County Planning Committee

Date Tuesday 26 July 2016 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 July 2016 (Pages 1 - 8) 5. Applications to be determined a) DM/14/01586/OUT - Land to the east of Sedgefield Community College, to the north and south of Butterwick Road, Sedgefield (Pages 9 - 46) Outline application including details of access, appearance, layout and scale for the erection of 63 bed care home (Class C2), 58 bed assisted living complex (Class C2), community and youth facility (Class D2), business enterprise unit (Class B1) and 3000m2 of general industrial/storage and distribution (Class B2/B8) use with outline permission sought including details of access only for the erection of 371 dwellings including 72 self-build plots.

b) 7/2011/0293/DM - Land south of Harap Road, Garmondsway, Fishburn (Pages 47 - 70) Amended Description – Installation of one (previously two) 500kw wind turbines with ancillary development including access tracks and crane pads.

c) DM/15/02326/OUT - Land North of West Chilton Terrace, Chilton (Pages 71 - 100) Outline proposal for up to 135 Dwellings, 13 no. Research & Development, Industrial and Light Industrial Buildings (12,520 sq.m total, B1 and B2 use), cemetery extension and associated landscaping (all matters reserved except access) d) DM/15/03748/WAS & DM/15/03747/WAS - Eldon Brickworks, Eldon, Bishop Auckland (Pages 101 - 122) Change of use to materials recycling facility (DM/15/03748/WAS) and reuse of existing materials storage area (DM/15/03747/WAS)

e) DM/16/01442/WAS - Civic Amenity Site, The Green, Stainton Grove (Pages 123 - 142) New Household Waste Recovery Centre including sorting facility, resale shop and staff facilities

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 18 July 2016

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 DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

At a Meeting of County Planning Committee held in Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Tuesday 5 July 2016 at 1.00 pm

Present:

Councillor K Davidson (Chairman)

Members of the Committee: Councillors J Clare, M Dixon, G Holland, B Moir (Vice-Chairman), H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield, R Young, J Alvey (substitute for A Laing), K Shaw (substitute for R Lumsdon) and J Robinson (substitute for P Taylor)

Apologies: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor(s) D Boyes, I Jewell, C Marshall and K Corrigan

Also Present: Councillor W Stelling

1 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Boyes, I Jewell, C Marshall and K Corrigan

2 Substitute Members

Councillor J Alvey substituted for Councillor A Laing, Councillor J Robinson substituted for Councillor P Taylor and Councillor K Shaw substituted for R Lumsdon.

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor A Shield declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest, as a Local Member in respect of Item 5a, application DM/16/00616/FPA – Land to the North of High Westwood and remained during the consideration of the application.

4 Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held 7 June 2016 were agreed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman. 5 Applications to be determined

a DM/16/00616/FPA - Land to the North of High Westwood, NE17 7RD

The Planning Team Leader (North), Andrew Farnie, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes). Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site. The application was for change of use from agriculture to equestrian use and erection of stables and ménage for mixed commercial livery and private use and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from internal consultees on the application, with the Coal Authority noting their objection as a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report had not been submitted as part of the application. It was explained that a standard condition was set out at Condition 10, with no development to take place before a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report or similar be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Committee noted 11 letters of objection from the members of the public and 3 letters of support. The Planning Team Leader noted the issues raised by objectors in terms of potential noise and disturbance, however, Officers were satisfied that issues raised by objectors could be dealt with by condition or enforcement if required.

Members noted objectors had raised several highways issues, noting safety concerns due to narrow lanes and high speeds of vehicles travelling along those lanes. The Highways Development Manager, John McGargill explained that concerns had been raised by objectors in terms of the approach to the site on Shaw Lane and Cut Throat Lane. The Highways Development Manager noted that there was an amount of existing agricultural traffic accessing agricultural land from these lanes and that the application would not generate sufficient additional traffic to present a significant impact upon the local network. It was added that there was evidence of existing issues where traffic had made use of the verge along Shaw Lane and Cut Throat Lane to allow vehicles to pass each other. It was explained that there was also access via the B6310 a wider two lane road, and that local people and the developer would know that this road provided a better route to the site. The Highways Development Manager added that there had been two slight injury accidents recorded in 2012 and 2014 on Shaw Lane, however the number did not present a significant statistical cation would represent a significant impact upon the road safety.

The Planning Team Leader noted that the design was considered acceptable, albeit functional, and that the applicant had noted further planting to provide screening of the site and therefore while there would be some visual impact, it was not felt to be sufficient to warrant a recommendation for refusal. The Chairman asked for the Officer to clarify where the further screening would be placed, and the Officer referred Members to the plans on the projector screen, highlighting the areas along the site boundaries and access road where screening would be provided. The Chairman asked the Local Member for Leadgate and Medomsley, Councillor W Stelling to speak in relation to the Application.

Councillor W Stelling thanked the Chairman and referred Members of the Committee to page 11 of the Officer’s report which stated in the last sentence of the first paragraph that “The site falls within a High Risk Area in terms of Coal Mining Legacy”. Councillor W Stelling added that a letter, dated 27 April, was submitted by the Coal Authority objecting to the application on the grounds a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report or equivalent had not been submitted as part of the application, as set out at paragraph 33 of the Officer’s report. Councillor W Stelling added that Condition 10 set out no works would take place until a Coal Mining Risk Assessment had taken place, and asked why not ask for this assessment in advance and to be submitted as part of the application. Councillor W Stelling noted that page 14 of the report, paragraph 19, referred to land stability and stated there were “no unacceptable risks caused by unstable land or subsidence”. Councillor W Stelling noted how could that be known if a Coal Mining Risk Assessment had not yet been carried out, and added that in his many years of experience of planning applications these type of surveys had always been carried out in advance of an application being submitted. Councillor W Stelling referred to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Parts 4, 7 and 11 and added that he could not see how any of those had been met by this application. Councillor W Stelling explained that NPPF Part 4 referred to promoting sustainable transport, and as this application would generate more vehicle journeys, he felt that would be contrary to NPPF Part 4. In reference to NPPF Part 7, requiring good design and adding to the quality of an area, Councillor W Stelling explained he did not feel this was the case with this application. Councillor W Stelling added that the local resident who was registered to speak would refer to issues highlighting how it was felt that the application was contrary to NPPF Part 11, conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Councillor W Stelling explained that in terms of highways issues, he was disappointed that Members of the Committee had not visited the site to see the twists and bends in the roads approaching the site, with Cut Throat Lane being a “nightmare”. Councillor W Stelling noted some local people may be aware of the issues and would therefore take the alternate route, however, “sat-nav” would likely direct people along Cut Throat Lane or Shaw Lane as they were both national speed limit roads.

Councillor W Stelling noted NPPF Part 3 was ”supporting a rural economy” and added he could not see how this application supported the local village of High Westwood as it did not have any shops, not even a post office or a public house and therefore would not provide a boost to the local economy. Councillor W Stelling added that in terms of alternative sites, saved Derwentside District Local Plan (DDLP) policy AG1 noted there should be no development of land of grade 2 or 3a agricultural quality where no other site of lower grade land existed upon which the development could reasonably be located. Councillor W Stelling noted that while only part of the application site was grade 3a, there would be a loss of some grade 3a agricultural land and asked whether the developer had looked at other sites. Councillor W Stelling noted his concern as Local Member in respect of the application and he added that the former village nearby had been demolished in 1974, as if it had not it would have been swallowed up by the ground. It was added that there was photographic evidence of prior incidents of subsidence in the area proposed for stables and car parking and Councillor W Stelling noted that this presented some level of danger.

The Chairman thanked the Local Member and introduced Mr P Hindmarsh and Mrs A Kelly, local residents, to speak in relation application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee between them.

Mr P Hindmarsh noted his property faced the application site and his objections to the application included the sheer size of the stable block and he felt that it was not conducive to the size and character of any part or building in the hamlet, the building being more suited to an industrial estate. Mr P Hindmarsh added that most of the village had objected to the application, apart from 3 properties, 2 of which face away from the site and the third being the proposer, with the proposers’ new property being constructed at the far end of the village away from the noise and smells that would be produced 13.5 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr P Hindmarsh added that the 3 roads in and out of High Westwood, especially Shaw Lane were not suitable for large horse boxes, or those of a trailer type, because of the narrowness of the roads. Mr P Hindmarsh added that the roads were very steep, had blind corners and were never salted in icy conditions, with the route into Ebchester being one car width all the way along.

Mr P Hindmarsh explained that Durham County Council (DCC) had made the old railway into the Derwent Walk, and also planted woodland where the old colliery was, in the 1970s. It was noted that bridges were made safe and the area made into a country park and formed part of The Durham Woodland Plan. Mr P Hindmarsh noted that in 2015 and 2016, DCC thinned out the woodland to allow wildflowers to grow to increase wildlife diversity. Mr P Hindmarsh noted that according to a notice erected by the Council, the Durham Woodland Plan specified there would be a 10 metre buffer zone around trees with nesting birds and added that the cost to the Authority would be enormous for this. Mr P Hindmarsh added he felt that to erect a building of this magnitude in the centre of this woodland was utterly ridiculous.

Mr P Hindmarsh added that the Coal Authority had stated there were old mining works beneath the field in question and were at a shallow depth and that a mining risk assessment should be made. Mr P Hindmarsh noted he reiterated the comments of Councillor W Stelling in this regard and referred Members to the recent sinkhole that had appeared on the A1 near Lobley Hill.

Mrs A Kelly noted she objected to the application and was concerned there was not enough parking allocated and therefore this could lead to parking on verges, presenting a danger as the lanes, as previously mentioned, were very narrow and she agreed with Councillor W Stelling that people would not use the B6310, rather they would use Cut Throat Lane and Shaw Lane. Mr P Hindmarsh added that Northumbrian Water had in the past looked to develop in the area however had not as they had been told the ground was not suitable or stable enough.

The Chairman thanked the Mr P Hindmarsh and Mrs A Kelly and asked Mr A Moss, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee.

Mr A Moss noted he was a Chartered Town Planner at Ward Hadaway and represented the applicants in respect of their application. Mr A Moss added that there had been a number of changes made to plans that had sought to respond positively to suggestions made and the applicant had worked with Officers of the Council in this regard. Mr A Moss added that the merits of the application were set out within the Officer’s report, that the proposal was acceptable in principle and in the specifics, noting social and health benefits and the close proximity to the Derwent Walk. Mr A Moss concluded by noting there was a recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, and asked that Members look favourably and approve the application.

The Chairman thanked Mr A Moss and asked the Planning Team Leader to provide further information on the issues raised.

The Planning Team Leader noted that in the past the submission of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment was part of the validation check list, however, a decision had been made to be more flexible and an approach be taken that if an assessment was not submitted with an application, then a condition would be added that stipulated that development could not commence until such and assessment or survey had been carried out and then it would be for the developer to then deal with issues arising from such assessment. The Chairman asked why an assessment was not undertaken, adding it was not a stumbling block in terms of determining the application. Mr A Moss added that as stated by the Officer, Coal Mining Risk Assessments were required in the past, however, there was now a more flexible approach which was to encourage applications, though ultimately the Council was maintaining control as the condition set out that development could not commence until the assessment had been carried out.

Mr P Hindmarsh reiterated that there was to be a 10 metre buffer around trees with nesting birds. The Planning Team Leader explained he had spoken to the Council’s Ecologist this morning to clarify and that the buffer referred to nesting “Schedule 1” birds, however in this case there were no nesting Schedule 1 birds. The Planning Team Leader added that if Members were so minded, there could be wording included in the conditions as regards no works to be carried out during the nesting season.

The Highways Development Manager noted in response to the comments made by Councillor W Stelling that while the roads were derestricted the actual road geometry meant that drivers could not drive along these roads at 60mph and that people should drive carefully according to conditions. In response to Mr P Hindmarsh, the Highways Development Manager noted that indeed Cut Throat Lane and Shaw Lane were narrow; however, the proposed development would not generate sufficient extra traffic to be considered significant. The Highways Development Manager added that in response to the comments from Mrs A Kelly in terms of car parking, the 7 spaces specified were adequate as it was not likely all users would be in attendance at the same time.

The Chairman noted that the proposed access to the site looked a tight bend from the plans. The Highways Development Manager explained that the access would have good visibility and the radius was suitable.

The Chairman noted Councillor W Stelling had made a point as regards suitability, Councillor W Stelling clarified his point was as regards whether alternative sites had been looked at by the applicant. The Planning Team Leader noted that in terms of job creation, the development was modest, with some in the construction and some in the longer term in terms of the ménage and caring for the horses.

The Chairman asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Shield noted he was a Local Member for Leadgate and Medomsley and had been contacted by residents of the hamlet of High Westwood with serious concerns as regards this application and added he felt that Members of the Committee would have benefited from a visit to the application site. Councillor A Shield noted the points raised by Mr P Hindmarsh in regards to the 10 metre buffer around trees and that the topography of land and slope would need to be taken into account. Councillor A Shield added that the issue of the instability of the land had been mentioned sufficiently by speakers and that looking at the application the site represented a huge area, with the majority of residents feeling it was not in scale or keeping with the village. Councillor A Shield noted he had been a resident of the Medomsley area for 40 years and added that while access was via 3 roads, the area around the B6310 junction with the A694 had had 18 accidents over the last 2 years. It was added that if this road was blocked by Police then traffic would be directed along Cut Throat Lane and as mentioned this road contained a double s- bend and was gritted and snow ploughed very irregularly. Councillor A Shield explained horses needed year round care, especially so in winter and that the area can experience very bad weather conditions in the winter months. Councillor A Shield noted he therefore could not support the application; felt that it was contrary to the policies previously mentioned and would move that it be refused.

Councillor M Dixon noted that the problems with the building had been highlighted, however, issues raised had been addressed by the Council’s Officers and asked whether Members should be swayed by those with highways and traffic expertise or hearsay. Councillor M Dixon added that it was for Planning Committees to be objective, listen to the advice of Officers and points raised by speakers. Councillor M Dixon added that he felt this sort of development in such an area was more appropriate than a housing estate for example, and noted the development represented a rural pursuit, and increased the diversity of the economy and was close to the Derwent Walk. Councillor M Dixon noted the position in terms of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment and added that should the Ecologist have concerns sufficient to include a condition, then this could be added if appropriate. Councillor M Dixon noted that on balance he felt that the application was acceptable and he proposed the application be approved.

Councillor B Moir noted he would associated himself with the comments of Councillor M Dixon and thanked the Local Members and Speakers adding they had spoken well. Councillor B Moir thanked the Officers in addition for their information and clarity on issues. Councillor B Moir noted that he had some issue with the scale of the building; however, the application was not for a coke works, not for a large housing development, rather for stables. Accordingly, Councillor B Moir noted he supported Councillor M Dixon in seconding the motion for approval.

Councillor G Richardson noted he lived and represented a rural area, with his day job being a farmer. Councillor G Richardson noted that where he lived there were many hills and that those using them, and that would need to use them in bad weather conditions, would purchase a 4x4 vehicle and that this was commonplace for those living and working in rural areas and this was affordable, if a second-hand vehicle was purchased. Councillor G Richardson explained he agreed with Councillors M Dixon and B Moir in that the proposal seemed perfectly acceptable in terms of rural development; however the issue of the lack of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment was of concern. Councillor G Richardson added that there would be issues in terms of waste management and asked if there was any further information, and noted that in fact as 4 of the stables would be for private use, the estimates of traffic volumes as stated by the Highways Development Manager were an overestimate.

The Chairman asked if there was any information in terms of waste management, and Mr A Moss explained that Condition 8 as set out in the report stipulated that the arrangement for the storage and disposal of animal waste would be need to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to use commencing.

Councillor J Clare noted there had been significant reservations in terms of this application and added that while the development would only add a small number of journeys to the network, in terms of a small hamlet this was a major impact. Councillor J Clare noted his frustration in terms of the loss of grade 3a agricultural land, noting many times within reports it was noted that a small amount would be lost and effectively this loss would be “swept under the carpet”. Councillor J Clare noted that he agreed that this form of development was acceptable in developing the rural economy and asked if the applicant could provide further information in terms of the economic benefits of the proposal. Mr A Moss noted that the Planning Application had stated that the development would generate 1 or 2 full-time jobs and 2 part-time jobs.

The Planning Officer, Louisa Ollivere noted that an objector had referred to the application being within a conservation area, this was not correct, rather when that particular objector had applied for planning consent for an extension they had required referral to the Conservation Team as part of that process. The Highways Development Manager noted the comments of Councillor G Richardson in terms of estimating a “worst case scenario” in terms of additional traffic and in response to Councillor J Clare added that while the background level of traffic was low and therefore any additional traffic could seem like a large increase, the overall volume of traffic was still very low and therefore the risks in terms of road traffic collisions were not significant.

Councillor G Holland noted he was disappointed that Members had not gone on a visit to the site and he felt that the comments from Local Members and residents would be important in coming to a decision on the application as they would know their area better. Councillor G Holland noted the “flexible an relaxed” position in terms of not requiring a Coal Mining Risk Assessment as part of a planning application, however, noted this was not a relaxed issue. Councillor G Holland noted the relevance of saved policies EN1, EN26, AG1 and TR2 and added that he had grave concerns and felt that there was not enough information.

Councillor M Dixon added that Condition 10 set out that no development would take place until a Coal Mining Risk Assessment had been carried out and added that he felt a site visit would not have been an advantage as the issues and problems had been set out and addressed within the Officer’s report and presentation.

Councillor A Shield noted that the Agent had made reference to access to the Derwent Walk; however there would be only access via Shaw Lane and this would be very scary for drivers and those on horses as the lane was very narrow. Councillor A Shield noted that some of the traffic issues had been addressed somewhat, however he felt the application was contrary to saved DDLP policies EN1, EN26 and AG1 as well as NPPF Part 11 in terms of conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

The Chairman asked for any further comments from Committee Members before noting that Councillor M Dixon had moved that the application be approved and he had been seconded by Councillor B Moir.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee. Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/14/01586/OUT

Outline application including details of access, appearance, layout and scale for the erection of 63 bed care home (class C2), 58 bed assisted living complex (class C2), community and youth facility (class D2), FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: business enterprise unit (class B1) and 3000m2 of general industrial/storage and distribution (class B2/B8) use with outline permission sought including details of access only for the erection of 371 dwellings including 72 self-build plots

NAME OF APPLICANT: ESRG Security

Land to the east of Sedgefield Community College, to the ADDRESS: north and south of Butterwick Road, Sedgefield

ELECTORAL DIVISION: Sedgefield

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 35 hectares of land located to the east of Sedgefield. The site is divided into two main areas north and south of Butterwick Road. The northern section of the site lies to the east of Salters Lane and predominantly contains open arable farmland with a fragmented network of hedges. However, a proportion of the Salters Lane Industrial Estate, approximately 0.6ha, lies within the industrial estate itself. The northern extremity of the site lies adjacent to the Howle Hope farmstead. A tributary of the Redcar Beck runs through the south- east of the land.

2. South of Butterwick Road the southern boundary of the site is formed by Beacon Lane and its junction with Stockton Road and contains a mixture of arable and pastoral farmland located to the south-east of Sedgefield Community College. A fragmented network of hedges are located within the site and a tributary of the Redcar Beck runs through the centre of the land.

3. The site contains no statutory or locally designated ecological or landscape sites and none are adjacent. Designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site include Sedgefield Conservation Area, Hardwick Park Conservation Area, the registered historic parks and gardens of Hardwick Park and Garden (Grade II* listed) and Ceddesfeld Hall Gardens (Grade II listed). A concentration of listed buildings including the Grade I listed St Edmunds Church are located within the Sedgefield Conservation Area and the Grade II listed Green Hill Farmhouse and attached outbuilding and separately listed (Grade II) barn to rear are located to the east of the site. The section of the site within the Salters Lane Industrial Estate is designed as a General Industrial Area within the Sedgefield Local Plan (SBLP). The site contains a section of Public Footpath No. 9 (Sedgefield Parish), approximately 50m in length, on its eastern extremity.

The Proposal

4. The application is in outline and seeks planning permission for a mixed use development with differing levels of detail included in relation to the various uses.

5. North of Butterwick Road, off Salters Lane, the greater variety of uses are proposed. These include housing (including self-build plots), an assisted living complex, business enterprise unit, community and youth facility and general industrial/storage and distribution uses. The housing is sought in outline with details of access only included. The remaining uses are also sought in outline but with details of access, appearance, layout and scale of the developments included. Associated indicative landscaping, outdoor sports provision, potential drop-off location for Sedgefield Community College and Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) features are shown on plans submitted with the application. As part of the redevelopment two existing units within the industrial estate would be demolished. Areas of land annotated as being for future development are also shown on plan.

6. South of Butterwick Road, off Beacon Lane, a care home is sought in outline with details of access, appearance, layout and scale included. Further housing is sought also in outline with details of access only included. Associated with all developments indicative landscaping and SuDS features are shown on plan.

7. Off-site highways works so as to implement the development are proposed on and adjacent to Stockton Road. This would involve the creation of a right turn ghost island, relocation of bus stop, creation of a pedestrian refuge and closure of an existing access adjacent to No. 1 The Orchard.

8. The development is proposed to be implemented in phases. North of Butterwick Road, off Salters Lane phase 1 would include the business enterprise unit, the community and youth facility, the general industrial/storage and distribution uses and 137 dwellings including 35 self-build plots. South of Butterwick Road phase 1 is proposed to include the 63 bed care home and 138 dwellings.

9. North of Butterwick Road, off Salters Lane phase 2 proposes the assisted living complex and 90 dwellings including 32 self-build plots. South of Butterwick Road, 6 dwellings are proposed within phase 2.

10. This planning application is being reported to County Planning Committee as it constitutes a major mixed use development comprising of residential and non- residential uses with a site area in excess of 4ha. PLANNING HISTORY

11. No relevant planning history relates to the application site. However a number of developments in Sedgefield, considered to be of background relevance to this application are detailed below.

12. In February 2009 planning permission was granted for the erection of 330 static caravans (7/2008/0589/DM) on land to the west of Hardwick Park and north of the A689.

13. On the triangular shaped field to the north of Stockton Road an application in outline for 34 dwellings was refused in May 2015 (DM/14/02318/OUT). The application was refused on the grounds of constituting an unacceptable incursion into the countryside and that it would unacceptably alter the character and setting of Sedgefield and its conservation area. An appeal was lodged which the Planning Inspectorate dismissed in April 2016. A resubmission of this application is currently being considered (DM/16/01450/OUT).

