to surmount the restrictions relating to the designation of the land.
Affordable Housing
148. Paragraph 50 of the NPPF requires that where affordable housing has been identified as being needed policies should be set for identifying this need, which contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities.
149. Policy HP13 of the CLPLP seeks the provision of 30% affordable housing on major housing schemes. However this has be overtaken by the production of the Durham County Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in 2008 and subsequently updated in 2010 and 2012 which, due to the growing importance of the consideration of viability in negotiations, reduced the requirement for new developments in the Northern CDP Housing Market Delivery to provide 15% affordable housing.
150. The proposed development will include the provision of affordable housing. The Housing Delivery Manager has advised that prior to the submission of any reserved matters or detailed planning application the applicant should enter into discussions with the Housing Strategy Team to ascertain the local affordable housing provision within Bournmoor, taking into account the recommendations of the SHMA.
151. A draft section 106 legal agreement has been submitted which commits to the provision of affordable housing on the site although the scale, size and mix of affordable housing will need to be confirmed and agreed, in discussion within the Local Authority prior to the submission of a reserved matters application which would reflect market conditions at the time.
Residential Amenity
152. Approval of the layout of the proposed development is not sought within this outline planning application, although an illustrative layout is submitted showing how the site could accommodate the development proposed.
153. Policy HP9 of the CLSLP requires that development avoids damage to the amenities of adjoining properties, including adequate daylight and privacy. An appropriate layout that would ensure a good relationship with existing residential properties to the east of the site on Castlefields as well as internally would be a requirement of any reserved matters application. This should ensure appropriate height, scale, mass and distances between properties, particularly to the eastern side of the site to protect the visual and residential amenity of the rear gardens and windows of the closest properties on Castlefields. The height, scale and massing of proposed residential properties would be required to reflect that of the existing Castlefields estate to the east of the site.
154. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF advises that decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on quality of life as a result of new development.
155. In light of the above policies it would also be necessary to undertake a noise assessment before the submission of any reserved matters application to ascertain the level of noise from the surrounding roads and associated traffic which may recommend a specific grade of glazing and additional screening to be installed to prevent intrusive noise levels within the proposed dwellings.
156. If the principle of residential development was accepted on this site it is likely that an acceptable level of residential amenity could be achieved, through the submission of any reserved matters application for existing and future residents as required by policy of the HP9 of the CLSLP and paragraphs 109 and 123 of the NPPF.
157. The Environmental Health Officer has recommended a number of conditions be attached to any grant of planning permission to ensure good working practice during construction to achieve an appropriate standard of residential amenity.
Access and Highway Safety
158. A transport statement and travel plan has been submitted in support of the proposal due to the potential amount of movement generated by the proposed development. This is in line with paragraph 32 and 36 of the NPPF. This paragraph also states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe.
159. Policy T15 of the CLSLP requires that development should not create levels of traffic which would exceed the capacity of the local road network or create a road safety hazard.
160. The existing capacity analysis of the Chester Road/ High Primrose Hill junction shows operation of all legs well within capacity. The addition of traffic associated with the development would not therefore create a problem with operation efficiency at this junction.
161. The Highways Officer advises that trip generation from and to the site has been underestimated by 25% as trips associated with the proposed retail unit, crèche and community centre have not been incorporated into the transport assessment junction analysis at the A1M junction 63
162. The A183 Chester Road node at the A1M junction 63 is presently uncontrolled. This junction is the responsibility of the Highways Agency, rather than the County Council. As part of the development it is proposed that this node in the junction is signalised, at the roundabout. This would provide a significant improvement on the local A183 network. The Highways Officer advises that any development must be conditional upon the provision of these signals. Should the Highways Agency, whom is responsible for this location, accept signalisation of the A183 Chester Road, without resultant capacity issues on other local legs of the junction, then this aspect of the proposal is considered acceptable.
163. The Highways Agency have issued a direction that the Council does not grant planning permission for the next 6 months. This does not prevent the Council from refusing the application. This is on the basis that they have serious reservations about the deliverability of the improvement currently proposed as the improvement is likely to be expensive to implement to a degree which the Highways Agency feel would be outside the ability of the development to fund it within the lifetime of the development. The HA advise that this would make the use of a grampian-type condition to secure these works, inappropriate when considered against guidance in the Planning Circular 11/95 relating to planning obligations.