14. On a larger parcel of land to the immediate east of the triangular shaped field planning permission was refused in February 2016 (DM/15/02626/OUT) for the erection of 150 dwellings. This application was refused on the grounds that significant harm to the local landscape and less than substantial harm to heritage assets substantially and demonstrably outweigh any benefits of the development.

15. In July 2015 planning permission was refused planning permission for two applications on land south of Eden Drive, one an application in full for 85 dwellings (DM/14/00261/FPA) and the second an application in outline for 230 dwellings (DM/14/00263/OUT). Appeals were lodged against these refusals though later withdrawn. In April 2016 a single, hybrid application (DM/15/03808/OUT) relating to the same land and a revised proposal seeking planning permission in full for 80 dwellings and planning permission in outline for 220 dwellings was again refused. The application was refused on the grounds that the development would result in a significant incursion into open countryside, on green wedge land that would unreasonably and unacceptably alter the character and setting of Sedgefield. An appeal in lodged with the Planning Inspectorate and the Public Inquiry is to commence on 9th August.

16. An application in outline for the erection of up to 125 dwellings and associated works on land at the former Sedgefield Community Hospital is currently being considered (DM/16/01522/OUT).

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

17. 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’. 18. 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.

19. 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.

20. NPPF Part 2 – Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres. Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period.

21. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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. 27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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; determining a planning application; ensuring the vitality of town centres; environmental impact assessment; flood risk; health and wellbeing; housing and economic development needs assessment; land affected by contamination; land stability; neighbourhood planning; noise; open space, sports and recreation facilities, public right of way and local green space; planning obligations; renewable and low carbon energy; self-build and custom housebuilding; transport assessments and statements; use of planning conditions and; water supply; wastewater and water quality.

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

LOCAL PLAN POLICY:

The Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (SBLP)

30. Policy E1 – Maintenance of Landscape Character. Sets out that the distinctiveness of landscapes is dependent upon the combination of different elements, including, trees, woodlands, the scale of fields and the nature of these boundaries, style of buildings and local features. In order to maintain the diversity of the landscape character, decisions on use and management of land should take account of these features.

31. Policy E11 – Safeguarding sites of Nature Conservation Interest. Sets out that development detrimental to the interest of nature conservation will not be normally permitted, unless there are reasons for the development that would outweigh the need to safeguard the site, there are no alternative suitable sites for the proposed development elsewhere in the county and remedial measures have been taken to minimise any adverse effects.

32. Policy E15 – Safeguarding of Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows. Sets out that the council expect development to retain important groups of trees and hedgerow and replace any trees which are lost. 33. Policy E18 – Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas. Requires that development proposals preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

34. Policy IB1 – Types of Industry and Business Areas. States that applications that maintain, in appropriate locations, a range of land available for industry and business will normally be approved.

35. Policy IB2 – Designation of Type of Industrial Estates. Designates a range of industrial estates across the Borough.

36. Policy IB6 – Acceptable Uses in General Industrial Estate. States that business, general industry, warehousing, retail warehouses, vehicular sales and lorry parking are generally acceptable uses as such sites subject to meeting certain criteria.

37. Policy IB14 – Improvements to General and Local Industrial Estates. States that granting planning permission which results in new premises, redevelopment of premises and improvement initiatives and proposals will be encouraged.

38. Policy H8 – Residential Frameworks for Larger Villages. Outlines that within the residential framework of larger villages residential development will normally be approved.

39. Policy H19 – Provision of a Range of House Types and Sizes including Affordable Housing. Sets out that the Council will encourage developers to provide a variety of house types and sizes including the provision of affordable housing where a need is demonstrated.

40. Policy H20 – Provision of Special Needs Housing. States that the provision of special needs housing will be encouraged.

41. Policy H22 – Sheltered Accommodation, Residential Care and Nursing Homes. States that such development will normally be permitted within Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor, Ferryhill, Shildon and within the residential frameworks identified in Policy H8 provided certain criteria are met.

42. Policy T1 – Footways and Cycleways in Towns and Villages. States that the council will seek to ensure that safe, attractive and convenient footpath and cycleway links and networks are provided.

43. Policy T2 – Public Transport. States that the Council will seek to encourage improvements to assist public transport services.

44. Policy L1 - Provision of Sufficient Open Space to Meet the Needs for Sports Facilities, Outdoor Sports, Play Space and Amenity Space. Requires a standard of 2.4 ha per 1,000 population of outdoor sports and play space in order to bench mark provision.

45. Policy L2 - Open Space in New Housing Development. Sets out minimum standards for informal play space and amenity space within new housing developments of ten or more dwellings equating to 60sqm per dwelling.

46. Policy L9 – Footpaths, Cycleways and Bridleways in the Countryside. Seeks to create, maintain and protect such facilities. 47. Policy L11 – New or Improved Leisure/Community Buildings. States that planning permission for new or improved leisure and community buildings will normally be granted provided a series of criteria are met including that such facilities are located within existing residential frameworks.

48. Policy D1 - General Principles for the Layout and Design of New Developments. Sets out that all new development and redevelopment within the District should be designed and built to a high standard and should contribute to the quality and built environment of the surrounding area.

49. Policy D2 – Design for People. Sets out that the requirements of a development should be taken into account in its layout and design, with particular attention given to personal safety and security of people.

50. Policy D3 - Design for Access. Requires that developments should make satisfactory and safe provision for pedestrians, cyclists, cars and other vehicles.

51. Policy D4 – Layout and Design of New Industrial and Business Development. States that such development will normally be expected to have an appropriate standard of design, be acceptable in highways terms and incorporate appropriate landscaping.

52. Policy D5 – Layout of Housing Development. Requires that the layout of new housing development should provide a safe and attractive environment, have a clearly defined road hierarchy, make provision for appropriate areas of public open space either within the development site or in its locality, make provision for adequate privacy and amenity and have well designed walls and fences.

53. Policy D8 – Planning for Community Benefit. Sets out that developments are required to contribute towards offsetting the costs imposed by them upon the local community in terms of infrastructure and community requirements.

54. Policy D9 – Art in the Environment. States that the Council will seek to encourage artistic elements in development.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:

The County Durham Plan

55. 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 (CDP) was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 18 February 2015, however that Report was quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. In accordance with the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP and a new plan being prepared. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight. As the new plan progresses through the stages of preparation it will begin to accrue weight.

Sedgefield Neighbourhood Plan

56. In September 2013 Sedgefield Town Council was granted approval for the designation of a neighbourhood area having regards to the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. The Neighbourhood Plan has been submitted to the County Council and the submission consultation was completed on 29th March 2016.

57. The Examination Report has now been delivered and it recommends deleting some of the policies in the plan, including the settlement boundary policy (Built up Area Boundary, “BUAB”) and references to a housing number ceiling of 300 units and no weight can now be given to this intended policy.

58. The policies that have been identified as having the potential to remain in the Plan, subject to modifications, include: - Policy 3 – aged person housing - Policy 4 – design and style of housing - Policy 5 – cycling and walking access - Policy 7 – recreational facilities

59. The exact nature of the modifications are included in the Examination report, however it is noted that they need to be agreed by the County Council and cannot therefore be regarded as finalised, while it is also noted that there has been no referendum on the redrafted Plan.

60. The NPPF advises that the amount of weight that can be attributed to the Neighbourhood Plan is dependent upon the stage of preparation and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies, as well as the degree of consistency with the framework itself.

61. On balance while there remains work to do to refine the above policies that may remain in the NP, given its stage of development it is considered that weight may be attributed to these elements of the NP.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at:

http://www.durham.gov.uk/ldf (Sedgefield Borough Local Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES:

62. Sedgefield Town Council – Raise objections. The development is in conflict with the NPPF. The scale of the development is too large for Sedgefield and is out of context with the settlement. Harmful visual impacts would result. Significant impacts upon the access, parking and road safety would result. Concerns are raised regarding pressure upon infrastructure – schools and sewerage capacity.

63. Highway Authority –. The submitted Transport Assessment has been updated during the course of the application. The Transport Assessment has been assessed and is considered acceptable. Additional running of the modelling on the Stockton Road/A689 junction was necessary during the course of the application but resolved. No objections are raised to the development on the grounds of layout or accessibility matters following amendments received. On Beacon Lane an existing Prohibition of Driving Traffic Regulation Order will need to be amended so as to enable the upgrade of a section of Beacon Lane.

64. Highways England – Recommend that planning permission not be granted at this stage so as to ensure that the Trunk Road Network continues to serve its purpose by minimising disruption on the trunk road network (TR10 direction). Highways England has raised issue with elements of the submitted Transport Assessment. Revisions to the submitted Travel Plan are also requested.

65. Drainage and Coastal Protection – Raise no objections in principle to the development. A final drainage design would be necessary and this should be aligned with the hierarchy of preference for surface water disposal. It must be demonstrated that infiltration techniques cannot be utilised through the submission of permeability testing. Should eventual outfall be proposed to the watercourse or sewer then discharge rates should be restricted to greenfield run-off rates. Sustainable Urban Drainage System features should be designed so as to control surface water run-off close to where it falls and mimic natural drainage.

66. Historic England – Raise no comments, considering that there is no need to notify them of the application under relevant statutory.

67. Northumbrian Water – Sedgefield Sewerage Treatment Works is nearing capacity and has a 300 dwelling/unit headroom. The Local Authority must coordinate the decision making process so as to ensure that the 300 dwelling/unit headroom is not exceeded.

68. Environment Agency – Raise no objections. A condition is recommended that no development take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site is implemented. Further conditions are also proposed requiring a plan to be devised detailing the protection and/or mitigation of damage to population of water vole and the provision and management of buffer zone alongside the watercourse running through the site. It is also advised that drainage from parking areas that will discharge to a surface watercourse must be first passed through an oil interceptor and drainage to soakaway from car parking areas for greater than 50 spaces should be passed through an oil interceptor before discharging to the ground.

69. Natural England – Raise no objections. It is considered unlikely that the development will affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. Standing and general advice is provided with regards to protected species, locally designated sites and landscape/biodiversity enhancement.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:

70. Archaeology – Raise objections. A field evaluation of the site requiring both geophysical surveying and trial trenching should be undertaken pre-determination. It is noted that land to east and south of Sedgefield has recently produced extensive evidence of prehistoric settlement activity.

71. Design and Conservation – Raise objections. Fundamental concerns are raised regarding the urban character and dominant scale of the development in relation to the local distinctiveness and the existing landscape character and townscape setting of Sedgefield and its Conservation Area. Impacts upon views and thereby the setting and ambience of the listed St Edmunds Church are likely to be severe. A significant impact upon the setting of the listed Green Hill Farmhouse grouping would occur. A harmful impact upon the nearby Victorian churchyard would result. Concerns are raised with regards to the potential for cumulative impact with other development in the area.

72. Landscape – Raise objections. The proposals would have some locally significant effects on landscape features and locally significant adverse effects on the character of the landscape forming the immediate context and setting of Sedgefield. Should the development be considered acceptable advice is provided on a range of more specific matters including that structural planting is bolstered, pedestrian and cycle routes are considered further and a more rural character be formed on the frontage with Butterwick Road.

73. Tree Officer – No comments

74. Ecology – Raise no objections. Officers advise that in order to mitigate for the impacts of the development the submitted wildlife mitigation strategy document must be implemented. A legal agreement so as to ensure the delivery of habitat creation outwith of the application site would also be required.

75. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Noise, Odour, Dust and Light) – Raise no objections. The proposed development is accompanied by a noise impact assessment, the methodology of which is considered appropriate by officers. The outline masterplan appropriately seeks to locate the commercial elements away from existing and proposed residential receptors. The application site is within close proximity to working farms and an odour impact assessment accompanies the application which has been undertaken to an appropriate methodology. Odour is unlikely to significantly impact on the proposed development. Conditions are proposed so as to control the level of noise emitted from proposed commercial premises, agree extraction systems and agree a construction management plan. Details of a lighting scheme for the development are also requested.

76. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) – A contaminated land condition should be added to any planning permission.

77. Environment Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – The application includes a completed air quality assessment. A Dust Control Management Action Plan should be agreed under condition. During construction wheel wash facilities and a water bowser should be used to reduce the impacts of dust emissions. A travel plan should be agreed to reduce potential impacts upon air quality during the operational phase of the development.

78. Travel Planning Team – State that the submitted travel plan should be amended so as to include a commitment to funding further measures should the travel plan fail to meet its targets and so as to provide information on the travel plan budget and succession planning for the residential development.

79. Sustainability – Raise objections. Reference is made to a sustainability appraisal in relation to part of the site undertaken within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Concerns are raised with regards to significant adverse landscape impact and loss of agricultural land. It is considered that a site wide energy plan should be devised. The care home and bungalows proposed would be more appropriately located farther west in the site so as to assist in the integration of residents.

80. Housing Delivery – Raise no objections on the basis that 10% affordable housing is delivered with a split of 75% affordable rent and 25% affordable home ownership.

81. Employability Team - Raise no objections. Requests are made that targeted recruitment and training clauses are included within a S106 legal agreement.

82. Access and Public Rights of Way – Raise no objections. The proposals for a connecting footpath as a link between the two sections of the site is welcomed and this would link to Footpath No. 9 (Sedgefield). The landowners agreement for the use of cycles on the footpath and any improved maintenance agreement would be necessary.

83. School Organisation Manager – Primary and Secondary schools could not cater for the development and therefore financial contributions towards additional classroom accommodation would be required in regards to both.

PUBLIC RESPONSES:

84. The application was advertised in the press, on site and letters were sent to neighbouring properties. A re-consultation exercise was undertaken following the receipt of amended plans and documentation. A total of 191 letters of have been received, 186 raising objection 4 letters in support/raising no objection and 1 letter raising points of objection and support. The matters raised are summarised below.

Objection

The Principle of the Development

 Part of the site has previously been considered unsuitable within the Councils Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)  Consideration to other competing development proposals within Sedgefield must be given such as Eden Drive which is considered more appropriate to meet the housing need in the area  Local infrastructure and services cannot cater for this scale of development this includes schools, police station facilities and GP surgeries. This concern also relates to cumulative impacts with other developments.  Brownfield land should be used  Contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and the principles of localism. The NP should be completed as a matter of urgency and development accord with it thereafter  Loss of protected Green Belt  Loss of designated Green Wedge  Loss of prime agricultural land  Housing can be directed to empty stock in other settlements  Contrary to the County Durham Plan  New housing is taking place in Hartlepool and Stockton, too much housing is being said to be required  The quality of life will be irrevocably altered through this and other developments proposed in the area  Joined up thinking is needed on the future of Sedgefield and appropriate developments in the area  The lack of demand for housing could result in new homes standing empty and attracting crime

Landscape/Visual and Character Impacts

 Unacceptable loss of agricultural land harming the character of Sedgefield  Excessive scale of development harming the character and visual appearance of Sedgefield  Concerns are expressed regarding tree and hedgerow loss

Heritage Impacts

 Loss of views of listed St Edmunds Church  The centre of Sedgefield is a conservation area rendering such growth impossible  The Heritage Statement accompanying the application is inadequate

Residential Amenity

 Concerns regarding noise impacts  Concerns regarding impacts on air quality this includes concern regarding the loss of greenfield land and trees which remove pollutants from the air  Sedgefield will become less safe

Ecology

 The development would have a detrimental impact on species including bats and lapwing  S106 monies should be utilised by Durham Wildlife Trust to provide habitats for declining species

Highways Impact

 Sainsburys raise concern with regards to potential impacts of vehicular movements impact upon the junction capacity of the store access and further assessment in regards to this is requested  The local roads serving the development are inadequate to cope with this development  The development will result in congestion, Salters Lane and Beacon Lane would be impassable  Parking problems will exacerbate affecting residents and businesses, those with disabilities will be particularly affected  Loss of the pedestrianised Old Beacon Lane which is popular with dog walkers, cyclists, children etc  Concerns raised with the content of the submitted Transport Assessment documentation  Reference is made to the concerns raised to elements of the development by the Highway Authority and the holding direction notice placed on the development by Highways England.  Public footpath No. 9 is for pedestrian use and agreement would have to be reached if it were to be utilised for cyclists  Should planning permission be granted monies should be allocated to alleviating congestion and improving parking facilities

Drainage and Flood Risk

 Drainage and sewerage infrastructure cannot cater for the development  The proposals should incorporate SuDS  Concerns are raised as to whether the development has properly taken into account climate change and that the drainage design is sufficiently informed  Inadequate information has been submitted to inform on the potential of flood risk  Sewerage outfalls have occurred at properties within Sedgefield such as The Leas  Loss of water supply has occurred in the past Other Issues

 If the housing is built it should be to the highest BREAM standard  The development should include its own comprehensive facilities to support the development  Determination should be delayed until the national response to Paris agreement on carbon emissions is known  Community should be put forward before big business  Only the developers/builders are pushing for the development  Reference is made to this development being only an element of a wider proposal for 2000 dwellings  Officials should carry out the wishes of the electorate in a democracy  Concerns are expressed with the Council’s consultation on the development  There is no indication of low cost or social homes being proposed  The development will devalue property  The application contains inadequacies and insufficient information and therefore the Council cannot make an informed decision on the application  Comments of Sport England are referenced, it is considered there is no local need for a climbing wall and feasibility of a laser-quest type facility  The provision of care facilities should be a role for the NHS and not a private developer. Ample care facilities exist nearby  Would create a large dormitory area of the village  Some of plans submitted are considered “incomprehensible”  The area has suffered from power failures

Support

 More houses are needed in the area demonstrated by the inflated house prices  Sedgefield’s schools do have spare capacity  More people would benefit from the charm of Sedgefield  A point is raised that in principle this is the “least ridiculous” of the various proposals in Sedgefield at the moment and that subject to certain constraints being met it could be considered acceptable – key being that other development must not be permitted to come forward and this development must come forward in defined phases to permit infrastructure improvements for instance to schools, doctors/dentists to occur

85. Sedgefield Civic Trust – Raise objections. Development of this scale would fundamentally alter the status of Sedgefield and result in a detrimental impact upon the setting of the Conservation Area and listed St Edmunds Church.

86. Campaign to Protect Rural England – Raise objections. The development would change the whole character of Sedgefield and result in a significant intrusion into the countryside. The comments of the Town Council are agreed with. None of the land has been allocated for the uses proposed. There is a concerning trend that the Council are permitting housing applications since the withdrawal of the County Durham Plan. Reference is made to case law which emphasise that planning decisions should be made in the public interest, it is communities which suffer from bad decisions.

87. Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer – Raises no objections in principle, the crime risk assessment for the area is low. It is advised that it would be prudent to ensure that a series of measures are adopted into the development relating to matters of layout and detailed design. 88. Sport England – Raise objections. Sport England have estimated the likely population of the development and in turn the likely sport facilities demand of the development. Sport England accepts that the need of this scale of sports facilities investment would reduce/fall away if it were shown that the sports facilities were of sufficient quantity and quality to absorb the growth. It is noted that the proposals include a Youth Community Hub with a laser quest type facility and climbing wall, the later could be considered as on-site sports provision if the need, operation and capital costs were demonstrated/established. However, such a commitment has not been established.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

89. Following extensive pre-application discussion this application was submitted in July 2014 and validated in October 2014.

90. The application was prepared and submitted when the draft County Durham Plan was going through consultation in advance of its submission and the related Inquiry. The connection of two sites into a single application was to allow it to demonstrate, and hopefully secure consent for, an alternative approach to delivering the 470 units which the Draft Plan said should be developed in Sedgefield in the Eden Drive area - but with lower environmental impact and more benefit to the community.

91. With the outcome from the opening stage of the Local Plan Inquiry, the need for the application to contain 470 units has been removed. The application was accordingly substantially modified in 2015 to the content before the Committee today.

92. The documentation submitted with the application is designed to assist with the critical assessment in the current planning policy context where Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires the granting of permission “unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this Framework when taken as a whole .....”

93. The application’s supporting technical statements demonstrate that the locations selected for development are those which have the least visual and environmental impact on the town itself and its rural setting and on views of St Edmunds Church.

94. Proposed major screening landscaped areas reinforce the definition and of this new development edge to Sedgefield. We have committed to designing in detail and delivering these landscape belts in conjunction with the County Council’s landscape team and, ideally, with input from Durham Wildlife Trust.

95. The proposals offer very substantial benefits to Sedgefield. The housing proposed ranges from bungalows through family housing to self-build plots including affordable housing to meet DCC requirements and a wide range of other housing and substantive S106 contributions in relation to education and sports facilities.

96. The detailed components of the application, which will be delivered directly by the applicants include –

 An employment development hub  Two employment units  A community and youth building  Areas for outside sports  A care home and assisted living development and  A drop off facility for buses serving the Community College.

97. These benefits have been very specifically proposed to respond as closely as possible to the social and economic development aspirations expressed in the emerging Sedgefield Neighbourhood Plan – and will be refined in discussion with the local community.

98. The whole development will be phased to work with the capacity of the sewage works – and the community benefit aspects will be provided very early in the development.

99. The proposals therefore provide very substantial benefits which very significantly and demonstrably outweigh the very limited and highly mitigated impacts. They further, make the very best use for the community of the limited medium term infrastructure capacity particularly the current 300 unit capacity of the sewage works pending its planned upgrade between 2020 and 2025, which clearly cannot be guaranteed.

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

100. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that if regard is to be had to the development plan, decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the policies contained therein are material considerations that should be taken into account in decision-making. Other material considerations include representations received. In this context, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development, locational sustainability, landscape and visual impacts, heritage impacts, highway safety/issues, flood risk and drainage, residential amenity, ecology and planning obligations.

Principle of the Development

The Development Plan

101. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material planning consideration. The Sedgefield Local Plan (SBLP) remains a statutory component of the development plan and the starting point for determining applications as set out at Paragraph 12 of the NPPF. However, the NPPF advises at Paragraph 215 that greater weight may be given to local plan policies depending on their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

102. NPPF Paragraph 211 advises that Local Plan policies should not be considered out- of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. However, notwithstanding this, it is considered that a policy can be out-of-date if it is based upon evidence which is not up-to-date/is time expired.

The NPPF

103. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise); - approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

- where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:

i) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

ii) specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

104. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines the Government’s objective of ensuring that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to maintain a five-year supply of deliverable sites (against housing requirements) thus boosting the supply of housing.

105. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In turn where a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated then Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged and an application is to be assessed in this context.

106. The development proposes a mixture of uses. The NPPF provides supportive comments with regards to appropriate large scale mixed use developments at paragraphs 17, 38 and 69. Consideration to the principle of each of the mixed uses proposed is provided below.

Housing

107. The housing trajectory associated with the withdrawn County Durham Plan (CDP) is no longer relevant and similarly the CDP Objectively Assessed Need (OAN - for housing) figure no longer exists. This raises the issue of what is the requirement against which the supply is to be measured in order to calculate whether or not a 5 year housing supply exists.

108. Recently the Council has sought to accord with advice in the Planning Practice Guidance regarding OAN (PPG Revision date: 06 03 2014 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 3-031-20140306): ‘Where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight, information provided in the latest full assessment of housing needs should be considered. But the weight given to these assessments should take account of the fact they have not been tested or moderated against relevant constraints. Where there is no robust recent assessment of full housing needs, the household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should be used as the starting point, but the weight given to these should take account of the fact that they have not been tested (which could evidence a different housing requirement to the projection, for example because past events that affect the projection are unlikely to occur again or because of market signals) or moderated against relevant constraints (for example environmental or infrastructure).” 109. The household projections published by the DCLG give a starting point for a housing requirement of 1,308 dwellings per annum. Applying the appropriate under delivery and 20% buffer against the requirement derived from the DCLG household projections the Council has been able to demonstrate a supply of over 5 years of deliverable housing land. It has been recognised, however, that the DCLG requirement has not represented a full OAN as it does not take into account market signals nor has it been publicly tested. However, the exercise has served as a “proxy”, providing a context to quantify the supply position and inform on decision taking on recent housing applications.

110. On 15 June 2016 a report into the County Durham Plan Issues and Options (the first stage of the re-emerging plan process) was presented at Cabinet. The report was approved at Cabinet and consultation on the CDP Issues and Options commenced on 24 June. In relation to housing, the Issues and Options present three alternative assessments of housing needs, each based on average net completions up to 2033 (the end of the CDP plan period). The three alternatives are:

 1,533 houses per year (29,127 houses by 2033)  1,629 houses per year (30,951 houses by 2033)  1,717 houses per year (32,623 houses by 2033)

111. Set against the lowest figure the Council has been able to demonstrate a supply of over 5 years of deliverable housing land, against the middle figure around about 5 years’ worth supply and against the highest figure the Council is short of 5 years, though not significantly so at around 4 and a half years of supply.

112. Again none of the three scenarios within the Issues and Options (nor the figure derived from the DCLG household projections) have been publicly tested. However, it does serve to demonstrate that set against varying potential figures, one of which will be identified as the OAN following consultation in the Preferred Option Stage Local Plan, the Council has a robust supply of housing which even in the most exacting scenario is not significantly short of 5 years. Accordingly, it is considered that less weight should be afforded to the benefits of delivering new housing than would otherwise be the case if a less healthy land supply position applied. Nevertheless, the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF Paragraph 14) is engaged, as the Council does not have a five-year supply in the terms of the NPPF requirements and additionally the local plan may be out of date for other reasons, as discussed below, and will only be rebutted where a proposal would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, both in the form of a contribution to housing supply and any other benefits, or if specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

113. The application site is located outside of the residential framework of Sedgefield, where SBLP Policy H8 seeks to direct new housing and the development does not draw support from the policy.

114. Given the age of the SBLP and housing supply figures that informed it, the housing supply policies therein do not reflect an up-to-date objective assessment of need. Policy H8 must now be considered out-of-date, for the purposes of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the weight to be afforded to the policy reduced as a result.

115. The recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Richborough case, emphasises that policies in Paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF do not make “out of date” policies for the supply of housing irrelevant in the determination of a planning application. Nor do they prescribe how much weight should be given to such policies in the decision, this being a matter for the decision-maker, having regard to advice at paragraph 215 of the NPPF. Policy H8 is considered largely consistent with the NPPF which also seeks to direct housing to the most sustainable settlements that can support it while seeking to protect the open countryside. It is however recognised that the NPPF promotes a more flexible approach to site selection and it is considered that moderate weight can be afforded to this Policy in accordance with Paragraph 215 of the NPPF.

116. The housing proposed would form part of a significant incursion into the countryside beyond the existing built-up framework of Sedgefield. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. NPPF Paragraphs 17 and 111 seek to encourage the effective use of previously developed land.

117. Policies for the supply of housing within the SBLP are out-of-date. As a result the acceptability of the housing development rests on whether any adverse impacts of approving the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether there are any specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted.

Care Home and Assisted Living Complex

118. SBLP Policy H22 sates that planning permission for sheltered accommodation, residential care and nursing homes will normally be permitted within residential frameworks identified in Policy H8 provided certain criteria are met. The proposed care home and assisted living complex are located outwith of the residential framework of Sedgefield. The makes no reference to proposals located within a location beyond this boundary. The Policy seeks to direct such development to the existing built-up framework of settlements this is supported by the justification to the policy which states that such accommodation must have easy access to roads and public transport and to all the amenities of town or village life.

119. The NPPF makes no specific reference to care homes/assisted living complexes though is clear at Paragraph 50 that a wide choice of high quality homes and a mix of housing types should be delivered.

120. SBLP Policy H22 is considered consistent with the NPPF and can be attributed weight in the decision making process. Given the location of the development beyond the residential framework of Sedgefield it is considered that the development gains no support from the policy.

121. Policy 3 of the Sedgefield Neighbourhood Plan (NP) relates to aged persons housing and seeks to increase the housing options for older people on housing sites. The provision of the care home and assisted living complex and indeed bungalows which the submitted documentation states are also proposed would be in line with this objective, however, the site is located outwith of the built up area boundary (BUAB) and is considered contrary to the Policy as a result.

Town Centre Uses

122. A business enterprise unit is proposed off Salters Lane, replacing one of the industrial estate units proposed for demolition. The business enterprise unit is proposed to be an activity hub promoting local enterprise development and training and business support and start up programmes. It is an office based enterprise and as a result it is considered to constitute a main town centre use as defined within the NPPF. 123. The application is accompanied by a sequential test and impact assessment. This highlights the considered advantages of the proposed location - with access to Sedgefield Community College, the necessary floorspace requirements of the building and the absence of alternative sites within the centre of Sedgefield taking into consideration its built-up nature and Conservation Area status. The impact assessment principally highlights that the nature of the proposed business enterprise unit would not cause harm to the vitality or viability of Sedgefield centre as it would be specifically seeking to harbour business growth rather than compete with existing uses. These justifications are accepted.

124. Regardless, the siting of the proposed business enterprise unit on the edge of a designated industrial estate is considered an acceptable location for such a use. SBLP Policy IB1 states that applications that maintain, in appropriate locations, a range of land available for industry and business will normally be approved. SBLP Policy IB2 identifies Salters Lane Industrial Estate as a general industrial estate and SBLP Policy IB6 states that on such an estate business uses are acceptable in principle. SBLP Policy IB14 states that granting planning permission which results in new premises, redevelopment of premises and improvement initiatives will be encouraged in such a location. The proposed business enterprise unit is considered compliant with this SBLP policy advice. SBLP Policy IB1 is considered fully consistent with the NPPF and Policies IB2 , IB6 and IB14 partially consistent and these policies can be attributed weight in the decision making process.

125. The proposed community and youth facility proposes a range of leisure and associated facilities with sports hall, climbing wall, soft play, multi-purpose hall nursery and meeting spaces at ground floor. At first floor a youth club, studio, gym and café are proposed.

126. The NPPF states that the more intensive sport and recreation uses constitute main town centre uses and those proposals which are located outwith of a main town centre should satisfy the sequential test and impact assessment.

127. SBLP Policy L11 states that community facilities will normally be granted planning permission subject to the developments meeting criteria including that the site lies within a residential framework. The justification to the Policy states that the larger attractions are most suitably located within town or village centres. The facility would be located outwith of the residential framework of Sedgefield and therefore the development draws no support from the policy. Policy L11 is considered to be partially consistent with the NPPF.

128. The submitted sequential test/impact assessment submission explains that the facilities within the proposed community and youth facility are to link with the sporting specialisms contained at Sedgefield Community College and the proposed business enterprise unit and that alternative sites would not have access to such linkages and potential. The facilities proposed are also dual purpose in the sense that they are proposed to provide recreational and open space on site for the proposed development itself.

129. NP Policy 7 Recreational Facilities states that the development of sports, recreation and young people’s facilities will normally be approved. However, the NP also states that such development must accord with the BUAB and as the development is located outwith of this the proposal draws no support from the policy.

130. The siting of the business enterprise unit is considered compliant with Local Plan and NPPF advice. The proposed community and youth facility due to its location on agricultural land within countryside to the east of the settlement is considered in some conflict with paragraph 17 of the NPPF. The siting of the community and youth facility adjacent to the existing built-up framework of the settlement, its benefit to serving the site and wider community and its proximity to the enterprise unit and Sedgefield Community College are however acknowledged.

General Industrial/Storage and Distribution

131. The general industrial/storage and distribution uses as proposed are located adjacent to but outwith of the general industrial estate allocation established by SBLP Policy IB2 and to which Policies IB6 and IB14 also relate and advise that such uses are acceptable. Due to the siting of the development outwith of the designated site the proposal draws no support from these policies.

132. SBLP Policy IB1 seeks to encourage new business and industrial sites so as to ensure that industrial and business development is not restricted. The siting of the proposed development outwith of the boundary of an established industrial estate is considered to draw support from SBLP Policy IB1. Policy IB1 is considered consistent with the NPPF and therefore can be attributed weight in the decision making process.

Conclusion on the Principle of the Development

133. No in principle objections are raised to the proposed business enterprise unit. Similarly the general industrial and storage and distribution uses proposed draw support from SBLP Policy IB1 which is considered consistent with the NPPF.

134. The housing, care home and assisted living complex do not draw support from the SBLP due to their location beyond the residential framework of Sedgefield. The housing north and south of Butterwick Road and care home south of Butterwick Road in particular would result in a significant incursion in the countryside which the NPPF acknowledges has intrinsic value. The community and youth facility would also encroach into agricultural land to the east of the settlement though the degree of encroachment would be limited. The delivery of the community and youth facilities proposed would provide beneficial leisure uses serving both the development and wider community.

135. The landscape and visual impacts of the development are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report.

136. Policies for the supply of housing are out of date and the acceptability of the development rests on whether any adverse impacts of approving the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether there are any specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted.

Locational Sustainability of the Site

137. Much public and Town Council objection to the application considers that Sedgefield does not have the infrastructure, services and facilities to cater for the development. The highways and drainage implications of the development are dealt with separately within this report.

138. The County Durham Settlement Study is an evidence based document which categorises Sedgefield as a smaller town/larger village and is therefore within the second tier of settlements behind the main towns (such as Durham and Bishop Auckland). The Settlement Study considers that smaller towns/larger villages such as Sedgefield act as smaller more localised centres and contain a reasonable array of services.

139. The submitted Transport Assessment (TA) highlights distances to services and facilities within the settlement. Due to the size of the application site and by reason of its somewhat divided nature (north and south of Butterwick Road) there is quite significant variance in regards to the ease of access to services and facilities in different sections of the site. A formal pedestrian and cycle link between the sites north and south of Butterwick Road were removed during the course of the application due to highway safety concerns. North of Butterwick Road the site benefits from relative close proximity to some services and facilities for example Sainsburys Supermarket (500m from the centre point), the community hospital (700m from the centre point of the site) and Sedgefield Primary School (650m from the centre point of the site). The facilities concentrated within the centre of Sedgefield are farther away, however, approximately 1.8km from the centre point of the site. Salters Lane Industrial Estate, immediately adjacent to the development would provide nearby employment opportunities.

140. South of Butterwick Road and adjacent to Beacon Lane the opposite essentially applies with the services in the centre of Sedgefield closer (approximately 1km) away but the community hospital and Sainsburys are in excess of 2km from the centre of the site.

141. It is acknowledged that the development of the community and youth facility, the industrial units and business enterprise unit would themselves provide further facilities to serve the development and wider community.

142. Accessibility from a highways perspective is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report though no in principle objections are raised in this regard.

143. Public concerns have been expressed regarding doctors surgery capacity. It is acknowledged that at the time when site allocations within Sedgefield were being devised within the (withdrawn) CDP the NHS stated that population growth emerging from the site allocation and development is likely to create the requirement for additional consulting space. It should be noted that the NHS provided that feedback on a proposed allocation elsewhere in Sedgefield of up to 450 dwellings. This exceeds the 371 dwellings proposed under this application though it is acknowledged that other facilities including the care home/assisted living accommodation are proposed which could also generate demand. NHS Property Services are aware of the potential for growth in Sedgefield and it is understood that this taken into account within its primary care strategy.

144. Public concerns have been expressed regarding school capacity. However, the School Organisation Manager has raised no objections to the principle of the development though has stated that at present there would be insufficient primary and secondary school classroom spaces to accommodate the development. A financial contribution of £725,710 for additional primary school accommodation and £398,000 for secondary school accommodation is requested. In the event of the approval such a contribution could be ensured via a S106 legal agreement (subject to the applicant’s signature). This would offset the impacts of the development upon the settlement having regards to SBLP Policy D8. Policy D8 is considered partially compliant with the NPPF and can be attributed weight in the decision making process. Landscape and Visual Impacts

145. Concerns regarding landscape and visual impact are amongst the most significant concerns to emerge from the public consultation exercises on the application. The concerns include those in regards to the loss of agricultural land and the scale of the development.

146. The application is accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) which has been updated with a further addendum during the course of the application.

147. The application site comprises approximately 35ha of land. Aside from the parcel of the site located within the designated general industrial estate and those parts of the site which include sections of a farm access track, Butterwick Road, Beacon Lane, Stockton Road and associated verges (approximately 1.1ha) the remainder of the site comprises of greenfield, agricultural land. The extent of the incursion into countryside east of Sedgefield would be significant and transformative.

148. Landscape officers state that whilst the site is not covered by any national or local landscape designations the site does have local value as attractive open countryside. The development would result in some locally adverse effects on the character of the landscape forming the immediate context and setting of Sedgefield. Most notably the submitted plans indicate an approximate 280m section roadside hedgerow and a number of mature trees would be removed along Butterwick Road and the loss of areas of rig and furrow would result south of Butterwick Road. In addition, the formation of access onto Beacon Lane and associated highway works would result in the further loss of hedgerow. A Hedgerow Regulations Assessment submitted during the course of the application identified areas of “important hedgerow” and this included the hedgerows adjacent to Butterwick Road and Beacon Lane. It is noted, however, that despite the indications on plan a separately submitted wildlife and biodiversity management plan proposes the retention of such hedgerows.

149. Landscape officers highlight receptors where the visual and landscape impacts would be most prominent and the transformative effects of the development upon the countryside most apparent. North of Butterwick Road, Public Footpath No. 9 (Sedgefield Parish) and Butterwick Road itself are highlighted. South of Butterwick Road, Beacon Lane and the A689 are additional receptors referenced.

150. The combined effects of the proposals on the landscape forming the immediate setting of the village are considered by Landscape officers to be high and of moderate/major significance. Landscape officers do acknowledge the proposals include areas of structural landscaping which would to a degree be beneficial in terms of mitigating impact.

151. The site is considered of moderate to good scenic value forming part of a wider tract of attractive countryside appreciated in views from the edges and approaches to the settlement. It is considered that the site is a “valued landscape” as referenced within NPPF Paragraph 109. The NPPF advises that such landscapes should be protected and enhanced. The aforementioned harm caused by the development would fail to protect and enhance the valued landscape contrary to NPPF Paragraph 109.

152. Design and Conservation officers raise concern with the size of the development in relation to the existing settlement together with the relationship between the proposed development and the local context, character and distinctiveness. Design and Conservation reference the hard appearance and large mass of some buildings within the development and the focus on hard landscaping and a palette of materials that does not reference local character.

153. The location of general industrial and warehousing units, business enterprise unit, community youth facility and assisted living complex would be in those sections of the site closest to the existing industrial estate and Sedgefield Community College, sites which contain buildings varying in scale, appearance and materiality. It is therefore considered that the concerns relating to the overall scale of the development and the linkage of this with the extent of incursion into the countryside and associated landscape and visual harm is the principal harm rather than specific design and layout matters. It should be noted that the 371 dwellings are sought in outline with details of access only included so the final appearance, scale and layout is at this stage unknown in regards to this element of the development. As a result specific objections to the layout and design of the industrial and business developments or the housing layout itself are not raised having regards to the SBLP Policies D4 and D5. Policy D4 is considered fully consistent with the NPPF and D5 partially consistent and both can be attributed weight in the decision making process. The development is also considered generally compliant with NP Policy 4 in this regard which seeks to ensure housing proposals must provide a high level of design which responds to the local character, and reflects the identity of the local surroundings and materials.

154. In addition to the conflict with Part 11 of the NPPF, the harm caused by the development is also considered contrary to design principles contained within SBLP Policy D1 as the layout and landscaping of the development would not fully take into account the sites natural and built features and its context within the open countryside to the edge of the settlement. Policy D1 is considered fully consistent with the NPPF and should be attributed its full weight in the decision making process.

155. Land south of Butterwick Road is identified as green space within the NP.

Heritage Impacts

156. Concerns regarding heritage impact are amongst the most significant concerns to emerge from the public consultation exercises on the application. The concerns include those in regards to the impact upon St Edmunds Church and Sedgefield Conservation Area.

157. A heritage statement (HS) accompanies the application. The HS references designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site with Sedgefield Conservation Area, Hardwick Park Conservation Area, Hardwick Park, the registered historic parks and gardens of Hardwick Park and Garden (Grade II* listed) and Ceddesfeld Hall Gardens (Grade II listed) identified. There are Listed buildings within and in the vicinity of Sedgefield including the concentration within Sedgefield Conservation Area, the Grade II listed Green Hill Farmhouse and attached outbuilding and separately listed (Grade II) barn to rear.

158. The HS describes the Victorian cemetery which borders the site and lies adjacent to Beacon Lane as a non-designated heritage asset. It is also stated that the wider setting of Sedgefield as a whole, particularly the southern parts of the wider landscape setting could be considered a non-designated heritage asset. The HS considers that the development would have no direct relationship with the Historic Park and Gardens, the Conservation Areas and would not affect the immediate setting of any listed buildings. Impacts upon the listed grouping at Green Hill approximately 0.8km to the east of the site are described as being very limited if impacted upon at all. Overall the HS considers that in regards to heritage the key issues relate to the relationship of the proposal with the wider setting of St Edmunds Church, the Conservation Areas and the Historic Park and Gardens.

159. Design and Conservation officers have objected to the development. Design and Conservation officers state that the site, comprising of farmland provides an attractive sylvan setting to the Conservation Area and the historic buildings and townscape of the settlement.

160. Design and Conservation officers consider that the development would result in harm to both designated and non-designated heritage assets. The significant incursion into the countryside east of the settlement would affect the attractive and sylvan setting to Sedgefield Conservation Area.

161. The setting to Sedgefield contributes to understanding the place and significance of its conservation area as a medieval and later market town at the heart of an agricultural area. The wider setting of the settlement and its relationship including views to and from the surrounding agricultural landscape is important. Views to the settlement from the south-east so that its historic setting within the arable landscape can be understood, still remain largely intact.

162. Key to these views and understanding are the long distance and glimpsed views of the 15th Century tower of St Edmunds Church. The Grade I listed St Edmunds Church was, when constructed, deliberately sited within the most elevated part of the town core so that it was not only dominant within the settlement, but was also visible from the surrounding countryside and from the approach roads, particularly when the west tower was added in the late 15th century. The building, particularly its tower, is a dominant skyline feature, intentionally visible from distance on most approaches to the town. The development would affect some of these views and in turn the setting of Sedgefield Conservation Area and St Edmunds Church.

163. Design and Conservation officers consider that the site south of Butterwick Road, off Beacon Lane is likely to have a significant impact on the setting and therefore significance of the listed Green Hill Farmhouse farm group. This group of buildings are 18th century and have an attractive setting to the north and the west, enveloped by enclosed arable farmland, the new development will be visible and would have a detrimental impact on the setting.

164. The level of harm on these designated heritage assets is considered less than substantial having regards to NPPF Paragraph 134 which advises that where a proposal would lead to such a degree of harm this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

165. The Victorian cemetery, identified within the HS as a non-designated heritage asset is also identified by Design and Conservation as being impacted upon with its attractive brick walls, interesting gravestones and fine mature trees. The further enclosure of the cemetery is likely to suffer from a degree of harm from its further enclosure. NPPF Paragraph 135 advises that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

166. It is therefore considered that less than substantial harm to Sedgefield Conservation Area, Grade I listed St Edmunds Church, Grade II listed Green Hill Farmhouse and attached outbuilding and separately listed (Grade II) barn would occur. 167. NPPF Paragraph 132 advises that considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. NPPF Paragraph 132 states that significance can be harmed through development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. The level of harm is considered less than substantial having regards to NPPF Paragraph 134 which advises that where a proposal would lead to such a degree of harm this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

168. The harm identified to Sedgefield Conservation Area is in conflict with advice contained within SBLP Policy E18 which seeks to preserve and enhance conservation areas. This policy is considered consistent with the NPPF and can be afforded weight in the decision making process. In assessing the proposed development regard must be had to the statutory duties imposed on the Local Planning Authority under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 72 states that when considering development which may impact upon a conservation area special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. If harm is found any such harm must be given considerable importance and weight by the decision-maker.

169. With regards to the harm identified to the setting of the listed buildings (St Edmunds Church and the Green Hill farm grouping), again in assessing the proposed development regard must be had to the statutory duties imposed on the Local Planning Authority under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 66 states that when considering whether to grant planning permission for a development which affects a listed building or its setting, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. If harm is found any such harm must be given considerable importance and weight by the decision-maker.

170. With regards to matters of archaeology the application is accompanied by the HS and an archaeological assessment report. The submissions recommend that an evaluation of the site to determine the character, extent, significance and state of preservation of any buried remains found to survive there. Given the scale of the site it is suggested that geophysical survey is likely to provide the basis for a reduced level of targeted trial excavation, the results of which will be used to develop a strategy to mitigate the impacts of development should sub-surface remains of archaeological significance be found to survive there.

171. Archaeology officers have raised objections. Full field evaluation has not been undertaken and submitted. Archaeology officers consider that this should involve geophysical surveying and trial trenching. Archaeology officers state that land to east and south of Sedgefield has recently produced extensive evidence of prehistoric settlement activity. NPPF paragraph 128 advises that where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

172. Archaeology officers consider that the field evaluation is necessary pre-determination and this has not been fully undertaken and objection is raised to the development as a result. 173. Overall in regards to heritage matters it is considered that less than substantial harm to the significance of Sedgefield Conservation Area, St Edmunds Church and a listed grouping at Green Hill farm would result. NPPF Paragraph 134 which advises that where a proposal would lead to such a degree of harm this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Harm would result to the non-designated heritage asset of the Victorian Cemetery. NPPF Paragraph 135 advises that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. The application is not accompanied by adequate field evaluation with regards to archaeological assets which is considered necessary pre-determination having regards to the advice at NPPF Paragraph 128. These matters must be considered in the overall NPPF Paragraph 14 assessment.