164. The HA have advised that before they can agree to secure a condition based on any scheme, they need to check and agree the principles of the scheme, including the carrying out of a ‘Stage 1 Road Safety Audit’. Both of these issues could affect the deliverability of the proposed mitigation measures and therefore viability of the improvement in the context of the development as a whole. Neither has yet been carried out by the HA.
165. On this basis, in the light of the advise received from the HA, it is at present considered that it has not yet been shown that the proposed development complies with policy T15 of the CLSLP in that it has not been demonstrated at present that the development would not create levels of traffic which would exceed the capacity of the local road network or create a road safety hazard and that improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of the development as required by paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
166. The Highways Officer advises that a satisfactory visibility splay can be achieved at the proposed eastern access. However the proposed western access is substandard, thus the eastern access should be the sole approved access to the site. It is considered that the proposed development could comply with CLSLP Policies HP9, T15 and paragraph 32 of the NPPF which requires satisfactory access onto the adopted road network and safe vehicle entrance and exit.
167. Cycle parking facilities and storage would also be provided as required by CLSLP policies T12 and T13. In line with paragraph 35 of the NPPF and policy T15 of the CLSLP it is considered that a safe and secure layout which minimises conflict between traffic, cyclists and pedestrians could be secured. Adequate provision for service, refuse and emergency vehicles could also be attained as required by CLSLP Policy T15.
Design and Layout
168. Policy HP9 of the CLSLP sets out general design criteria which new development must achieve, including relating well to the surrounding area, providing an attractive, efficient and safe environment, providing adequate open space, incorporating existing landscape features and the provision of new landscaping.
169. Part 7 of the NPPF places great importance on the design of the built environment. Planning decisions must aim to ensure developments add to the overall quality of an area, establish a strong sense of place, respond to local character and history, and be visually attractive.
170. The Landscape Architect advises that the development will have a medium to high adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area. The inclusion of street lighting will also have a visual impact on the local environment. The proposal would reinforce the buffer planting along the A183 where there is a substantial screen at present but fails to create a similar buffer along the A1052 which is the boundary that will have the most impact on visual amenity. A wide belt of buffer planting/screening would need to be incorporated along this south west boundary where it faces the open countryside to assist in mitigation of the developments visual impact. It is considered that this could potentially be designed into any further detailed scheme.
171. The Design Officer advises that the current proposal has taken on board previous design comments, which has helped to improve the overall design and layout considerably. However there remains a few outstanding issues that would still need to be addressed and the Design Officer and Landscape Architect have both made a number of suggestions that could be incorporated into the development of any detailed scheme. Essentially though, if this site was in a different location where the principle of the development was considered to be acceptable the illustrative layout shows many positive aspects which could be built on and developed in any further detailed scheme.
172. It is intended that different builders would construct different parts of the proposed development and thus in light of this it would be important to ensure that different areas are constructed in a similar manner in terms of design and materials. A scheme that is not cohesive and lacks a coordinated approach in terms of detailing, styles and materials may have a significant adverse impact upon the aesthetics of the overall site and surrounding area.
173. On this basis the production of a design code is therefore essential to ensure consistency in terms of design and appearance between different pods, house types and the community hub, should the principle of development be accepted. This would ensure the submission of a reserved matters scheme that would require the quality of the development to embody the principles set out within paragraph 58, 131 and 136 of the NPPF, to create an attractive, accessible and safe place to live and visit, as well as meeting many of the objectives required by the general residential design criteria policy of the CLSLP.
Impact on Ecology and Trees
174. A phase 1 habitat survey and ecology report been submitted in support of the application. This established that the site has very little potential for the majority of protected species. Due to the site consisting entirely of arable land, there is unlikely to be any significant impacts with regards to rare or sensitive plant species or habitats. The development of the site would not impact on any sites of nature conservation importance. Further consideration was though given to bats and breeding birds due to the presence of mature trees, scrub and hedgerows around the site boundary.