Highway Safety/Issues

174. Concerns regarding highways matters are amongst the most significant concerns to emerge from the public consultation exercises on the application. These concerns include those in regards to congestion and parking problems, impacts upon junctions and the content of the application submissions.

175. The NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. The application is accompanied by Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan documents (TP). These have been revised during the course of the application and addendum technical notes also submitted.

176. Within originally submitted comments the Highway Authority raised significant concerns on a range of issues regarding the development. These issues ranged from the content of the submitted TA submissions including the junction modelling undertaken, an objection in principle to the proposed footpath/cycle link on Butterwick Road and a number of detailed concerns regarding the proposed access plans and layout.

177. Highways England also submitted a holding direction, directing that planning permission not be granted at this time. Concerns were raised with the content of the submitted TA documentation. Principally it was considered that impacts of peak hours trips at Junction 60 of the A1(M) required further assessment. Other issues included that further collision analysis at the A1(M) Junction 60 were required and some trip generation rates were disagreed with. Reference was made to the submitted TPs and the locational sustainability of the development with walking distances to bus stops and the majority of shopping and employment facilities beyond or at the limit of recommended guidance.

178. Amended plans and TA and TP submissions were made during the course of the application as a result.

179. With regards to site accessibility matters the submitted TA highlights that bus stops at Salters Lane are within approximately 350m of the western boundary of the site. Therefore sections of the site, north of Butterwick Road would be beyond the recommended 400m distance to a bus stop. However amendments received during the course of the application have included the widening of carriageways so as to provide for bus access into the development. Footpath routes have also been redesigned so as to maximise pedestrian access to Sedgefield. South of Butterwick Road the proposed vehicular access into the site is located approximately 400m from the nearest bus stop on Stockton Road. Farther into the site south of Butterwick Road distances to bus stops would be farther, beyond the desirable distances. Bus accessibility into this part of the development site is not feasible.

180. However, overall the accessibility of the site is considered acceptable by the Highway Authority with no objections raised in this regard. In addition the application is accompanied by TP submissions which have been amended during the course of the determination. Some further amendments are advised by the Travel Planning Team though ultimately in the event of an approval a condition could resolve a final TP.

181. The Highway Authority has confirmed that with the removal of the cycle/pedestrian linkage from the plans this fundamental objection is now removed. The revisions to the application during the course of determination have in part reduced the detail sought for approval in relation to the housing. Originally the layout was sought for detailed approval and the Highway Authority had a number of specific issues in this regard. With reduced detail now sought for approval and matters of the housing layout to be resolved at the reserved matters stage this has removed a number of specific points of concern from the Highway Authority.

182. Further, more minor adjustments to the proposed plans have been necessary during the determination of the application so as to ensure matters such as carriageway width and footpath provision are satisfactory. The Highway Authority have confirmed that any outstanding concerns with the detailed design of the layout have now been resolved.

183. With regards to the amendments to the submitted TA submissions again the content of the TA submissions has now been considered acceptable by the Highway Authority. The remaining point of concern related to the modelling of the Stockton Road/A689 junction. An addendum technical note to the TA has been submitted and the Highway Authority accepts that the junction can safely operate.

184. Comments to re-consultation on the amended application submissions have not been received from Highways England. Without confirmation that Highways England have no further concerns or objections to the development it is considered that should Committee resolve to grant planning permission that this should be a resolution of minded to grant only subject to confirmation that the Highway Authority has removed its holding direction.

185. With the Highway Authority raising no objections to the development, officers consider that the development would cause no highway safety issues on the local highway network and is acceptable from a sustainable transport perspective. It is therefore considered that in this regard the development is compliant with Part 4 of the NPPF, SBLP Policies D3, T1 and T2 and the highways related criteria contained within SBLP Policies H22, L11 and D1. SBLP Policies D1, D3, H22 and T1 are considered fully consistent with the NPPF and Policies L11 and T2 partially consistent with the NPPF and can be attributed weight in the decision making process. As the site is considered general accessible the development is this regard considered generally compliant with NP Policy 5 Cycling and Walking Access, however, the site is not located within the BUAB. As stated confirmation that Highways England has no concerns with regards to the amended application have not been received. Flood Risk and Drainage

186. Concerns regarding flood risk and drainage matters are amongst the most significant concerns to emerge from the public consultation exercises on the application. The concerns include those in regards to existing sewerage capacity issues in the area and concerns with the content of the application documentation.

187. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore located on land least likely to suffer from tidal or fluvial flooding. The application is accompanied by flood risk assessment and drainage strategy documents (FRAs) and accompanying plans. Amendments to this documentation have been made during the course of the application.

188. The submitted FRAs consider that the risk of flooding due to overland run-off, rising ground water, failure of the existing mains drainage system and artificial sources are low. Tributaries of the Redcar Beck flow through the centre of the land south of Butterwick Road and in the south-east of the land north of Butterwick Road.

189. 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.

190. The submitted FRAs consider that the site is underlain by clays and therefore ground conditions are unlikely suitable for the use of infiltration techniques. The FRA states that surface water discharge would be to the aforementioned watercourses with discharge rates restricted. The proposed plans show SuDS features both north and south of Butterwick Road.

191. Durham County Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority and the SuDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) Approval Body (SAB). Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers raise no objections to the development in principle. It is stated that final drainage design is necessary and this should be aligned with the hierarchy of preference for surface water disposal. It must be demonstrated that infiltration techniques cannot be utilised through the submission of permeability testing. Should eventual outfall be proposed to the watercourse or sewer then discharge rates should be restricted to greenfield run-off rates. SuDS system design should be designed so as to control surface water run-off close to where it falls and mimic natural drainage and this would be in preference to larger SuDS basins/ponds as identified on the plans.

192. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the development on flood risk or drainage grounds. A condition is recommended that no development take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site is implemented. It is also advised that drainage from parking areas that will discharge to a surface watercourse must be first passed through an oil interceptor and drainage to soakaway from car parking areas for greater than 50 spaces should be passed through an oil interceptor before discharging to the ground. It is considered that such conditions could be added to any planning permission.

193. Foul water disposal is proposed to the mains system. NWL has stated that Sedgefield sewerage treatment works is nearing capacity with a 300 dwelling/unit headroom remaining. NWL advise that the Local Authority must coordinate the decision making process so as to ensure that the 300 dwelling/unit headroom is not exceeded. 194. The development would exceed the headroom prescribed by NWL. The applicant has submitted phasing plans which seek to demonstrate how the development could be implemented in phases so that without exceeding the headroom. The phasing has not been agreed by NWL, however, it does provide an indication as to how the development could be phased so as to not exceed the headroom.

195. Ultimately it is considered that in the event of an approval conditions could be utilised and in discussion with NWL resolved so as to devise a final phasing strategy. As referenced within the planning history section to this report there are also a number of other developments within Sedgefield which are currently under consideration. However, none of these schemes currently having planning permission and the potential for cumulative impacts would only occur once one or more of the schemes gains planning permission. NWL has previously confirmed that the 330 static caravan development which gained planning permission under application 7/2008/0589/DM has already been taken into account as a committed scheme and does not impact upon the cited 300 unit headroom

196. As a result it is considered that no objections be raised to the development on the grounds of flood risk or drainage matters having regards to Part 10 of the NPPF and no objections are raised.

Residential Amenity

197. Concerns regarding residential amenity are amongst the most significant concerns to emerge from the public consultation exercises on the application. The concerns include those in regards to the noise and polluting impacts of the development.

198. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Parts 7 and 8 encourage the development of safe and accessible environments whilst part 11 seeks to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of pollution. The SBLP includes a number of design policies advising on residential amenity. SBLP policy D1 requires new development to take into account the relationship to adjacent land uses and activities. Policy D2 seeks to ensure personal safety. Policy D4 relates to the layout of new industrial and business development and requires regard to be had to the content of other design policies. Policy D5 relates to new housing development requires that adequate amenity and privacy is provided and the related supplementary planning practice guidance note provides separation distance recommendations as guidance to ensure this.

199. SBLP policy H22 relating to care homes, sheltered accommodation and nursing homes requires such developments do not adversely affect the amenity of adjacent residents and that the prospective occupiers are provided with adequate amenity. SBLP Policy L11 requires that leisure and community facilities do not significantly harm the living conditions for nearby residents. SBLP policies H22, D1, D2, and D4 are considered full consistent with the NPPF and L11 and D5 partially consistent and can all be attributed weight in the decision making process.

200. North of Butterwick Road the site is located to rear of an existing industrial estate and adjacent to the grounds of Sedgefield Community College. The proposed development on this parcel of the site is therefore generally detached from existing residential receptors. The exception to this is the Howle Hope farmstead which is located approximately 75m north of the indicative siting of the nearest dwelling proposed. However, at such a distance and taking into account that structural landscaping is indicatively proposed on this site boundary no concerns are raised with the regards to any potential loss of privacy, outlook or light.

201. Within the site north of Butterwick Road details are not sought for approval at this stage in regards to the layout of the housing proposed though the layout is sought for approval in relation to the assisted living complex. It is considered that adequate outlook, privacy and light would be provided for the occupiers of the assisted living complex and at the reserved matters stage adequate amenity could be provided for the occupiers of the housing in regards to space about dwellings.

202. South of Butterwick Road similarly only the care home is sought for approval including its layout and remaining housing is indicatively sited. It is considered that adequate levels of amenity can be provided for all on this parcel of the site.

203. South of Butterwick Road the proposed development does have a closer relationship with existing residential properties with the site to the immediate east of properties at St Edmunds Green, The Orchard and off Beacon Avenue. However, the indicatively sited dwellings are located approximately 25m from existing neighbouring properties at the closest point. This distance coupled with the indicatively proposed landscaping and suggests that at the reserved matters stage the proposed housing can be development without harm to the nearest dwellings in terms of loss of privacy, outlook or light.

204. As a mixed use development there is the potential for conflict between differing uses on neighbouring sites from a range of pollution types. This is particularly relevant to the land north of Butterwick Road where the greatest variety of uses are proposed.

205. The application is accompanied by a noise impact assessment. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers consider the methodology of which is acceptable. The outline masterplan appropriately seeks to locate the commercial elements away from existing and proposed residential receptors so as to reduce the potential for noise and no objections are raised as a result. It is considered that in the event of an approval conditions should be added so as to control the level of noise emitted from the proposed commercial premises and agree the details of the extraction systems. The application site is within close proximity to working farms and an odour impact assessment accompanies the application which has been undertaken to an appropriate methodology. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers consider that odour is unlikely to significantly impact on the proposed development. No objections are raised in principle with regards to light pollution although Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers advice that final details should be provided and this could be conditioned in the event of an approval.

206. With regards to matters of air quality Environment Health and Consumer Protection officers state that the application includes a completed air quality assessment. No objections are raised to the impact of the development upon air quality during the operational phase of the development. It is advised that a travel plan should be agreed so as to reduce the potential for vehicular movements and thereby reduce impacts upon air quality. A final travel plan can be agreed under condition in the event of an approval.

207. The proposed development is significant in scale and the construction phase of the development would be lengthy and has the potential to cause pollution through for instance noise, dust and light. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers advise that a construction management plan including a dust control management action plan be agreed under condition in the event of approval. During construction wheel wash facilities and a water bowser should be used to reduce the impacts of dust emissions, again a matter which a condition could resolve.

208. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) raise no objections, however, a contaminated land investigation/remediation condition should be added to any planning permission.

209. Advice from Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers is provided with regards to the potential for statutory nuisance to result as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, officers agree with the views of Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Officers and equally consider that the development impacts in regards of the range of potential pollution impacts are acceptable from an amenity perspective.

210. The Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer has raised no objections in principle to the development, the crime risk assessment for the area is described as being low.

211. No objections are therefore raised to the development on the grounds of residential amenity, the development considered compliant with the SBLP policies H22, L11, D1, D2, D4 and D5 in this regard and having regards to the relevant parts of paragraph 17 and parts 7, 8 and 11 of the NPPF.

Ecology

212. The application is accompanied by an extended phase 1 habitat survey, ecological survey addendum and wildlife and biodiversity management plan which has been updated during the course of the application. The extended phase 1 habitat survey found that water vole were recorded utilising the watercourse on the land south of Butterwick Road and otter may potentially use it together with some fish. Bat activity was recorded and roosts are likely within the wider area though not on site. The site is considered to support a range of bird species, potentially including scarcer species such as kingfisher, com bunting and owl species. A range of raptor species could forage on the site. The site is suitable for wintering waders and wildfowl with curflew recorded. Badger and hedgehog are likely to occasionally forage and commute across the site and rabbits were recorded. Adjacent to the site to the east, a lake and smaller seasonal pond are located and abundant stickleback and breeding mallard, fish and toad were recorded. The site is considered to support a range of species typical to the habitats present such as grey partridge, gulls and linnet. The pond adjacent to the site was considered of average suitability for great crested newts.

213. Ecology officers raised concerns during the course of the application with regards to the level of survey data in respects to water voles and management provisions in regards to them and survey data in respects to great crested newts and birds. A Hedgerow Regulations Assessment was also requested.

214. An ecological survey addendum was therefore submitted. The additional surveys concluded in regards to water vole that they may have been present in the past but are no longer resident on site, that great crested newts are unlikely present on the site. No bat roosts are considered likely within the site including the buildings proposed for demolition. With regards to birds the additional survey considers that the site is of “parish ornithological value”. A number of hedgerows within the site were found to meet the criteria of an “important hedgerow” under the Hedgerow Regulations Act 1997. 215. The wildlife and biodiversity management plan has been amended during the course of the application and proposes a range of management targets for a number of species and habitats. This management extends to both on-site and off-site measures. The off-site measures relate to the protection and enhancement of an offsite wetland and it is proposed that this would be delivered via a S106 legal agreement.

216. Following the submission of the additional survey and management plan documentation ecology officer raise no objections to the impacts of the development upon species and habitats subject to the development being implemented in accordance with the management measures including the off-site measures which require delivery under a S106 legal agreement. Planning conditions can be utilised to ensure the on-site management and mitigation measures contained within the ecological submissions are implemented as per Ecology officer and Environment Agency advice.

217. With regards to statutory and locally designated sites Thrislington Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Thrislington Plantation (Site of Special Scientific Interest) SSSI are located some 5km North West of the site. Bishop Middleham Quarry SSSI is located approximately 3.5km North West of the site and The Carrs SSSI at Ferryhill approximately 6.5km to the North West of the Site. Hardwick Hall local wildlife site is located around 1.5km from the site. Taking into account the development, separation distances to these sites and likely impacts Natural England and Ecology officers raise no objections.

218. The presence of a protected species is a material consideration. 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 works are carried out with a 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. In this instance it is considered that the development would not interfere with any EPS and there is no requirement to consider whether an EPS licence would be granted.

219. No objections to the development are raised on the grounds of impacts upon ecological assets and it is considered that the development is compliant with Part 11 of the NPPF and SBLP Policy E11. Policy E11 is considered fully consistent with the NPPF and can be attributed weight in the decision making process.

Planning Obligations

220. As discussed local school capacity would be inadequate to cater for the development and financial contributions to both primary and secondary school accommodation within a legal agreement are requested by the School Organisation Manager. As discussed off-site ecological management is also proposed to be ensured via a S106 legal agreement. A 10% affordable housing commitment is made which accords with the Council’s evidence base for the area, the requests of the Housing Delivery Team and the requirements of SBLP Policy H19 (partially consistent with the NPPF).

221. SBLP Policy L1 seeks to ensure adequate open space and recreational space is provided across the borough whilst Policy L2 seeks to ensure adequate provision is provided in new housing development. Both policies are considered only partially NPPF compliant as the evidence base has now been updated within the Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA).

222. It is noted that Sport England in their non-statutory function have raised some concerns with the development questioning the need, operation and capital costs of some of the uses originally proposed within the community and youth and facility. However, the amended plans now propose more flexible uses within the facility. Furthermore the applicant has submitted a phasing plan which shows the facility would be provided within the first phase of the development.

223. Taking into account the facilities proposed within the community and youth facility together with the amount of open and recreational space indicated on plan (in excess of 5ha excluding structural landscaping and SuDS features) it is considered that if all such space and accommodation were ensured of delivery at the reserved matters stage of the development then ample on-site provision and variety of provision is being made to negate the need for further financial contributions to be made towards off-site provision within a S106 legal agreement.

224. Public objection to the development includes the comment that if planning permission be granted monies should be allocated to alleviating congestion and improving parking facilities. However, without objection raised on highways grounds it is considered that such a contribution is not necessary to make the application acceptable in planning terms.

225. In the event of an approval the obligations regarding education provision, affordable housing and ecological mitigation are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development having regards to NPPF paragraph 204, SBLP Policy D8 (partially consistent with the NPPF) and the CIL Regulations.

Other Issues

226. Loss of agricultural land would result from the development. It is not known if the land or any parcel of it constitutes best and most versatile agricultural land. The NPPF at Paragraph 112 requires account to be taken of the economic or other value of the best and most versatile land. Where significant development is proposed, poorer quality agricultural land should be used rather than higher quality. In addition where significant loss of agricultural land would is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality.

227. Employability officers request that targeted recruitment and training clauses are included within a S106 legal agreement in the event of approval. It is considered that a condition can ensure these clauses in the event of an approval.

228. Access and Public Rights of Way have raised no objections. The proposals for a connecting footpath as a link between the two sections of the site is welcomed and this would link to Footpath No. 9 (Sedgefield). However, due to highway safety concerns this connecting link has been removed from the plans. No objections are raised to the development having regards to SBLP Policy L9 which is considered fully consistent with the NPPF.

229. Sustainability officers consider that a site wide energy plan should be devised. No such scheme has been devised though the submitted Composite Planning Statement does discuss the principles of energy reduction measures. Public responses include the comment that the highest BREAM standard should be obtained through the development. In the event of an approval it is considered that a condition could be utilised to resolve final energy reduction proposals.

230. The majority of the application site lies outwith of the Coal Authority’s defined coal mining “high risk” and “low risk” areas. A small section of the land north of Butterwick Road is within the low risk area. As a result consultation with the Coal Authority is not required on this application.

231. A public respondent states that determination of the application should be delayed until the national response to Paris agreement on carbon emissions is known. The Paris agreement has been signed. It is considered that the application can be determined having regards to the development plan and other material planning considerations.

232. Some public respondents to the development object on the grounds that the development would result in the loss of Green Belt land and/or Green Wedge land. However, the site is not located on either of these designations.

233. Some public respondents state that the development is only an element of a wider proposal for 2000 dwellings. The application seeks the development proposed within the description and contained within the submitted plans and documentation and should be determined on that basis.

234. Public concerns are raised that the development will devalue property, however, this is not a material planning consideration.

235. Concerns are raised with regards to the Council’s consultation exercise on the application. The statutory requirements for consultation on the application have been undertaken with letters sent to neighbouring properties, site notices erected and advertisement in the press.

236. Objections received in response to the public consultation exercise raise concerns with the standard of the application documentation. Officers consider that the application contains adequate information to have been considered valid and to inform on a decision on the application. Furthermore amended documentation has been received during the course of the application which in part has resolved some documentation discrepancies and provided greater information so as to inform the decision making process.

Paragraph 14 Assessment

237. In accordance with the advice contained at NPPF paragraph 14 the acceptability of the development rests on whether any adverse impacts of approving the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether there are any specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted.

238. The development would result in a significant incursion into the countryside with resultant landscape harm. The landscape of the site is such that it is considered to constitute a “valued landscape” as referenced within NPPF paragraph 109. Paragraph 109 advises that such landscapes should be protected and enhanced. The development of the site through the proposal would not protect or enhance this valued landscape but rather it would create a large mixed use development with a harmful urbanising effect upon it. Paragraph 109 is considered to be a specific policy within the NPPF which indicates that the development should be restricted. 239. Harmful heritage impacts would also result from the development. Harm to the setting and thereby the significance of Sedgefield Conservation Area, the Grade I listed St Edmunds Church, Grade II listed Green Hill Farmhouse and attached outbuilding and separately listed (Grade II) barn would occur. It is considered that this extent of harm is less than substantial. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF provides advice when less than substantial harm would occur to heritage assets and advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. If the public benefits do not outweigh the harm the policy indicates the development should be refused.

240. Harm to the non-designated heritage asset Victorian Cemetery has also been identified. NPPF paragraph 135 advices that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

241. The application does not include the results of a full field evaluation, considered necessary by Archaeology officers and having regards to the advice contained within NPPF paragraph 128 this is considered to weigh against the development. A balanced judgement under NPPF paragraph 135 is not possible without an adequate assessment of the significance of the asset.

242. Public benefits would result from the development.

243. The development would assist in maintaining housing land supply at a time when the residential framework policy is out of date and the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply against an objectively assessed need, although in the light of the housing supply position discussed this benefit is a limited one.

244. This boost would extend to the delivery of affordable homes (10%) and the delivery of specialist provision such as the care home, assisted living complex and bungalows which are proposed to be delivered.

245. Whilst to an extent the development is mitigating for its own impact, the development is providing sports, recreation and open space and a community and youth facility, the delivery of which would be beneficial to the wider community.

246. The business enterprise unit has the potential to harbour business skills, opportunities and employment and its delivery would be a benefit of the development.

247. Two industrial units are proposed, however, as two existing units are to be demolished to facilitate the development it is considered that results in a neutral impact overall. A bus drop off facility for Sedgefield Community College is indicatively proposed within the development, this is a potential benefit, however, it is understood that no firm agreement on the delivery of this has been reached.

248. To a degree the development would provide direct and indirect economic benefits within the locality and from further afield in the form of expenditure in the local economy. This would include the creation of construction jobs and employment in associated supply chains. The applicant has stated that they are willing to enter into a targeted recruitment and training agreement under condition. 249. Overall the significance of the incursion into the countryside and extent of harm to a valued landscape is contrary to NPPF paragraph 109 and indicates that the development should be restricted. Paragraph 135 requires a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of the harm or loss and the significance of non-designated heritage assets. However, an appropriate field evaluation with regards to potential archaeological assets is absent from the application. It is considered that further, less than substantial harm, also occurs to designated and non-designated heritage assets though the NPPF advises that this should be balanced against the benefits of the scheme and benefits do apply.

CONCLUSION

250. The development comprises of a significant mixed use development to the east of Sedgefield. Policies for the supply of housing within the SBLP are out-of-date and the acceptability of the application should be considered in the context of paragraph 14 of the NPPF which advises that the acceptability of the development rests on whether any adverse impacts of approving the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether there are any specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted.

251. The development would result in a significant incursion into the countryside and within a landscape which is considered to be valued. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF advises that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced. Significant loss of agricultural land would result, the agricultural land classification is not known. However, the NPPF advises that if the site constitutes best and most versatile agricultural land this should be taken into account and in addition where significant loss of agricultural land would is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. The landscape would not be protected or enhanced as a result of the development and this policy of the Framework indicates that the development should be restricted. Though the application does include public benefits it is considered that the harm as a result of the incursion into the valued landscape and agricultural land east of Sedgefield would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits.

252. Some harm to non-designated heritage assets (in the form of archaeology) appears likely to arise, but the necessary field evaluation with respects to archaeological assets have not been submitted. Less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets exist and this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, harm to a non-designated heritage asset also exists and should also be weighed in the balance.

253. Whilst public benefits would result from development, likely enough to balance the harm to the designated heritage assets, it is considered that they would not override the additional landscape harm and the absence of appropriate archaeological field evaluation.

254. The proposal has generated much public interest. Those concerns raised with regards the landscape and heritage impacts of the development lend weight to the concerns of officers. RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would result in a significant incursion into open countryside, with significant loss of agricultural land and would unacceptably alter the character and setting of the settlement and fail to protect or enhance a locally valued landscape. This significant adverse impact would be contrary to Policies H8 and D1 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan. In the context of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF such harm to a locally valued landscape would be contrary to paragraphs 17 and 109 of the Framework, a specific policy which indicates the development should be restricted.

2. The Local Planning Authority considers that the site is of potentially high archaeological value and the application is not accompanied by an appropriate field evaluation. In the context of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF the absence of appropriate field evaluation submissions is considered contrary to paragraph 128 of the Framework and the Local Planning Authority cannot conclude under paragraph 135 that the potential harm or loss is justifiable.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its recommendation to refuse 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 35(2) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)

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 - Sedgefield Borough Local Plan - The County Durham Plan (Issues and Options) - Statutory, internal and public consultation responses DM/14/01586/OUT

Planning Services Outline application including details of access, appearance, layout and scale for the erection of 63 bed care home (class C2), 58 bed assisted living complex (class C2), community and youth facility (class D2), business enterprise unit (class B1) and 3000m2 of general industrial/storage and distribution (class B2/B8) use with outline permission sought including details of access only for the erection of 371 dwellings including 72 self build plots

ESRG Security

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey Date Scale material with the permission Ordnance Survey July 2016 Not to scale 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 Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: 7/2011/0293/DM

FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: Amended Description – Installation of one (previously two) 500kw wind turbines with ancillary development including access tracks and crane pads

NAME OF APPLICANT: Mr G Hirst

SITE ADDRESS: Land south of Harap Road, Garmondsway, Fishburn

ELECTORAL DIVISION: Sedgefield

CASE OFFICER: Claire Teasdale, Principal Planning Officer, 03000 261390, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

Background

1. At its meeting in October 2015 the Council's County Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for two wind turbines on agricultural land south of Harap Road, near Fishburn but the decision notice has not yet been issued. Immediately following the Committee’s resolution the Council received a significant number of representations in relation to aviation safety concerns in relation to the adjacent Fishburn Airfield. Following legal advice it was considered that the decision should not be issued at that time, in order to give further consideration to the matter. The proposed development has since been amended reducing from two turbines to one, with the applicant relying upon information submitted with the original application.

Site

2. The nature of the application site is open countryside consisting of agricultural land serving Trimdon House Farm and West House Farm. The land slopes gently down from north to south. The landscape contains mature hedgerow field boundaries and hedgerow trees, along with man-made features which include two 400kV electricity lines and associated pylons. The application site lies at a distance of around 1.25km from the nearest properties on Salvin Terrace in Fishburn and 1.6km from the nearest properties in Trimdon Village. There a number of other isolated dwellings and farmsteads in the area, with nearest being at West House Farm, some 450m from the nearest part of the application site.

Proposal

3. The proposal is for the erection of one wind turbine, to contribute to the power requirements of Trimdon House Farm and West House Farm, although the applicant advises that with local solar photovoltaic schemes coming on board, it is more likely that the scheme would put the majority of its power into the Grid. The turbine would be located 150 metres due south of Harap Road. Previously, two turbines had been proposed. Additional publicity and consultation took place following the amendment to the proposal.

4. The turbine would have 500kw output, and would be mounted on a tower to give a 50 metre hub height and a swept diameter of 54 metres. The ground to tip height would therefore be 77 metres. The turbine would be installed at 140 metres above sea level, approximately 20 metres lower than Harap Road.

5. The application was originally referred to Committee at the request of the former Elected Division Member, Councillor Brookes, as at the time of submission the application site was within the Trimdon Electoral Division, however, following a change to the Electoral Division boundaries in May 2013, the site is now within the Sedgefield Electoral Division. The County Planning Committee has previously resolved to grant planning permission for the two turbines but following subsequent developments it is considered appropriate to report the application back to Committee.

PLANNING HISTORY

6. There is no relevant planning history for the application site.

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). 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’.

8. 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.

9. One of the twelve core principles is support for the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, and encouragement for the use of renewable resources. Paragraph 98 advises that when determining applications, local planning authorities should not require applicants to demonstrate need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are acceptable.

10. NPPF Part 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy - Paragraph 19 outlines that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

11. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. 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. 12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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, recognising 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.

15. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment – Local Planning Authorities should have a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets, recognising that these are an irreplaceable resource and conserving them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The above represents a summary of the NPPF, but the full text may be accessed at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

16. 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; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; consultation and pre-decision matters; design; flood risk and coastal change; health and well-being; natural environment; noise; open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space; renewable and low carbon energy; transport assessments and statements; tree preservation orders and trees in conservation areas; and use of planning conditions. The advice on renewable and low carbon energy includes detailed advice on particular considerations for wind development and includes a recent update following a Written Ministerial Statement on 18th June 2015 set out new considerations to be applied to wind energy development. The Statement is considered later in this report.

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

LOCAL PLAN POLICY:

Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (SBLP)

17. Policy E1 (Maintenance of Distinctive Landscape Character) seeks to encourage the maintenance of distinctive landscape areas including the southern and eastern lowlands around Sedgefield. 18. Policy E11 (Sites of Nature Conservation Interests) seeks to safeguard sites of nature conservation interest.

19. Policy E15 (Tree Protection) specifies that development proposals are expected to retain woodland, important groups of trees, copse and hedgerows wherever possible and replace any trees which are lost.

20. Policy E18 (Preservation and enhancement of Conservation Area) seeks to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Borough’s Conservation Areas.

21. Policy D1 (Layout and Design of New Development) sets out a range of principles that are to be applied when considering the layout and design of new development including that the layout and design of new development takes into account the site’s natural and built features and its relationship to adjacent land uses and activities and assisting in achieving the objectives of the conservation of energy.

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 (CDP) was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 18 February 2015, however that Report was quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. In accordance with the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP and a new plan being prepared. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight. As the new plan progresses through the stages of preparation it will begin to accrue weight.

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/3270/Sedgefield-Borough-Local-Plan (Sedgefield Borough Local Plan) http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES:

23. Fishburn Parish Council – objected to the two turbine application, stating that they haven’t previously objected to wind turbine applications or indeed to this application when it was first submitted, however, they consider that this proposal would now tip the balance and that Fishburn would be surrounded by turbines. They advised that the clear message from their community is that they do not want any further wind turbine development. Concerns were also raised in respect of the safe operation of Fishburn Airfield. No comments have submitted in relation to the single turbine.

24. Bishop Middleham & Mainsforth Parish Council – object to the proposal on the grounds that if the proposal is granted it would add greater danger of aircraft being forced to fly over the village of Bishop Middleham because of the change of flight paths due to the turbines. Also the negative impact the proposed turbines would have on Fishburn Airfield operations, which in the opinion of the members is a County Asset and could stifle growth and the creation of much needed employment opportunities and commence for the area. The Parish Council has no objections to wind turbines in general but feel this proposal if granted could have dire consequences for Fishburn Airfield and residents of Bishop Middleham. No comments have submitted in relation to the single turbine.

25. Sedgefield Town Council – object to the proposal despite the proposed amendments and earlier submitted objections still remain. These relate to the creation of significant safety risks as flight routes would have to be changed to try and mitigate collision risks and turbulence risks that could result in overflights and increased disturbance to nearby residents as well as generate noise complaints. The turbines would significantly increase safety concerns for pilots and the public due to the close proximity to the airfield site. Of particular concern is the effect they would have upon aircraft using the critical take-off and landing stages of flight which could result in serious injury or death. The future and viability of Fishburn Airfield would be seriously compromised of the application is allowed to proceed. The airfield is a facility which is well used by the public as well as developing strong links with local businesses to the benefit of the local community and economy. Potentially as a result of this planning application the airfield could lose economic activity and this would then have a detrimental impact upon the specialist skilled jobs which are provided by the site as well as the potential loss of public amenity and well used recreational facilities. All of this could threaten future plans for an aviation museum at this site which if this went ahead would general further jobs and income for the local economy. In addition, concerns are also expressed regarding the potential acidification caused by the concrete bases of such structures to ground water courses in the locality.

26. Trimdon Parish Council – objects to the application. The area of Trimdon Parish Council is being surrounded by both individual and collections of turbines. The cumulative effect of this is that they are becoming a dominant feature of the, predominantly rural, landscape. Recent Government guidance is that communities should have a say as to whether or not they support wind turbines. Trimdon Parish Council, on behalf of its residents, does not support the increase of wind turbines. The Parish Council is very concerned at the proposal to install a wind turbine so close to Fishburn Airfield. Should this application be granted, it is felt that this will have a detrimental impact on the viability of the Airfield; this could result in the loss of planned employment and, in turn, impact on local businesses. It will also impact on the Airfield as a local amenity used by the residents of the parish and also have a detrimental effect on the planned working museum. Trimdon Parish Council is concerned at the safety of such a proposal, locating a wind turbine so close to an airfield making landing and take-off dangerous. No comments have been submitted in relation to the single turbine.

27. Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation) – initially objected to the proposals but then withdrew the objection following this submission of additional information. Following a reconsultation on the two turbine scheme the MOD objected to the two turbine proposal. In response to the reconsultation with on a single turbine the MOD objects noting that the turbine would be 44.9 km from, detectable by, and would cause unacceptable interference to the ATC radar used by RAF Leeming. Close examination of the proposal has indicated that the proposed turbine would have a significant and detrimental effect on operations and on the provision of air traffic services at RAF Leeming.

28. Highway Authority – considers the scheme to be acceptable subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to the construction phase.

29. Durham Tees Valley Airport – initially objected to the application, however, following discussions with the applicants, they have withdrawn their objection and advised that their concerns in relation to aviation safety would be addressed through the imposition of planning conditions relating to mitigation measures. This related to the two turbines and no response has been received regarding the single turbine. 30. Newcastle International Airport – have advised that given the scale and significant distance of the proposal from the Airport it is considered that the development would not result in any detriment to the safe operations of the Airport, and therefore they have no objection. This related to the two turbines and no response has been received regarding the single turbine.

31. The Met Office – has no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of a suitable condition. This is because the turbine would be detectable by the Met Office weather radar at High Moorsley which is 12,100m from the site and it is considered that the development may result in significant degradation to the quality of Met Officer services as derived from weather radar data. It is stated that mitigation may be possible for the majority of these impacts subject to agreement with the applicant, but despite some initial correspondence no agreement for the provision has yet been agreed. Therefore should the Council grant planning permission it is requested that a condition be applied preventing the commencement of development until measures have been agreed to minimise the impact of the development on the radar.

32. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – has no safeguarding objection to the proposal. The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with NATS safeguarding criteria.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:

33. Landscape – has provided detailed comments on the likely physical and visual impacts of the proposed development upon landscape character, designated landscapes, local settlements and residential amenity. Officers consider that the effects of the proposals would be generally slightly lower than those assessed in the original application given not much has changed in that area since that time, although a single 35m turbine has been installed at Simonside Farm in the same landscape zone.

34. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection – raised no objections to the two turbine scheme subject to the imposition of a range of planning conditions covering the construction and operational phases. Officers advise that the amendment to the application i.e. two turbines to one, is likely to reduce the impact of the development and as such consider the initial consultation comments are valid for the amended scheme.

35. Ecology– considered in detail the submitted Ecological Assessment submitted with the two turbine application advising that it covered the majority of the species at risk, and that they are satisfied with the methodology and results of the assessment, noting that account is taken of both possible bat roosts and commuting/foraging routes, and that the turbines appear to be located sensitively with these species in mind. No objection is therefore raised, subject to mitigation measures being agreed prior to commencement and a condition to protect breeding birds during vegetation clearance. These comments are also applicable to the single turbine.

36. Design and Historic Environment – consider that insufficient information has been provided with the application to understand fully the impact on both designated and non-designated heritage assets.

37. Archaeology – raised no objection to the two turbine application. Officers advised that there are records of two known below ground archaeological assets within 140-520m of the northern turbine, and are interpreted, based on form, as being of Iron Age in date. In addition, within a radius of 3km are 3 Scheduled Monuments: Garmondsway, Bishop Middleham and Coxhoe. However, it is considered that the turbines would not have an impact on their settings as per the recently published setting guidance produced by English Heritage. Therefore, there is no objection to the application, however, given the existence of a number of heritage assets in close proximity, if planning permission is granted it should be subject to suitable conditions which require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is lost. Although the scheme has been reduced from two wind turbines to one the fact that archaeological features are known in the immediate vicinity of the site means that the condition previously stipulated (i.e. archaeological evaluation followed by a scheme of mitigation if required) still needs to be applied.

PUBLIC RESPONSES:

38. The original application was been publicised by way of site notice display in the local area and by way of individual letters to some 200 properties in the local area, principally to a number of properties in Fishburn. Representations were received following the Committee’s resolution in October 2015 and also in response to a reconsultation following the submission of additional information from the applicant regarding aviation matters raised and the Council’s commissioning of an independent aviation report. A further consultation took place in June 2016 on the revised proposal for a single turbine.

Two turbine proposal reported to County Planning Committee in October 2015

39. Eight letters of objection were received from local residents. The grounds of objection included visual impact of the development, cumulative visual impact of several wind farm developments in the area, a greater emphasis should be placed on offshore windfarm development, noise impact, safety of users of the nearby airstrip, and impact upon wildlife.

40. Six letters of support were received from local residents who consider that wind turbines play an important part in reducing carbon emissions and fighting climate change, and that they do not impact as badly on the landscape as pylons or power stations.

41. Durham Bird Club noted that an independent survey found Corn Bunting corpses to be present on the site and as such, they consider that a full Corn Buntings survey needs to be carried out at this site, as they are in serious decline in County Durham.

2015 representations received following the October 2015 Committee

42. Following the Committee’s resolution in October 2015 representations from 122 individuals have been received objecting to the proposal, including from Fishburn Aviation Limited who has managed the airfield since early 2015. Some individuals wrote more than once but the additional representations have not been included in the overall figure. The representations are made by light aircraft owners and pilots with many hours flying experience based at and flying from Fishburn Airfield, members of Fishburn Aero Club, employees, visitors and suppliers to the Airfield. Representations have also been received from Peterlee Parachute Centre, other airfields based at Peterlee Airfield, Eshott Airfield and Croft Racing Circuit, The North Yorkshire Flying Club, British Microlight Aircraft Association, Light Aircraft Association, General Aviation Awareness Council, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, NAL Operations. AOPA, Cobham Flight Inspection, North East Strut of Light Aircraft Association, Naljets, Air Ads Limited an aerial advertising company, RS Paintworks Limited, Aircraft Restoration Group, Aircare Services Ltd. and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), UK Civil Air Patrol and Airfield Safeguarding & Development. The matters raised can be summarised as: Aviation Safety  The proposal is dangerous and life threatening in an airfield environment and would render the airfield dangerous and unusable.  Concern that it had been resolved to grant planning permission for wind turbines so close to an airfield.  The circuit shown in the application documentation is not realistic of the circuit flown by many of the based pilots or visitors.  Concerns that the turbines would be within the approved circuit for the airfield presenting a very real danger to aircraft approaching and landing which could risk lives for pilots and users of the airfield as well as people in the vicinity.  Pilots in the area have to contend with other wind turbines in the area such as those at Haswell, Hare Hill, Trimdon Grange and Butterwick Walkway as well as electricity pylons to the north east and east.  Placing an obstruction of this nature beside the airfield would severely reduce the options available in the case of an emergency, especially when taking into account the impact of variable wind conditions.  An alternative southern circuit is not a viable workaround to this situation as this would require the over-flight of local villages.  Concerns that an aircraft could hit a turbine blade.  The wind shear (turbulence) created by the turbines would be dangerous to landing aircraft. Fishburn airfield can be used as a diversion airport to Shotton airfield for UK Civil Air Patrol in bad weather. The proposed wind turbines would present a serious danger to the safety of the aircraft approaching Fishburn from the north east and entering the airfield circuit to land at Fishburn. The danger to the safety of aircraft is created by both the size of the wind turbine, including the blades, and the severe turbulence that is created downwind of the rotating blades.

Conflict with aviation guidance  The proposal would be contrary to the Government’s Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN61) that advises it is essential that the safety of UK aerodromes, aircraft and airspace is not adversely affected by new energy infrastructure.  The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the safety of aircraft operating at the airfield and would be contrary to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) documents CAP738, CAP764 and CAP793.  Professional advice from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) should be sought regarding the infringement on aerial safety.  The proposal contradicts recent Government policy on alternative energy sources and the sighting of large wind turbines on land, with Government guidance suggesting offshore sites for future development.

Future of the Airfield  A number of businesses located at the airfield have expressed their concerns about the adverse impact the turbines would have on the future of the airfield and in turn on their businesses, a business which has grown over the last few years.  Fishburn airfield is viewed as a considerable asset to the local community and any future expansion would provide further employment opportunities at a time when other industries are in decline.  Concerns that the proposals would ‘kill off' using the airfield as a venue and ruin a business that has invested hundreds of pounds building and running the airfield.

Aviation documentation submitted with the application and subsequent aviation information submitted  View that the information submitted is misleading and contains inaccuracies in terms of the technical detail for example in relation to the circuit pattern.  View expressed that those utilising the airfield on a regular basis have a better knowledge and understanding of the flight conditions at the adjacent airfield.  No risk assessment or impact study has been carried out to determine the aerodynamic impact of the wind turbines on aircraft landing and taking off from Fishburn. This could prevent commercial operations during certain weather conditions  Concerns regarding the qualifications and experience of the author of the aviation documentation submitted with the application and also of his knowledge of the location of the proposed turbine and surrounding area.  View that the information submitted is misleading and contains inaccuracies in terms of the technical detail for example in relation to the circuit pattern.  Offence taken with applicant’s agent stating the pilots operating from Fishburn Airfield deliberately withheld objections until the last minute.  Concerns regarding the qualifications and experience of the author of the aviation documentation.  View that the information submitted is misleading and contains inaccuracies in terms of the technical detail for example in relation to the circuit pattern.  Offence taken with applicant’s agent stating the pilots operating from Fishburn Airfield deliberately withheld objections until the last minute.

Other matters  More appropriate locations could be considered that would not cause any harm.  Private airfields are very few in the NE and restrictions to flying are already numerous without adding this one.  Acceptance that there are good reasons for more turbines, solar panels etc to reduce carbon footprint and reliance on fossil fuels but putting two turbines in the circuit pattern of an active airfield must be a decision which requires further discussion and consideration.  Inefficiencies of wind turbines.  View that turbines are hideous eyesores and would spoil the beautiful northern countryside.  The design of the proposed turbines being slim in profile may be desirable in landscape terms but is not in terms of flight safety.  Turbines have been proven to cause interference with aircraft radio and navigational aids and other ground radars such as at Teesside Airport.  View that there must be other ways of reducing operating costs for the farm but safety must take precedence.  Query why the turbines need to be so big considering that they seem too big for the domestic/business needs of the farms concerned and if smaller units were installed then most problems would disappear as they could be fixed much closer to the farm units concerned.  Lack of consultation with users of the airfield by both the Council and the landowner.  Perceived conflict of interest between one of the applicants who is also the owner of the airfield.  Reduction in property prices.

2016 consultation on the one turbine proposal

43. In response to the 2016 consultation on the one turbine proposal 7 representations made by light aircraft owners and pilots based at and flying from Fisburn Airfield, have been received objecting to the proposal. This includes Fishburn Aviation Limited considering that its original safety concerns remain intact and unanswered by the latest submission. The issues by those making representations reiterate previous concerns. Objectors also state that It is also that there is no support from the local residential community, the local business community, the local sports aviation community or national aviation community. Objections have been made via the local and wider community via Fishburn Parish Council, Sedgefield Town Council, Trimdon Parish Council and stakeholders with an investment at Fishburn airfield.

44. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) with the two turbine scheme CPRE was principally concerned by the potential effects on the landscape and tranquillity. In landscape terms although they note the landscape is of medium sensitivity and could accommodate a small medium-small wind farm, there is potentially little unconstrained land with low separation distances to settlements and the Butterwick/Walkway wind turbines and cumulative impacts could therefore be unacceptably high. They consider also that there will be a resultant ‘turbine aspect’ when driving along the A177, and together with the cumulative effects, they consider the application should be refused. Following the increased number of representations CPRE noted that the number of representations including from a number of parish councils is noted and CPRE considers that there is now clear evidence that this application does not have “community backing” in accordance with the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015. In response to the single turbine CPRE represent that this still creates landscape concerns as mentioned previous correspondence. With the recent erection of the turbine at Simonside on the other side of the A177 in this location, the landscape implications are not significantly changed from those mentioned in the original representation as far as the immediate locality is concerned CPRE remain of the view that the application should be refused permission.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

45. None submitted for the single turbine proposal.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The application file is available to view at County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UQ, and more recent documents available to view on the Council’s website at https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

46. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that if regard is to be had to the development plan, decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the policies contained therein are material considerations that should be taken into account in decision-making. Other material considerations include representations received. In this context, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle, landscape and visual impacts, impact upon residential amenity, impact upon nature conservation, aviation safety, highway safety, aviation safety and degree of community support.