175. No trees need to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. However there are two trees located along the northern boundary of the site which should be removed due to fungal rot which could lead to a health and safety issue, being located adjacent the busy A183. These trees have been identified as having a high potential for roosting bats. Should these be removed further checks for bats would be required.
176. Trees outside the application site to the west of the site have a risk of containing bat roosts. Increased lighting and disturbance, in the construction of homes to this part of the site could potentially result in a bat roost becoming unusable. The submitted ecology report therefore recommends a buffer zone of at least 15m be put in place to prevent development close to trees at the western end of the site. Bat roosts would also be incorporated in six dwellings. The ecologist and Natural England are agreeable to this approach which could be ensured via planning condition.
177. The proposed access points would require the removal of sections of hedgerows. However the remaining hedgerows would be enhanced and gapped up with native species and hedgerow removal would take place outside the bird breeding season. The scheme would also incorporate native tree planting throughout the site
178. It is proposed to create a relatively large wildlife pond to the north east corner of the site which it is recommended is designed for attracting amphibians as well as an amphibian hibernaculum. Meeting the Code for Sustainable Homes level 5, as indicated within the submission would also require additional invertebrate, mammal and bird boxes to be incorporated to promote and enhance ecology on the site.
179. It is considered that there would not be significant impact on wildlife, protected species and natural habitats in line with paragraph 109, and 118 of the NPPF which requires that impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and net gains be provided where possible.
Flood Risk and Drainage
180. Paragraphs 99 and 100 of the NPPF require that new development avoids increased vulnerability of flooding. The site lies within flood zone 1 which means that the site has a low risk and probability of flooding and that residential development is acceptable in principle. The is no risk of flooding from any watercourse.
181. The Environment Agency are satisfied that a site specific flood risk assessment which considers surface water disposal has been submitted and that this demonstrates that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere, subject to a requirement that surface water discharge is attenuated to the specified flow rate within the submitted flood risk
182. It is proposed to incorporate a variety of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) to accommodate the additional surface water run-off. It is envisaged that rain water harvesters, as well as grey water harvesting systems and ponds would be used. It is anticipated that driveways would be permeable and that the majority of surface water would be taken to soakaways which would help reduce the amount of attenuation generated by restricted flows.
99. The Drainage team have advised that the discharge rate must be limited to the Greenfield run off rate so any surface water drainage design must take this into account. Subject to this being required via planning condition the Drainage Team have no objections to the application. In respect of concerns raised by residents regarding flooding, the Drainage Engineer advises that development would help the existing drainage situation as positive drainage would be installed. In this respect, water that runs across the surface would be channelled into the new road gullies and drained away into a positive system.
183. Northumbrian Water has no objections to the proposals. This is based upon the developers intention to manage the surface water using SUDS. Northumbrian Water have advised that no surface water would use the existing drainage system serving the Castlefields estate. The foul flow would enter the existing public sewer at two separate locations each of which can accommodate the predicted flow rates generated by the development. It would only be the foul flow that enters the existing pumping station, therefore any power supply issues to the pumping station would not put the Castlefield estate at flood risk due to the additional foul flows.
184. Subject to the implementation of the specified condition, limiting surface water discharge from the site, required by the Environment Agency, the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 99 and 100 of the NPPF which should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.
Archaeology
185. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires that where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, LPA’s should require developers to submit an appropriate desk based assessment and where necessary a field evaluation.
186. The archaeologist advises that no significant archaeological sites are known within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, as the site is Greenfield this represents an 'unknown' and in the wider landscape are the historically important parks of Lumley and Lambton, along with other sites of medieval date.
187. In line with paragraph 128 of the NPPF the Archaeology Officer recommends the submission of the results of an assessment, and potentially evaluation, with any reserved matters application to determine the level of risk this development poses to archaeological remains. Surveying the site would allow the results of this work to influence the implementation and design of the scheme.
Contamination
188. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires that development of sites and the surrounding area are made safe and appropriately remediated.
189. The submitted contamination desk study indicates that the site has not been previously developed and that it is therefore considered unlikely that significant ground contamination is present. However the submitted preliminary investigation report recommends a full phase 2 contaminated land risk assessment. This could be secured via the standard contaminated land condition, should planning permission be granted.
190. A hazardous gas risk assessment is also recommended due to possible mine workings beneath the site and mine shafts on the site. These requirements and any further investigation and risk assessment and any subsequent required remediation could be imposed via planning condition, should planning permission be granted.
191. The application site falls within the defined Coal Mining Development Referral Area. The submitted preliminary investigation report identifies that the site has been subject to past coal mining activity and is affected by the presence of mine entries and workings. Accordingly, appropriate recommendations are included in the report for intrusive works to be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding ground conditions and to enable appropriate remedial measures to be identified. An appropriate ‘no build’ zone is established once the mine entries have been located.
192. The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the preliminary investigation report and has no objections to the proposed development subject to the recommendations being undertaken.
193. It is therefore considered that the proposal meets the requirements of paragraph 109 of NPPF in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe.
CONCLUSION
194. The site is located within the North Durham Green Belt. The CLSLP seeks to restrict development in this area under policies NE3, NE4, NE5 and NE6 except in exceptional circumstances.
195. The proposal would extend development beyond the defined settlement boundary as set out in Policy NE2 of the CLSLP.
196. The site is not in an accessible location for public transport and walking and cycling distances are long with little infrastructure available. The site is poorly related to and fails to promote more sustainable transport choices, accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling, and therefore fails to reduce the need to travel, especially by car.
197. In terms of the likely material benefits that would be realised from the scheme, while these would help to improve the sustainability of the site and settlement they are not sufficient to overcome the Green Belt status of the land.
198. The site presents significant conflicts in relation to the Development Plan and NPPF and its approval would not be a justified departure from the development plan. Furthermore the site is not one that is required for the strategic aims of the County as set down in the emerging County Durham Plan.
199. The proposal would not present sufficient merit or satisfy the stated exceptional circumstances to surmount the restrictions relating to the designation of the land.
200. In the light of the advise received from the Highways Agency it has not yet been demonstrated that the proposed development complies with policy T15 of the CLSLP in that it has not been yet shown that the development would not create levels of traffic which would exceed the capacity of the local road network or create a road safety hazard.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The application site is located beyond the established settlement limit of Bournmoor and on land defined as within the North Durham Greenbelt. The proposals are not considered to meet the tests of ‘exceptional circumstances’ required in order for planning permission to be granted in such a location, and are thus considered contrary to policies NE3, NE4, NE5, NE6, R16 and IN9 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan and Part 9 of the NPPF ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’.
2. The location of the proposed development is considered unsustainable, in that a convenient, close and easily accessible pedestrian and cycle access cannot be provided to local services, facilities and public transport links, including bus routes, in order to reduce reliance on the car, contrary to policy HP9 (viii), T6, T15 and T17 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan and paragraphs 34, 35 and 38 of the NPPF.
3. It has not been demonstrated, as required by policy T15 of the Chester-le- Street Local Plan that the proposed development would not create levels of traffic which would exceed the capacity of the local road network or create a road safety hazard, and that improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of the development, as required by paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT
Following the withdrawal of the previous application on the site the Local Planning Authority have actively engaged with the applicants to try to secure a positive outcome which delivers high quality sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. It has not however been possible to overcome those concerns regarding the sustainability credentials of the site and highway capacity issues and despite the Council's best endeavours the application fails to deliver high quality sustainable development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
− Submitted Application Forms and Plans − Agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to land west of Castlefields, Bournmoor, County Durham − National Planning Policy Framework − North East Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008. − Chester-le-Street Local Plan − Responses from Highways Agency, Coal Authority, Northumbrian Water, Natural England, Environment Agency, Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer) County Highways, Design and Conservation Officer, Landscape Officer, Sustainability Officer, Public Rights of Way Officer, Environmental Health Officer, Planning Policy Officer, Ecology Officer, Housing Delivery Manager − Public Consultation Responses
Application Site
Outline application for up to 168 dwellings including landscaping , open space, access, highway works, up to 600 sqm for village hall Planning Services & creche/day nursery & up to 400 sqm of commercial development (class A1/B1) all matters reserved apart from access at Land adjacent to Castlefields, Bournmoor This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments 2/12/00217/FUL permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Date December 2012 Scale 1:5000 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005