Principle of development

Previous resolution

47. At its meeting in October 2015 the Council's County Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for two wind turbines. The reasons for granting permission were threefold. Firstly it was considered that the proposal would accord with continuing national objectives of reducing carbon emissions without unacceptable impact upon the visual qualities of the landscape, residential amenities or wildlife species protected by law, and as such, the proposals were considered to comply with the NPPF and Policies E1, E18 and D1 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996 (which is a saved plan in accordance with the Secretary of State’s Direction under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). Secondly, the development was considered acceptable on balance having regard to the effects on the setting of the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site, the impacts on nearby dwellings and adjacent settlements and the amenities of their residents. Thirdly, whilst it was acknowledged that there was some opposition to the proposed scheme, it was considered that the visual impacts both singularly and cumulatively were such that the landscape could absorb them without significant harm to its character, whilst issues of noise and wildlife impact could be satisfactorily controlled through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

48. Since the Committee resolution to grant planning permission was made, the impact of the proposal on the adjacent Fishburn Airfield and aviation safety have been raised as serious concerns by many making representations and the company that manages the airfield. As a result legal advice is that the Committee reconsiders the application and place no weight on their previous resolution to grant planning permission, as that resolution did not have adequate regard to all of the considerations that have subsequently transpired to be relevant. This report therefore considers the proposal afresh and in its amended form for one turbine as opposed to two.

Proposed Wind Turbine Development

49. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North East has now been revoked. The RSS provided targets for renewable energy generation in the region. The sub-regional renewable energy target for County Durham given in the RSS was 82MW installed renewable energy capacity by 2010. At the time of writing the County has around 198.74MW of renewable electricity operational with a further 22.096MW approved. This will meet around 72% of County Durham’s household electricity consumption or 27% of the County’s overall electricity consumption. County Durham’s 2010 target has been exceeded by a substantial margin and the aspiration to double that target by 2020, included in the emerging County Durham Plan, has already been achieved. While the RSS targets were ‘thresholds’ and not ‘ceilings’, the performance to date in Durham indicates that sufficient sites were found to meet those targets and that there is no need to approve sites found to be environmentally unacceptable.

50. The Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (SBLP) is silent in relation to renewable energy development, and as such, in determining the application consideration needs to be given to whether any adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF and whether any specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted.

51. One of the twelve core principles of the NPPF is support for the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and encouragement for the use of renewable resources, for example, by the development of renewable energy. 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 also recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be) made acceptable.

52. 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. The PPG includes advice more specifically relevant to wind turbine development including an updated section following a Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June 2015. This includes advice that planning permission should only be approved for wind farm development where it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. A specific section of this report is dedicated to this guidance.

53. In summary, it is clear that national planning policy guidance generally supports renewable energy schemes. Measured against this, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle, and a demonstration of need for the turbine is not required.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Landscape Capacity

54. The proposed turbines would be located within an area identified in the now revoked RSS as a ‘broad area of least constraint’, as informed through evidence contained in the Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development (GONE 2003). This document is considered to be a material consideration in the determination of this application, and which identifies the application site area as belonging to the ‘Limestone Escarpment and Ridge’ landscape type, and thus assessed as being of medium sensitivity to wind energy development. In particular, a medium-small scale development typology should be adopted which would be more likely to fit with the scale and pattern of the landscape. Turbines with an overall height of 77m would be classified as being of the small scale range in terms of turbine height.

55. The turbine would be located on the southern ridge of an escarpment away from the more sensitive scarp and vale topography to the north, and in an area of sloping and undulating terrain already containing man made feature such as high voltage electricity lines and pylons, mobile phone masts, A1(M) motorway and Thrislington Quarry. As such, the location and scale of the proposed turbine would be generally consistent with the findings of the landscape appraisal. Building on the findings of the GONE document is the Wind Farm and Landscape Capacity Study: East Durham Landscape and Tees Plain (ARUP, 2008). The ARUP Report subdivides the study area into landscape zones assessed in terms of sensitivity and appropriate wind farm typology. The application site lies within zone 11, assessed as being of medium sensitivity and suited to a small-medium small (4-6 turbines) wind farm typology. The areas suitability for further wind farm development is assessed as being ‘none/limited’ and described as follows: “There are no existing turbines within the zone. In principle, the landscape could have the capacity to accommodate small medium small-scale development (4-6 turbines) However, the constraints map indicates that there is potentially little unconstrained land. The separation distances from the nearby Trimdon Grange in Zone 8 are low (1.5 to 3km) and relatively low (4 to 5.5km) from the large Butterwick/Walkway complex and cumulative impacts, particularly in the Trimdon area, could therefore be unacceptably high”. The turbine proposed would be well within the typology considered appropriate for the area, notwithstanding potential cumulative effects.

56. Since the time of the ARUP report a single 39m high turbine has been approved, and recently installed, within Zone 11 at Simonside Farm around 2.4 km to the east.

Landscape Impacts

57. The proposed turbine would be widely visible across the southern part of the East Durham Limestone Plateau and the northern Tees Plain. To the north and north-east in the rolling terrain of the northern escarpment and central plateau, visibility would be relatively patchy due to the screening effects of topography, and of woodlands in the Wingate area. To the south, across the escarpment dip-slope and adjacent areas of the Tees Plain, it would be more continuously visible. It would also be visible from the eastern valley terraces of the Wear Lowlands around Bowburn and Tursdale, and more generally from the western valley terraces and the spurs and valleys of the coalfield to the west.

58. The escarpment ridge forms the skyline in views from most of these landscapes and the proposed turbine would be visible on or close to the skyline in most views. The ridge is crossed by two 400 KV overhead services with large 50m high pylons which also figure on the skyline in most views. These would assimilate the turbine to some degree. The scale of the impact on the character of the landscape would be heavily influenced by distance. In views from across the Wear Lowlands to the north-west and the Tees Plain in the south at distances of greater than around 4km, the turbine would be seen as a small feature on the skyline in close association with the existing pylons. Views are typically panoramic and taking in visually complex settled landscapes. Turbine clusters and pylons are already common skyline features and as such, the additional impact of the proposed turbine in these views would be low.

59. At closer distances, largely within the landscape of the Limestone Escarpment, the turbine would be a more notable feature and would be a prominent element in the landscape within around 3km and a dominant element within around 1.2km, although again, the existing pylons have a substantial impact on the character of the landscape in this area. Their presence is such that the introduction of a single 77m turbine (54m hub height) would not involve a significant change in character, and they would help assimilate the turbine visually to some degree. It is therefore considered that whilst adding to the visual clutter of tall structures which erodes the rural character of the area to some degree, the turbine would not, overall, be out of scale or out of keeping with the local landscape.

Visual Impacts

Impacts on settlements

60. Fishburn: The turbine would be visible from properties on the western edge of the village at distances of around 1km, but would not be generally visible from within it. It would not dominate the village or its setting. It would be a prominent feature from the western and northern approaches to the village by road and would be a prominent or dominant feature in views from much of the public footpath network west of the village. The existing Butterwick/Walkway windfarm is a dominant feature in views from the footpath network to the east.

61. Trimdon Village: The turbine would be visible from properties on the western edge of the village at distances of around 1.5km, but not generally from within it. In those views in which it would be visible, the view is already heavily dominated by two major 400kv overhead lines with large pylons viewed in close proximity. The turbine would not dominate the village or its setting but would be prominent feature from the western and southern approach to the village by road. It would be a prominent or dominant feature in views from much of the public footpath network serving the community to the west of the village. The existing Butterwick/Walkway windfarm is a dominant feature in views from the footpath network to the east.

62. Trimdon Grange: The turbine would be visible from a small number of properties on the southern edge of the village, at distances of around 2.5 km, but not generally from within it. It would not dominate the village or its setting. It would be a prominent feature from the western and southern approaches to the village by road and prominent but not dominant in views from some of the public footpath network west of the village, from where the Trimdon Grange wind farm is already a dominant feature. 63. Bishop Middleham: The turbine would be visible from properties on the northern edge of the village, at distances of >2 km, but not generally from within it. It would not dominate the village or its setting. It would be a prominent but not dominant feature from the eastern approach to the village by road and a prominent but not dominant feature in views from some of the public footpath network north of the village.

64. Whilst the turbine would become an obvious and prominent feature in the landscape, it would not unduly dominate the visual environment of the surrounding villages.

Cumulative landscape and visual effects

65. The proposed turbine would have cumulative impacts with other operational sites in the vicinity, in particular with the Trimdon Grange and Butterwick/Walkway wind farms as well as the single turbine at Simonside Farm. In order to assess the extent of cumulative impacts, consideration has been given to the interrelationship between existing, consented and proposed turbines. In particular, this focuses on the zone of potential prominence, 40 times tip height, the area within which existing/approved turbines may be relatively prominent features in the landscape, and the zone of potential dominance, 16 times tip height, this being the area within which existing/ approved turbines may be relatively dominant features and where the landscape and visual impacts of wind turbines would be at their greatest. This corresponds to what is occasionally referred to as a ‘wind farm landscape’. There is currently a fairly robust degree of separation between the wind farm landscapes associated with existing development. This would be reduced by the development of the proposed turbine. This would not lead to a coalescence of these wind farm landscapes into a more continuous tract, but would create a more straggling pattern of lower density development to the west of the larger windfarms along the escarpment ridge.

66. In respect of the Trimdon Grange wind farm, the area most susceptible to high levels of cumulative visual impact is the area between the two, which includes a number of relatively sensitive receptors including the Raisby Way, West Lane and Harap Road, along with a number of footpaths. Both developments would be prominent or dominant in the same view from parts of the area although because of the valley landform Trimdon Grange would have higher impacts on the southern flanks of the valley with the proposed turbine affecting the northern flanks. The breadth and complexity of the main ridge is such that it can be difficult to relate the proposed site to the Trimdon Grange wind farm, and while this would reduce the inter-visibility to some degree the reality is that once the turbine was constructed it would be generally visible throughout the area.

67. In wider views of the area, the two developments would often be seen in conjunction with each other but there wouldn’t be a particularly strong relationship between them and the overall effect would be of a general straggle of development across the escarpment ridge in this area. The turbine at Simonside Farm would be seen in some shared views but more typically in sequential views on routes through the area. While this would also contribute to the straggling pattern of development, its small size, and the visual separation afforded by its location on lower ground falling to the north, would limit the cumulative effect.

68. In respect of the Butterwick/Walkway complex, the area most susceptible to high levels of cumulative visual impact is the area between the two, which includes Fishburn. Approaching Fishburn along Harap Road the turbine would be a dominant feature in views in which the Butterwick/Walkway complex is already very prominent. As noted above, the impacts of the turbine within the villages would generally be low, but the development would lead to a situation where the countryside to both the east and west of the village would be dominated to some degree by wind development. This would be appreciated from the roads and rural footpaths serving the local community.

69. Whether this overall level of cumulative impact would be acceptable or not is a matter of judgement. On balance it was previously considered that the effect of the two turbines would not be so significant as to warrant resisting the scheme on landscape or visual impact grounds and this remains the case for the proposal for a single turbine which would have lower impacts in this respect, notwithstanding the additional impacts of the recently installed 35m turbine at Simonside Farm.

Impact on designated landscapes

70. The site does not carry any national or local landscape designation. The nearest area of land designated as an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) lies around 4.3km to the north-east in the Old Wingate Area. The turbine would be visible from parts of the AHLV but in association with overhead services on the southern skyline. Impacts on the special character of the heavily wooded AHLV would be low. The turbine would also be visible from parts of the Wear Valley AHLV some 6.5km to the northwest at its nearest point. It would be visible in association with overhead services on the southern skyline and impacts on the special character of the AHLV would be low.

71. The Wear Valley AHLV also contains a number of Historic Parks and Gardens including several which appear on English Heritage’s Register of Parks and Gardens of National Interest. The proposed turbine would not be visible from the nearest (Croxdale) but would be visible from the northern part of Burn Hall and much of Brancepeth Castle. The turbine would be visible as a small feature on the skyline at distances of over 10km, and would not feature in any formal vistas. The impacts on these designated landscapes would therefore be low.

72. Adverse landscape impact is not considered to be such that the application site’s careful development is unacceptable and as such the proposal would not be contrary to SBLP Policies E1 or E15.

Impact on heritage assets

73. Landscape officers observe that the upper part of the turbine (around 30m) would be visible on the horizon when viewing Durham Cathedral from Wharton Park. This would approximate to about half the rotor diameter appearing above the Coxhoe Bank Plantation, and as such, it would be a small but noticeable skyline feature.

74. The turbine would be some 12Km away, in a setting where there are electricity pylons with a height of some 50 metres, carrying two 400Kv electricity lines. Landscape officers are of the opinion that the level of impact in these views would be low and it is considered that the proposal would not be harmful to the setting of the Durham World Heritage Site.

75. There are three Scheduled Monuments within 3km of the site at Garmondsway, Coxhoe and Bishop Middleham. However, it is considered that given the topography and distances involved and the reduction in number of turbines, there would be no adverse effect on the setting of the monuments.

76. In assessing the proposed development regard must be had to the statutory duty imposed on the Local Planning Authority under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a conservation area. Whilst there are conservation areas at Trimdon Village and Bishop Middleham within 3km of the site of the turbine, it is considered, notwithstanding the view of the Design and Conservation officer, that the turbine would be sufficient distance away so as to ensure that the character and appearance of the aforementioned conservation areas would not be affected, and would, accordingly, be preserved, in compliance with Local Plan Policy E18. Accordingly, and having regard to the statutory duties imposed by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, it is considered that there would be no harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, and the scheme accords with the NPPF in this regard.

Residential amenity

Dominance

77. There are few residential properties close to the proposed turbines. The nearest non- involved properties are at West House Farm (745m), Catley Hill House (680m) and Trimdon House Lodge (860m).

78. At West House Farm, it would be around 745m from the proposed turbine (<10 x tip height) but in excess of 6x tip height, the distance at which turbines are expected to be visually dominant. There are habitable rooms on the eastern elevation of the property with views towards the turbine taking in the working farmyard and outbuildings. The turbine would be screened in summer and obscured in winter by intervening mature trees. There are attractive panoramic views to the south and west of the property looking away from the turbine. In these circumstances it is considered that the turbine would not be overbearing from this property.

79. Catley Hill House would have relatively direct views of the turbine from habitable rooms and gardens. Trimdon House Lodge would have oblique views towards the turbine from first floor windows; views from ground floor vantage points would be screened by vegetation. The latter two properties are at a sufficient distance (more than 8 and 11 times turbine height, respectively) that the turbines would not be significantly overbearing in terms of their impacts.

Noise

80. The NPPF at paragraph 123 requires that local planning authorities consider the impact of noise relating to new development giving rise to health and amenity issues for adjacent residents.

81. The PPG recommends the use of ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97). It describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours. Among other things, this document states that noise from wind farms should be limited to 5dB (A) above background noise for both day and night-time periods. The now cancelled PPS24, former national planning guidance in relation to noise, advised that a change of 3dB (A) is the minimum perceptible to the human ear under normal conditions. Thus it is not intended that there should be no perceptible noise at the nearest properties, rather the 5dB (A) limit is designed to strike a balance between the impact of noise from turbines and the need to ensure satisfactory living conditions for those individuals who might be exposed to it. The ETSU guidance also recommends that both day and night time lower fixed limits can be increased to 45dB(A) where the occupier of the affected property has some financial involvement in the wind farm.

82. During the course of the application, the turbine manufacturers provided new technical noise information based on the installation of such turbines elsewhere. The modelling suggests that the proposed wind turbine would not exceed the relevant ETSU-R-97 noise limits at any of the nearest residential dwellings, with nos.19 and 20 South Terrace most affected, experiencing noise levels of 34.98dB at wind speeds of 10m/s. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers have raised no objections to the scheme, subject to appropriately worded planning conditions being imposed on planning permission.

83. It is considered therefore that the development would comply with the noise levels established in the ETSU-R-97 guidelines, and such compliance could be ensured by condition. It is considered that any detrimental effect on local residents through noise associated with the proposed wind turbine would not be sufficient to refuse planning permission.

Shadow Flicker

84. Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known as ‘shadow flicker’, and only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a window.

85. A property must be within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine, some 540m in this case, in order to experience shadow flicker. The applicant has identified that the most likely affected properties would be those at West House Farm itself (which is around 550m from the proposed turbine), which could potentially experience shadow flicker affects up to 30 hours annually. However, this would be a worst case scenario effect and takes no account of the large farm buildings and trees between the turbines and the properties. If shadow flicker does occur, it is considered that agreed measures would provide appropriate mitigation, the most suitable being computer programming to cease operation at times when shadow flicker would occur.

86. Subject to the use of appropriate conditions, it is considered that any detrimental effect on local residents through incidences of shadow flicker would not be sufficient to refuse planning permission.

Nature conservation

87. Ecology officers have advised that they have considered in detail the submitted Ecological Assessment which accompanied the original application and have raised no objections to the proposal noting their satisfaction with the methodology and results of the assessment. Conditions are, however, suggested to flesh out the broad mitigation strategy, which includes additional bat roosts and reduction of maintenance of hedgerows to make them more attractive for bats to forage away from the turbines and a condition to protect breeding birds during any vegetation clearance. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with advice contained in the NPPF.

88. Whilst an objection had been received from Durham Bird Club to the two turbine scheme, specifically in relation to the impact and need for survey work in relation to Corn Bunting, it is considered that as the species is not especially protected in law, and bearing in mind the safeguards through the aforementioned condition, it would not be necessary to require additional survey work in relation to this specific species of bird, and this view is supported by Ecology officers.

Aviation

89. Wind turbines may represent a risk of collision with low flying aircraft and interfere with the proper operation of radar. The rotation of turbine blades would be detected on an airport’s primary radar creating clutter, which could be highly distracting for air traffic control. Developments within a specified radius of major airports and aerodromes are subject to mandatory consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and/or the Ministry of Defence and the airport.

90. The original application highlighted that there were no objections from Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley Airports and the Ministry of Defence. Subject to the imposition of two planning conditions relating to the agreement and implementation of a mitigation strategy as requested by Durham Tees Valley Airport, it was considered that the proposed wind turbines would not pose a risk to aviation safety. It was reported that no response had been received from Fishburn Airfield noting that the owners of the airfield were also the applicants.

91. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF when considering the identification of suitable areas for renewable and low carbons sources directs decision makers to National Policy statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure read with relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure, including that on aviation impacts which states that it is essential that the safety of UK aerodromes, aircraft and airspace is not adversely affected by new energy infrastructure.

92. Following the Committee’s resolution in October 2015 the Council received a number of representations from individuals and companies with aviation interests, including Fishburn Aviation Limited who took over the management of Fishburn Airfield in February 2015 from the landowner who had been one of the applicants. The applicants sought to address the aviation concerns raised by objectors (as summarised above). In response the Council commissioned Osprey to undertake an independent aviation impact assessment. The report concludes that operations at Fishburn would be affected by the construction of the two turbines as aircraft routinely take off and land into wind. It was considered highly unlikely that aircraft flying the published ground track of the visual circuit at circuit height would be able to achieve the required vertical separation of the northern turbine. Although minimum clearance of both the turbines might be achieved and avoidance laterally may be possible; human factors, emergencies, poor visibility, avoidance of noise sensitive areas, pilot error and distraction could lead to a potentially unsafe situation. Alterations to the visual circuit of the airfield are considered but problems associated with this are highlighted.

93. In response, the applicants amended the application to exclude the southern turbine considering that the removal of Turbine 2 from the proposal eliminates all possibility of turbulence from the proposed development affecting aircraft operating at Fishburn.

94. Osprey has assessed the single turbine proposal and the potential impact that the planned turbine would have on operations conducted at Fishburn Airfield. Osprey’s opinion on the effect the revised planning application will have to Fishburn Airfield has not changed from the original view on the two turbines. The concerns for flight safety implications of the single turbine operating so close to Fishburn Airfield remain. Although the removal of one of the turbines lessens the potential effect of turbulence being encountered across the airfield, it does not totally remove it. Approximately 50% of the aircraft operated at Fishburn are of the microlight and very light sport aircraft types. The effects of turbulence are of particular concern to those involved in very light sport aviation and in certain circumstances turbulence could potentially cause a loss of control that would be impossible to recover from. The report considers that pilots would be confronted with a physical obstacle within their normal circuit path when operating at the airfield. Safety concerns would be increased for all aircraft operating at the airfield especially in emergency situations and in poor weather conditions. Furthermore, for aircraft descending into the circuit area the turbine would introduce uncertainty to the pilot as they reduce height; integrate into the circuit area whilst visually avoiding other aircraft. 95. Osprey consider that the operators of Fishburn Airfield have made every reasonable attempt to safeguard activities undertaken at the airfield and do have concerns of the future viability of the aerodrome if the turbine development is approved. The CAA CAP 764 Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines cannot be ignored; the CAA considers that if the aerodrome operator advises that the aerodromes established amenity would be affected by a development, then the operator’s advice can generally be considered as expert testimony in the context of the operation of the aerodrome. The Fishburn Airfield operators are taking guidance from the CAA to safeguard their location from the effect of possible adverse development and have entered a consultation procedure with the Council.

96. Due to the height of the turbines consultation was undertaken with Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley Airports, as well as the Ministry of Defence and the Met Office. In addition National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and the Civil Aviation Authority were consulted. Newcastle Airport raised no objection to the proposed turbines. Durham Tees Valley Airport initially raised objections, citing concerns that there is already a significant amount of wind turbines in the area, and any additional turbines would drastically increase the amount of radar clutter in the area which can be distracting for air traffic controllers, therefore posing a risk to aviation safety. The applicants had, however, engaged with the airport, in an attempt to address their concerns. Accordingly, the airport withdrew its objection, subject to the imposition of two planning conditions relating to the agreement and implementation of a mitigation strategy. No response has been received from either Airport to the consultation on the single turbine proposal.

97. The Ministry of Defence originally did not originally object to the two turbine proposal but its position changed following the 2016 reconsultation. However, the Ministry of Defence objects to the single turbine proposal considering that the proposed turbine would have a significant and detrimental effect on operations and on the provision of air traffic services at RAF Leeming. The Met Office raises no objection but has concerns regarding degradation to the quality of Met Officer services and requests that if planning permission is granted that a condition applied preventing the commencement of development until measures have been agreed to minimise the impact of the development on the radar. The National Air Traffic Services (NATS) has confirmed that it has no safeguarding objection to the proposal. The Civil Aviation Authority has been consulted on the application but has not commented.

98. Aviation safety is a major concern regarding this application. The views received from experienced pilots and aviation specialists have raised serious concerns which have led to the applicant and the Council commissioning specialist aviation advisors. Given the real concerns raised by the close proximity of a wind turbine to an active airfield officers consider that the proposed turbine would pose an unacceptable risk to aviation safety contrary to SBLP Policy D1a given the relationship to adjacent land uses and activities, a Policy considered to be compliant with the NPPF. In addition objectors have raised concerns that there would be adverse impacts upon the airfield and local economic effects should operations be reduced or the airfield close as a result of planning permission being granted for the turbine.

Highway safety

99. The Highway Authority has advised that they have no objection in principle to the erection of the wind turbine, however, they would require the imposition of a number of planning conditions which relate to the construction phase in terms of the delivery of the turbine to site and the provision of an appropriate visibility splay at the junction with the C23. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy D1 of the Local Plan. TV and other Communication Interference

100. Due to the operation and scale of wind turbines, schemes have the potential to interfere with analogue TV signals. The applicant has carried out an assessment in accordance with adopted practice in this regard. The assessment has concluded that a large number of properties, based on a worst case scenario, could potentially have their TV signals affected by the proposed development.

101. It should be noted that loss of TV reception is most likely to be an issue for properties using analogue signals. As roll-out of digital services in the area was completed in 2012 this is considered to not be an issue. For those houses currently using satellite or cable TV there would be no significant impacts to TV reception. Nevertheless, should it be demonstrated that the wind turbine has an adverse effect on television reception; the applicant would undertake suitable mitigation measures, at its expense, to return reception to its pre-development quality. Such measures would include re- aligning existing aerials, fitting a booster unit to the aerial, or supply of a cable or satellite service. The use of an appropriate planning condition can be attached to any grant of planning permission to ensure such mitigation occurs.

Degree of Community Support

102. A Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) made 18th June 2015 set out new considerations to be applied to wind energy development. The PPG has also been updated to reflect the content of the WMS. Where an application was already valid at the point of this new guidance emerging then transitional provisions apply. The guidance advices that with regards to this application local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing. The PPG advises that whether the proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local authority. No definition as to what constitutes the affected local communities is provided.

103. It should be noted that there has been no change to the NPPF as a result of the Ministerial Statement, therefore this remains the primary source of national policy for onshore wind energy development. Accordingly, very significant weight must be attached to Part 10 of the NPPF, and in comparison less weight afforded to the WMS and PPG, although they are material considerations.

104. Based upon the public responses received on the application, there are 131 letters of objection and six letters of support, together with letters of objection from Fishburn Parish Council, Bishop Middleham & Mainsforth Parish Council, Sedgefield Town Council and Trimdon Parish Council outlining community opposition. The matter of community support is therefore weighted against the proposal and in the context of the area is not in itself a significant level of public interest in the application but the main concerns relate to aviation safety, a matter raised by experienced individuals and specialist aviation organisations. Accordingly, the weight to be given to the matter of community support or otherwise is considered great on this basis.

105. The objections raised in relation to environmental matters have either been addressed within the application submission or in the opinion of officers would not result in any significantly harmful impacts that would warrant refusal of the application. However, matters of aviation safety raise significant concerns. Offices consider that by reason of its location close to Fishburn Airfield, scale and nature, would cause unacceptable aviation safety risks to users that cannot be adequately mitigated a view endorsed by an independent specialist aviation consultant. There is significant opposition to the proposal from the local Parish and Town Council, members of the public with aviation experience as well as aviation organisations, and officers being satisfied that relevant matters are appropriately addressed, that the matter of community support should be a decisive factor in this particular case.

106. Concerns raised by local residents regarding loss of property value cannot be given any weight in the decision making process.

CONCLUSION

107. The Council's County Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for two wind turbines at its meeting in October 2015, however, the application has been reassessed in light of concerns raised regarding aviation safety and also with respect to the reduction from two to one turbine.

108. It is concluded that the development would not have significant adverse physical impacts on the fabric of the landscape, and although widely visible, impacts would fall largely on the landscape of the limestone escarpment ridge. It is accepted that the proposed turbine would be a prominent skyline feature, but it would be seen in close association with major overhead services and they would not be out of scale or out of keeping with the local landscape. The proposals would have visual impacts on some Areas of High Landscape Value and registered Historic Parks and Gardens, but those impacts are not considered to be adverse and would not bring the proposals into conflict with policy.

109. It is acknowledged that there are existing windfarm developments in the area, particularly to the south east. Whilst the proposal would contribute to the cumulative visual impact, the addition of turbines of smaller scale than the Walkway and Butterwick Moor developments and at Simonside Farm in the same landscape zone.is considered to not be significant in this respect. Similarly, it is acknowledged that the proposed turbine would lie close to a number of settlements but would not dominate its visual environment. The proposal is also considered unlikely to contribute in a significant way to the cumulative visual impact of windfarm developments in this part of the County.

110. Aviation safety is a major concern regarding this application. The views received from experienced pilots and aviation specialists have raised serious concerns which have led to the applicant and the Council each commissioning specialist aviation advisors. Given the real concerns raised by the close proximity of a wind turbine to an active airfield, officers consider that the proposed turbine would pose an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

111. The proposal has generated considerable public interest, with a significant number of letters of objection having been received with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed development and most significantly the perceived unacceptable risk to aviation safety. Concerns expressed regarding the proposal have been taken fully into account, and carefully balanced against the scheme’s wider social, economic and community benefits. In this case officers consider that they raise issues that justify planning permission being withheld. The proposal does not have public support and it cannot be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed.

112. It is considered unlikely that there would be any impact upon residential amenity, and mitigation is proposed for protected wildlife species. However, the objections on grounds of aviation safety are of concern and cannot be addressed through appropriate conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the NPPF and relevant Local Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its location close to Fishburn Airfield, scale and nature, would cause unacceptable aviation safety risks to users of the airfield that cannot be adequately mitigated, contrary to Policy D1a of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

2. The proposal does not have public support and it has not been demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed. As such the proposal would be in conflict with the Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June 2015, and thus Paragraph 033 of the Planning Practice Guidance.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its recommendation to refuse 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 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information submitted  National Planning Policy Framework  Planning Practice Guidance  Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996  Wind Farm and Landscape Capacity Study: East Durham Landscape and Tees Plain (ARUP, 2008).  Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development (GONE 2003),  Statutory, internal and public consultation responses 7/2011/0293/DM Amended Description – Installation of one (previously two) 500kw wind turbines with Planning Services ancillary development including access tracks and crane pads 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 Scale NTS

Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/15/02326/OUT

Outline proposal for up to 135 Dwellings, 13 no. Research & Development, Industrial and Light Industrial FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: Buildings (12,520 sq.m total, B1 and B2 use), cemetery extension and associated landscaping (all matters reserved except access).

NAME OF APPLICANT: Esh Group

ADDRESS: Land North Of West Chilton Terrace, Chilton

ELECTORAL DIVISION: Chilton

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site measures 11.20 ha in area and is located to the northern edge of the village of Chilton, in the south of the County. The site currently consists of agricultural land triangular in shape. The site is bordered to the west by the A167, beyond this lies Chilton Industrial Estate. To the east the site is bordered by an unclassified highway and path/cycle way is located (the former A167), beyond which lies agricultural fields and Chilton Cemetery. To the south a residential development for 135 dwellings is currently under construction, directly abutting the application site. A recreation area consisting of playing fields and play equipment is located to the south western boundary of the site while four residential properties adjoin the site along its south eastern boundary. The application site also includes a parcel of land in an agricultural use measuring 2ha in area, to the south of Chilton Cemetery past the eastern boundary of the main site.

2. The site lies outside of any nationally or locally designated landscape, heritage or ecological areas. The site is located within the HSE major hazard site consultation zone for a Northern Gas Networks distributor point. There are no Public Rights of Way within the vicinity of the site. Mill Wood Local Wildlife Site is located 0.65miles to the south west. Great Chilton Farm House a grade II Listed Building lies 0.64miles to the east of the site, however are no interconnecting views been these. Six trees protected by tree preservation orders are located along the southern boundary of the site. The Proposal

3. This application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access for the erection of 135 dwellings and the erection of 13no. research and design units and associated landscaping. An indicative site layout suggests that the residential element would be located to the south eastern portion of the site, while the commercial/industrial element would be located to the northern and western boundary to the A167. A landscaped area would separate the two uses, containing SUDS attenuation ponds while a landscape buffer would be provided to the A167 boundary.

4. Vehicular access would be taken off the existing unclassified highway in two locations, either side of the existing residential dwellings. The existing footway and cycle path extending off the un-classified highway would then be used to serve the industrial/commercial element of the proposals delivering a total of 12,520 m2 of floor space. The balance of the proposed uses would be B1(b) 4,600 m2, B1(c) 2,700m2 and B2 5,220 m2. It is proposed that 15% of the dwellings would be offered on an affordable basis.

5. The application sets out that the development of part of the site for residential development could provide a meaningful cross subsidy to assist in bringing forward the development of the employment part of the site.

6. The cemetery extension would primarily be served by an access to the existing cemetery, however a secondary vehicular access taken off the un-classified highway is proposed.

7. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee as it constitutes a major residential development proposal over 4 hectares in area and incorporates non-residential development of over 10,000 m2. .

PLANNING HISTORY

8. There is no planning history associated with this site, however an outline planning application for business and general industry, formation of a health centre and erection of 230 dwellings was submitted then subsequently withdrawn in 2010.

9. Planning permission was granted in 2104 for the erection of 135 dwellings on the site directly to south of the application site, this is currently being developed by Gleeson Homes.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

10. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. 11. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.

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

13. 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.

14. NPPF Part 6 – Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes. To boost significantly the supply of housing, applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities.

15. 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.

16. 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.

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. 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

20. 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; determining a planning application; flood risk; health and well-being; land stability; housing and economic development needs assessments; housing and economic land availability assessment; light pollution; natural environment; neighbourhood planning; 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 Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (SBLP) 1996

21. Saved Policy E1 – Landscape Protection and Enhancement – Normally requires that landscape features such as hedgerows, woods, streams and buildings fit into the landscape scheme for any development in the southern and eastern lowlands landscape.

22. Saved Policy E11 – Safeguarding sites of Nature Conservation Interest – Sets out that development detrimental to the interest of nature conservation will not be normally permitted, unless there are reasons for the development that would outweigh the need to safeguard the site, there are no alternative suitable sites for the proposed development elsewhere in the county and remedial measures have been taken to minimise any adverse effects.

23. Saved Policy E15 – Safeguarding woodlands, trees and hedgerows – Sets out that the council expect development to retain important groups of trees and hedgerow and replace any trees which are lost.

24. Saved Policy H8 – Residential Frameworks for larger villages – Outlines that within the residential framework of Chilton residential development will normally be approved.

25. Saved Policy H19 –Provision of a range of house types and sizes including Affordable Housing – Sets out that the Council will encourage developers to provide a variety of house types and sizes including the provision of affordable housing where a need is demonstrated. 26. Saved Policy L2 -Open Space in New Housing Development - sets out minimum standards for informal play space and amenity space within new housing developments of ten or more dwellings.

27. Saved Policy l4 – Extension to Cemeteries – Sets out that Planning permission will normally be granted for the extension of a cemetery onto adjoining land provided that it would not be harmful to the local landscape

28. Saved Policy IB1 – Types of Industry and Business Areas – Identifies that the Council will seek to maintain in appropriate locations a range of land available for Industry and business.

29. Saved Policy IB2- Designations of Type of Industrial Estates - Designates a range of industrial estates for different types of uses, including Green Lane which is designated for Prestige Business uses.

30. Saved Policy IB5 –Acceptable uses in Prestige Business Areas – Sets out that in prestige business areas business, general industry and warehousing will generally be considered acceptable.

31. Saved Policy D1 – General Principles for the layout and design of new developments – Sets out that all new development and redevelopment within the District should be designed and built to a high standard and should contribute to the quality and built environment of the surrounding area.

32. Saved Policy D2 – Design for people – Sets out that the requirements of a development should be taken into account in its layout and design, with particular attention given to personal safety and security of people.

33. Saved Policy D3 - Design for access - Requires that developments should make satisfactory and safe provision for pedestrians, cyclists, cars and other vehicles.

34. Saved Policy D4 – Layout and Design of new Industrial and Business Development – Sets out that the layout and design of all new industrial and business development will normally be expected to have a high standard of building design, accommodate traffic generated by the development without causing danger or inconvenience to other road users and have an appropriate standard of landscaping including screening of open storage areas.

35. Saved Policy D5 – Layout of housing development – Requires that the layout of new housing development should provide a safe and attractive environment, have a clearly defined road hierarchy, make provision for appropriate areas of public open space either within the development site or in its locality, make provision for adequate privacy and amenity and have well designed walls and fences.

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/3269/Easington-Local-Plan

EMERGING PLAN:

32. 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 (CDP) was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 18 February 2015, however that Report was quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. In accordance with the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP and a new plan being prepared. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight. As the new plan progresses through the stages of preparation it will begin to accrue weight.

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES:

33. Chilton Town Council – Offer support for the planning application.

34. Highway Authority – Raise no objections. It is advised that the submitted Transport Assessment is considered sound and demonstrates that the network can operate under stable condition subject to mitigation measures at the A167/A689 roundabout. This would include the provision junction widening works and amended road markings to encourage a two lane entry to the junction. The proposed access arrangements onto the unclassified highway are considered acceptable. Conditions are recommended in relation to the detailing of the extended access up to the commercial element of the scheme and in relation to the preparation of travel plans.

35. Highways England – Offer no objection advising that any impact on Junction 60 of the A1(M) would not be severe.

36. Northumbrian Water Limited – Advise that sewerage capacity improvement works are being undertaken within Chilton and once complete can accommodate surface and foul water flows from the development. The Council as Lead Local Flood Authority should consider flood risk from the development.

37. Environment Agency – Raise no objection to the application but advise that a condition should be placed on any planning approval controlling where burials should be undertaken in respect of the cemetery. It is highlighted that the adjacent biomass power station has a visible plume which may be aesthetically undesirable for residents of the proposed new housing.

38. Drainage and Coastal Protection – Offer no objections in principle to the scheme providing a detailed scheme of surface water disposal is submitted limiting discharge to greenfield run-off rates utilising sustainable drainage techniques.

39. Natural England – Offer no Comments

40. Health and Safety Executive – Do not advise against the granting of planning permission on safety grounds.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:

41. Spatial Policy – Raise no objections advising that site is allocated for employment purposes within the SBLP, the commercial element of this proposal would therefore comply with local plan policies. It is advised that a recent employment land review (ELR) recommended that this site be de allocated in the emerging County Durham Plan. However, this application indicates a demand for development on the site whilst the ELR carries no overriding decision making weight. In relation to the housing element the NPPF at Paragraph 49 clarifies that Local Plan policies relating to housing supply cannot be considered up-to-date if there is not a demonstrable 5- year supply of deliverable housing sites. A 5 year supply of housing cannot be demonstrated and therefore policies within the SBLP where they relate to housing land supply are out-of-date. The housing element of the development must therefore be considered in relation to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

42. Landscape – Offer no objection, but recommend that the layout is revised to increase the width of structural planting to the A167.

43. Landscape (arboriculture) – Advise that there are five trees on site that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, these are indicated to be retained but should be adequately protected during the development. It is also advised that an existing hedgerow along the highway should be retained and afforded appropriate protection.

44. Design and Conservation – Offer no objection to the application, minor design and layout changes are suggested.

45. Ecology – Offer no objections, advising that the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey is sound and the indicated green space has the potential to enhance the overall biodiversity of the site. It is recommended that a planting strategy and lighting strategy should be agreed with the local planning authority.

46. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Pollution Control) – Offer no objections following the submission of a noise impact assessment, advising that the assessment demonstrates that the proposed residential dwellings would not likely be adversely impacted by the industrial units. Conditions are also recommended to control the working hours of the industrial units and to detail any external plant. A condition is recommended to control the timings of works and the suppression of noise and dust during construction.

47. Housing – Identify that 10% affordable housing should be provided on the site with an appropriate mix of affordable rent and affordable home ownership.

48. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) – Advise a conditional approach in relation to land contamination.

49. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – Advise the development would likely exceed the thresholds requiring the undertaking of an air quality impact assessment. However, given the low background levels of contaminants recorded at the site a conditional approach could be adopted in this instance requiring an impact assessment which should detail mitigation measures where appropriate.

50. Archaeology – Advise that following the completion of a geo physical survey of the site, trial trenching would need to be undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to ensure any archaeological interest in the site is fully recorded and understood, this could be adopted on a phased approach.

51. Education – Advise that there are sufficient primary and secondary school places available in the area to accommodate pupils from the development.

52. Public Rights of Way – Advise that there are no registered rights of way through or abutting the site.

PUBLIC RESPONSES:

53. The application has been publicised by way of press notice, site notice, and individual notification letters to neighbouring residents. 4 letters of objection have been received. The issues raised are summarised below:  There are sufficient new build properties within Chilton.  Lack of facilities in Chilton to support new families, only two community stores, the health centre is only open part time and the school has reached saturation point.  The proposal would develop green fields/green belt, open spaces and result in the loss of recreational areas.  The development is unacceptable in its entirety and detrimental to the surrounding environment.  The proposal would result in traffic generation on a quiet cul-de-sac and loss of highway safety.  Lack of demand for industrial/commercial units,

The above is not intended to repeat every point made and 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: https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NS4WULGDLNL00

APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

54. This outline proposal represents a mixed use development which will contribute to the economic development of Chilton and assist in the stabilisation and development of the local community. It is designed to underpin a raft of regeneration and planning measures currently planned or underway in Chilton.

55. This application is put forward as a response to both local and national priorities to develop and provide 135 units of much needed housing across a range of tenures, to encourage an extended choice, and provide affordable housing.

56. The development of a Business Park is consistent with the employment allocation in saved policies contained in the local plan. The floorspace will provide an opportunity for employment in the Chilton area and the multiplier effects accruing from the development as a whole will sustain and encourage other investment in the town. In these respects it has clear and important links to the NPPF.

57. Throughout its development, Esh Developments has engaged in an extensive dialogue with, stakeholders and community interests including the former Sedgefield BC, Durham CC and Chilton TC. The application incorporates a response to the representations and comments made during this process, which involved meetings, public exhibitions and presentations to the town council and stakeholders and met with widespread approval with almost two out of three persons in support of the overall aims of the development.

58. In addition to the intrinsic advantages that will flow from the development, the development will promote a high quality and sustainable design that will make a significant and positive contribution to the appearance of Chilton at its important northern gateway and serve as a worthy introduction to the place.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

59. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that if regard is to be had to the development plan, decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the policies contained therein are material considerations that should be taken into account in decision-making. Other material considerations include representations received. In this context, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of development, layout and design, residential amenity, access and highway safety, ecology, flooding and drainage and other issues.

The Principle of Development

The Development Plan

49. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material planning consideration. The Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (SBLP) remains a statutory component of the development plan and the starting point for determining applications as set out at Paragraph 12 of the NPPF. However, the NPPF advises at Paragraph 215 that greater weight may be given to local plan policies depending on their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

50. NPPF Paragraph 211 advises that Local Plan policies should not be considered out- of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. However, notwithstanding this, it is considered that a policy can be out-of-date if it is based upon evidence which is not up-to-date/is time expired.

The NPPF

51. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise):

- approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

- where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:

i) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

ii) specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

52. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines the Government’s objective of ensuring that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to maintain a five-year supply of deliverable sites (against housing requirements) thus boosting the supply of housing.

53. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In turn where a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated then Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged and an application is to be assessed in this context. Five Year Housing Land Supply

54. The housing trajectory associated with the withdrawn County Durham Plan (CDP) is no longer relevant and similarly the CDP Objectively Assessed Need (OAN - for housing) figure no longer exists. This raises the issue of what is the requirement against which the supply is to be measured in order to calculate whether or not a 5 year housing supply exists.

55. Recently the Council has sought to accord with advice in the Planning Practice Guidance regarding OAN (PPG Revision date: 06 03 2014 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 3-031-20140306): ‘Where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight, information provided in the latest full assessment of housing needs should be considered. But the weight given to these assessments should take account of the fact they have not been tested or moderated against relevant constraints. Where there is no robust recent assessment of full housing needs, the household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should be used as the starting point, but the weight given to these should take account of the fact that they have not been tested (which could evidence a different housing requirement to the projection, for example because past events that affect the projection are unlikely to occur again or because of market signals) or moderated against relevant constraints (for example environmental or infrastructure).”

56. The household projections published by the DCLG give a starting point for a housing requirement of 1,308 dwellings per annum. Applying the appropriate under delivery and 20% buffer against the requirement derived from the DCLG household projections the Council has been able to demonstrate a supply of over 5 years of deliverable housing land. It has been recognised, however, that the DCLG requirement has not represented a full OAN as it does not take into account market signals nor has it been publicly tested. However, the exercise has served as a “proxy”, providing a context to quantify the supply position and inform on decision taking on recent housing applications.

57. On 15 June 2016 a report into the County Durham Plan Issues and Options (the first stage of the re-emerging plan process) was presented at Cabinet. The report was approved at Cabinet and consultation on the CDP Issues and Options commenced on 24 June. In relation to housing, the Issues and Options present three alternative assessments of housing needs, each based on average net completions up to 2033 (the end of the CDP plan period). The three alternatives are:

 1,533 houses per year (29,127 houses by 2033)  1,629 houses per year (30,951 houses by 2033)  1,717 houses per year (32,623 houses by 2033)

58. Set against the lowest figure the Council has been able to demonstrate a supply of over 5 years of deliverable housing land, against the middle figure around about 5 years’ worth supply and against the highest figure the Council is short of 5 years, though not significantly so at around 4 and a half years of supply.

59. Again none of the three scenarios within the Issues and Options (nor the figure derived from the DCLG household projections) have been publicly tested. However, it does serve to demonstrate that set against varying potential figures, one of which will be identified as OAN following consultation in the Preferred Option Stage Local Plan, the Council has a robust supply of housing which even in the most exacting scenario is not significantly short of 5 years. Accordingly, it is considered that less weight should be afforded to the benefits of delivering new housing than would otherwise be the case if the supply position was significantly less than five years. Nevertheless, the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF Paragraph 14) is engaged, as the Council does not have a five-year supply in the terms of the NPPF requirements and additionally the local plan may be out of date for other reasons, as discussed below, and will only be rebutted where a proposal would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, both in the form of a contribution to housing supply and any other benefits, or if specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

Proposed Housing

60. The housing would be located on land that is allocated in the SBLP as employment land, and as such, the proposals would conflict with SBLP Policy IB3. The SBLP, under Policy H8, seeks to identify suitable settlement for housing development, with identified residential frameworks within which housing development would normally be acceptable. In this case, the proposed housing would be located outside of the identified residential framework for Chilton, and as such the proposals therefore draw no support from this Policy. It is clear that the policy is in NPPF Paragraph 49 terms, a Policy for the supply of housing. The Secretary of State has previously concurred with a Planning Inspector who considered that where policies for the supply of housing, such as Policy H8, are based on housing figures of some age, and which did not represent an objectively assessed housing need, are "out of date" irrespective of the position on 5 year housing land supply. Given the age of the SBLP and housing supply figures that informed it, the housing supply policies therein do not reflect an up to date objective assessment of need. Policy H8 is therefore considered “out-of-date”.

61. The recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Richborough case, emphasises that policies in Paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF do not make “out of date” policies for the supply of housing irrelevant in the determination of a planning application. Nor do they prescribe how much weight should be given to such policies in the decision, this being a matter for the decision-maker, having regard to advice at paragraph 215 of the NPPF. Policy H8 is considered consistent with the NPPF in terms of directing housing to the most sustainable settlements, while seeking to protect the open countryside. Accordingly, it is considered that while out-of-date, moderate weight can be afforded to Policy H8.

62. On the basis of the above, the proposed residential development is contrary to Policy IB3 in relation to the sites employment allocation, the relevant policy for the supply of housing is out of date, and as a result of the current housing land supply position the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. As a result the acceptability of the proposed residential development rests on whether any adverse impacts of approving the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether there are any specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted.

Proposed Employment Uses

63. In this respect the site is identified within the SBLP under Policy IB3 as a prestige business area. The SBLP identifies prestige business areas under Policy IB1 as high quality major industrial sites capable of competing against attractive sites elsewhere in the country. SBLP Policy IB5 sets out that business, general industry and warehousing will be acceptable within Prestige Business Areas. Whilst the Policy sets out that retail uses will be resisted, other uses will be decided taking account the purpose of prestige business uses. 64. The NPPF and NPPG sets out that sufficient employment land should be made available for employment purposes to encourage sustainable economic development. SBLP Policies IB1 and IB3 are therefore considered compliant with national policy and guidance for the purposes of Paragraph 215 of the NPPF and can therefore be afforded full weight in the decision making process. SBLP Policy IB5 is considered partially compliant, as national policy suggests a more flexible approach to alternative uses on employment sites and therefore should only be afforded moderate weight.

65. The proposed commercial/industrial uses of the development conform to SBLP Policies IB1, IB3 and IB5. The NPPF sets out at Paragraph 22 that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of employment land where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being developed for that purpose. As part of the evidence base for the now withdrawn County Durham Plan, the Council has carried out an Employment Land Review (ELR) which considered the locations that needed to be retained to maintain the required level of provision. This highlighted that there is oversupply of employment land within the A1 market corridor and it was recommended that this site be de-allocated.

66. Although the ELR is the most up to date needs assessment it was undertaken in 2012 and is currently under review. Whilst the ELR is a consideration which needs to be taken into account, it is not considered to be the overriding factor in the determination of the application. As advised by Spatial Policy officers the bringing forward of this application proposal represents an indication of demand for commercial development in this location, whilst noting that there is a high occupancy rate within Chilton Industrial Estate. Whilst there may be demand, this has not resulted in the site being developed for its allocated use, and as such, the applicants have set out that in order to bring forward the employment proposals, they consider that the proposed housing could cross-subsidise the proposed commercial/industrial units, thus ensuring delivery of the employment allocation to the benefit of the locality and the County. In the event of both the housing and the employment elements being acceptable, this matter would be the subject of a phasing condition.

67. It is also considered that the provision of commercial units in this location would not adversely impact on the delivery of other planned employment land in the area due to the quantum of development and uses proposed. Overall the commercial/industrial element of the proposal is considered acceptable subject to further consideration of the developments impacts.

Proposed Cemetery use

68. SBLP Policy L4 sets out that planning permission will normally be granted for the extension of a cemetery onto adjoining land provided that it would not be harmful to the local landscape. The NPPF does not specifically refer to cemeteries or graveyards but does recognise the importance on maintaining valued landscapes and the character of surrounding areas at Parts 7 and 11. SBLP Policy L4 is therefore considered consistent with NPPF and can be afforded full weight in the decision making process. Given that the cemetery extension will adjoin the existing, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle subject to an assessment of its impact on the surrounding landscape.

Conclusion on the Principle of the Development

69. The industrial/commercial element of the proposal would in principle would comply with SBLP Policies IB1, IB3 and IB5, representing industrial and commercial development on an allocated employment site. Although the ELR suggests that the site should be deallocated for employment purposes, this does not preclude the site being brought forward for employment uses. Similarly, in relation to the cemetery extension SBLP Policy L4 offers support in principle for this element subject to an assessment of the visual impacts as considered below. As described above, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged in relation to the proposed hosing, and as such, the principle of development would be acceptable, unless having regard to the subsequent assessment of all the material planning issues, there are any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether there are any specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted.

Locational Sustainability of the Site

70. The County Durham Settlement Study is an evidence based document which categorises Chilton as 2nd tier settlement (larger villages and smaller towns) in recognition that it is generally well served by services with access to work opportunities, health facilities, school, shopping and leisure facilities. It is therefore considered that permitting housing development of an appropriate scale on this site on the edge of Chilton is consistent with the role the settlement plays within the County Durham hierarchy and would represent a sustainable, accessible location. Furthermore the commercial/industrial element of the proposal would complement the existing industrial estate and would improve the sustainability of the settlement in this respect, providing employment opportunities for local residents.

71. From the application site, Chilton Primary School is located a distance of approximately 700m, a convenience store 300m away, a post office 660m away and the doctors surgery is located 400m away, while a bus stop is located 220m away providing links to other settlements including secondary schools in Ferryhill and Spennymoor. The Council’s Schools Organisation Manager now advises that there are sufficient primary and secondary school places to accommodate the additional pupils likely to be produced from this development and the impact of the development would now not need to be mitigated in this respect. Chilton benefits from a recently rebuilt health centre which operates on a part time basis indicating that it could increase capacity should demand dictate

72. Overall, it is considered that Chilton has a reasonable array of services and facilities, adequate to serve the development proposed and that these are within relatively easy reach of the site. The development would be of a scale commensurate with the role of Chilton in the settlement hierarchy. No objections are therefore raised having regards to the locational sustainability of the site. Although the NPPF encourages the use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed, it does not preclude the development of greenfield land.

Design, layout and the effect on the character of the surrounding area

73. SBLP Policies E1 and D1 requires that developments should be designed and built to a high standard which contributes to the quality of the built environment while also having an acceptable impact on the surrounding landscape of the area. This is reflected in Parts 7 and 11 of the NPPF which promotes good design and sets out that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. It is therefore considered that full weight can be afforded to SBLP Policies E1 and D5 due to their compliance with the NPPF in this respect. Therefore the key policy consideration in this matter is whether the site is read as an appropriate natural extension to the village, or is read as an incursion into the open countryside and represents good design.

74. In this respect, the site is physically connected to the built development of Chilton where to the south the development would directly abut a housing scheme under development. To the western boundary, the site abuts the A167, beyond this lies Chilton Industrial estate. This industrial estate is partially visible from the A167 providing a reference to built development, although screening is provided by a landscaping belt to the A167. To the western side of the development an un-named highway forms the boundary of the site and provides a degree of enclosure to the wider open countryside. The proposed cemetery extension would directly abut the existing cemetery. Although the layout is only indicative at this stage the scheme indicates two areas of structural landscaping, the first extending along the western boundary of the site and the second centrally within the site. This central landscaping would segregate the proposed commercial/industrial element and the proposed housing.

75. In considering the proposed development and effect on the character of the surrounding area Landscape officers have reviewed the scheme. It is advised that the key visual receptor is from the A167 southern approach from Chilton. Whilst no objections are raised regarding the development’s potential landscape impact in wider views, it is advised that the indicated landscaping buffer should be increased in width from the A167. This is due to the height of the A167 in relation to the application site and the curvature of the road alignment which allow some views over the site.

76. In relation to cemetery extension, this would directly abut the existing cemetery and would not be read as a prominent feature within the landscape due to existing hedgerows and trees along the eastern boundary. Minor landscaping would be expected to supplant this however this would be secured through any subsequent reserved matter application.

77. Overall, whilst the development would change the nature and appearance of the site, the site is not located within any designated landscape and any visual impact would be confined to the site’s locality. The indicated landscape mitigation would be effective in reducing the visual impact of the development. This would need detailing in any reserved matters application to increase its effectiveness. The indicated mitigation planting along the A167 would however need to be implemented at the appropriate stage to ensure screening at different stages of this development. It is recommended that this is secured by condition. The indicative site layout sets out that the existing mature trees, protected by tree preservation orders, could be retained in the development in accordance with SBLP Policy E15. This would be a key consideration of any reserved matters application, but it would nonetheless be appropriate to impose a condition seeking the protection of retained trees during construction.

78. SBLP Policies D1, D2, D4 and D5 seek to promote good design which relates well to the natural and built features of the site, the surrounding area and adjacent land uses. Parts 7 and 11 of the NPPF also seek to promote good design, while protecting and enhancing local environments. Paragraph 58 of the NPPF also 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. Due to their compliance significant weight can be afforded to saved Policies D1, D2, D4 and D5 of the SBLP in this respect 79. As identified above the commercial and residential uses would be separated by a central landscaped area. It is indicated that the residential area would be located in the south east portion of the site wrapping around the existing residential dwellings. It is indicated that the properties would be a mix of two storey detached and semi- detached brick built properties. The dwellings would likely be laid around a series of cul-de-sacs served of a main distributor link road. Centrally an area of amenity space, also serving as a SUD’s storage pond is indicated. Whilst noting the outline nature of the application it is considered that this would provide for an acceptable layout, with main elevations fronting out onto the internal road network, and where gable elevations front the highways, such as the edge of junctions, fenestration detailing or duel frontage properties are proposed to ensure an active frontage. This matter would however be fully controlled in any reserved matters application.

80. In relation to the industrial element, it is indicated that the units would be sited to the north eastern portion of the site, backing onto the A167, separated by a landscape buffer. Again whilst noting the outline nature of the application, this would provide for an acceptable layout, subject to further refinement and consideration in any reserved maters application.

81. Overall subject to the securing and detailing of the proposed landscaping of the site the development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance the surrounding area, while the indicated layout and house types could provide for an attractive cohesive development. The development is therefore considered to comply with SBLP D1, D2, D4 and D5 and Parts 7 and 11 of the NPPF subject to the attached conditions in relation the implementation of landscaping.

Residential Amenity

82. SBLP Policies D1 and D5 requires that the design and layout of development to have no serious adverse effect on the amenity of those living or working in the vicinity of the development site. 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 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. Whilst Part 11 seeks to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of pollution.

83. The indicative site layout for the housing element of the proposal demonstrates that separation distances in excess of 21m between habitable room windows to neighbouring residential dwellings can be achieved as advocated in the Local Plan. This would be subject to further scrutiny in any reserved matters application, along with ensuring that the development would achieve suitable internal layouts and separation distances.

84. Objections have been raised by local residents regarding the loss of views from the residential properties. While residents would experience a reduction in outlook, a loss of a view is not a material consideration and cannot be taken in to account in the determination of this application. Whilst the layout plan accompanying the application is only for indicative purposes it does demonstrate that appropriate separation distances can be provided between existing and proposed dwellings such that there would be no significant adverse effects in terms of loss of light or dominance. This would be controlled through a subsequent reserved matters submission. The proposed access points would be located either side of the existing residential properties and opposite to serve the cemetery, while commercial traffic would access directly in front of these properties. The increased movement associated with all elements of the development would reduce the current level of residential amenity experienced by these properties, however this reduction is not considered to be at a level that would justify refusal of the planning application on its own. The level of traffic generated would be comparable to other residential areas in terms of vehicular movements. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers offer no objections in relation to this matter.

85. The application is accompanied by a noise assessment report, the scope of which was to assess existing noise levels and consider the combined effect of this and the proposed industrial/commercial development on the existing and proposed residential development. The report demonstrates that the proposed central landscaping buffer would effectively mitigate the existing and proposed noise climate.

86. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers have assessed the submitted report and agree with its methodology and conclusions and raise no 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 regard 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 and existing residents. Further consideration would need to be given to this matter in any reserved matters application to ensure that adequate separation distance would remain.

87. While recognising that the Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers have additional controls outside of the planning system that deal with noise nuisance and other construction related disturbances, given the proximity of neighbouring residential properties, which directly adjoin the application site, some form of control is necessary. The issues raised by Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers could however all be dealt with under a single condition requiring a Construction Management Plan detailing measures to minimise the impact of construction activities on the neighbouring properties.

88. The application site lies within close proximity of an Air Quality Management Zone, where air quality is constantly monitored to comply with other primary legislation. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers have highlighted the thresholds that would need to be exceeded to justify further consideration of this matter by a standalone report. However, based on the low level of background air pollution, as established by recent recording by the council, the scale of the development and limited likelihood of mitigation being required it is recommended that a conditional approach could be adopted. Should mitigation be required to reduce the impact of the development this would likely be in the form of enhanced travel plans or other methods to reduce vehicle trips to the site, rather than restricting the development as a whole.

89. In terms of open space provision related to the housing element of the scheme, SBLP Policy L2 requires that for every 10 dwellings 600sqm of play space and amenity space should be provided for future occupants. This Policy is considered consistent with the NPPF, which recognises the importance of open spaces to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing, while requiring that development mitigates its impacts. In line with Policy L2, this would require the provision of 8,100sqm (0.81ha) within the scheme. This is reflected in the indicative site layout, where an area of approximately 2ha would be provided centrally on the application site, this would include landscape mitigation planting and SUD attenuation ponds, however it is considered that adequate provision could be made. A condition to ensure that this is reflected and delivered on any reserved matter application is recommended.

90. The Environment Agency has highlighted that the adjacent biomass power station has a visible plume which may be aesthetically undesirable for future residents of the development. This is not however considered a reason to resist the application and future residents would likely be aware of this impact.

91. Overall, it is considered that the development would not cause any adverse impact upon the amenity of those living in the vicinity of the development site, and adequate levels of amenity for prospective occupiers can be secured and further required in subsequent applications. The development is therefore considered compliant with SBLP Policies D1 and D5 in this respect and Parts 8 and 11 of the NPPF.

Access and highway safety issues

78. SBLP Policy D3 requires that development proposals achieve a satisfactory means of access onto the wider highway network while seeking to protect highway safety in terms of vehicle movements and traffic generation. This Policy is considered compliant with the NPPF which also seeks to promote accessibility by a range of methods while ensuring that a safe and suitable access can be achieved and therefore can be given full weight in considering the application. The NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Concerns over highway safety, including the capacity of the road network to accommodate additional flows have been raised by local residents.

79. In support of the planning application the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment that considers the impact of the residential and commercial elements of the development on the surrounding road network, including onto the A167 and junctions on the A689 and A668 to the south and north of the site respectively. The Highways Authority considers the assessment to be sound and demonstrates that the network can in large operate under stable conditions without significant queuing. Mitigation measures are proposed to increase the capacity of the north bound approach to the Rushyford roundabout to the south of the site on the A689. This includes the widening in entry of the junction and amended road markings to encourage a two lane entry to the junction. A condition to secure this is recommended. Further consideration of the internal road layout and parking provision would be undertaken in any subsequent reserved matters application. A condition to require the full specifications and layout of the proposed highway extension to serve the residential and commercial development is recommended by the Highways Authority.

80. In terms of accessibility, the site is reasonably connected to the centre of Chilton where occupants could readily walk or cycle to work opportunities, health facilities, schools, shopping and leisure facilities.

81. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would be served by an appropriate means of access and would have an appropriate impact on the wider highway network, subject to the mitigation measures proposed. Subject to the recommended conditions the proposal is considered acceptable in highways terms and complies with SBLP Local Plan Policy D3 and Parts 4 and 8 of the NPPF. Ecology

82. The closest site of nature conservation interest is Mill Wood Local Wildlife Site which is located 650m to the south west of the application site. SBLP Policy E11 and Part 11 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that developments protect and mitigate harm to biodiversity interests. An ecology survey has been submitted with the application, highlighting that no species that are afforded special legal protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Amendment) 2012 and/or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) have been recorded within the site. The report therefore concludes that the risk of protected species being on the site, with the exception of foraging bats and breeding birds, or the development being a risk to the protected species is low or negligible. A lighting strategy is proposed to minimise light spillage in line with best practice. A review of species records indicates that there are a number of UK/Durham BAP priority species within 1km of the site, mostly associated with Chilton Quarry including great crested newts. It is however concluded that there is no connectivity to the application site.

83. Ecology officers have reviewed the submitted extended phase 1 survey and have raised no objections given the lack of protected species present. Subject to a condition relating to a lighting strategy and an informative in relation to the timings of vegetation clearance, the Council can satisfy its obligations under the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2012 and the proposal would comply with NPPF Paragraph 118. It is however, encouraged that the reserved matters application should take the opportunity to create new woodlands and hedgerows using native plant species, this can however be controlled though any reserved matters application.

84. Given the lack of impact on biodiversity interests, along with the planting proposed, the development is considered to conform to Part 11 of the NPPF in this respect subject to a condition developing the lighting strategy for the site. Natural England offers no comments on the scheme.

Flooding and Drainage

85. National advice within the NPPF and PPG with regard to flood risk advises that a sequential approach to the location of development should be taken with the objective of steering new development to flood zone 1 (areas with the lowest probability of river or sea flooding). When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment.

86. The application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA), which highlights that the application site is within flood zone 1 with a low flood risk probability. The FRA does identify that there are area of high risk surface water flooding on the site and mitigation would be require to deal with this. The FRA sets out a drainage strategy including the incorporation of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUD’s). This includes the implementation of storage/attenuation ponds on an area of amenity land central to the site. This, along with other techniques including infiltration, would restrict runoff to Green Field rate before being discharged into Northumbrian Water’s drainage network, who offer no objections to the application advising that surface water flows can be accepted from the proposed development. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the application on flood risk grounds advising that the Council as the Local Lead Flood Authority should consider the matter. Drainage and Costal Protection officers offer no objections in principle providing a detailed scheme design is submitted. 87. Northumbrian Water also advise that sewerage capacity improvement works are being undertaken within Chilton and once complete will be able to accommodate the flows generated by the development.

88. In relation to the cemetery extension the Environment Agency advise that a condition should be placed on any planning approval controlling where burials should be undertaken in respect of the cemetery to protect against water pollution.

89. A condition to resolve the final surface and foul water disposal proposals are recommended and no objections to the development on the grounds of flood risk or drainage are raised having regards to Part 10 of the NPPF.

Planning obligations

90. The development would provide 135 dwellings, although the mix of properties has yet to be established, but would be controlled through the subsequent submission of a reserved matters application. The applicant proposes the delivery of 15% affordable housing to be provided on site, which is above the 10% provision contained within the Strategic Housing Market Availability Assessment (SHMAA) for the southern delivery area). Housing Delivery raise no objections and state that a tenure mix of 75% affordable rent and 25% affordable home ownership would be appropriate; the provision of the affordable housing would be secured via a S106 legal agreement. The provision of affordable housing is a benefit of the development and would accord with SBLP Policy H19 and Part 6 of the NPPF. The proposed S106 agreement would meet the three planning tests set out in paragraph 204 of the NPPF and Section 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. These being that matters specified are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Other Issues

91. 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. The development would result in the loss of approximately 13ha of agricultural land. A site specific investigation into the land classification does not accompany the application. Natural England classification maps for the North-East region show the entirety of the application site 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. As survey data is not available nor been undertaken to distinguish whether the land is Grade 3a or 3b it cannot be determined whether the land is best or most versatile agricultural land. However, even in a circumstance that the land is best and most versatile land this does not preclude the land from development but is a factor to consider in the determination of the application in the planning balance.

92. In this instance it is considered that the amount of agricultural land to be lost is less than significant. Furthermore, it is considered that the loss of land would not undermine the ability of remaining agricultural land surrounding the site to be effectively farmed.

93. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers (Contaminated Land) have noted that the development would result in “a more sensitive end user” but are satisfied that a conditional approach to site investigation and any necessary remedial work would be appropriate in this case. The site falls within the defined Coal Minining Development Low Risk Area and should planning permission be granted an informative note would be included with the decision notice in the intersts of public safety. An informative can be added having regards to the requirements Paragraph 121 of the NPPF.

94. Planning plays a key role in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. The development would be expected to achieve a proportion of its energy supply from renewable resources, or through an equivalent level through energy effect measures. A condition requiring this is therefore necessary.

95. As advised by the Design and Conservation Officer there are no heritage related issues associated with the development, in particular, there being no impact on the setting of Great Chilton Farm House (Grade II), given the distance separating the sites and absence of inter-visibility. However, in terms of archaeology, the NPPF sets out the requirements for an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation, recording and publication to be made. After reviewing the submitted Geophysical Survey Archaeology Officers advise that trial trenching would need to be undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to ensure any archaeological interest in the site is fully recorded and understood. A conditional approach to recording and mitigating potential archaeological remains is recommended.

96. The Council has an aspirational target of providing 10% of any labour requirement of new developments to be offered as new employment and skills opportunities. This can be achieved by inserting social clauses into planning agreements committing developers/bidders to provide an agreed target of new opportunities to County Durham residents to maximise the economic benefit from any new development or procurement opportunities. These opportunities can include apprenticeships, job opportunities and work placements. This is a matter which can be addressed through condition.

97. The application site lies in the consultation zone of a major hazard site associated with a northern gas network operation within Chilton industrial Estate. However, the Health and Safety Executive do not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.

Planning Balance

98. The acceptability of the housing element of the scheme should be considered under the planning balance test contained within Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. No specific policies within the NPPF are considered to indicate development should be restricted and therefore in order to justify the refusal of planning permission any adverse impacts of a proposed development must significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits.

Benefits

99. The development would assist in maintaining housing land supply at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing supply against an objectively assessed need and policies for the supply of housing are out of date. In the light of the supply position against the DCLG projections and scenarios within the CDP Issues and Options this benefit is considered more limited, however. 100. The development proposes that 15% (21 houses) affordable housing would provide a significant contribution towards affordable housing need. The provision of the affordable housing can be ensured by way of the S106 legal agreement.

101. To a degree the development would provide direct and indirect economic benefits within the locality and from further afield in the form of expenditure in the local economy.

102. The provision of the housing element of the scheme would help deliver the commercial/industrial element; this would be secured by way of a planning condition requiring the delivery of highway infrastructure to serve the commercial/industrial development on the occupation of the 100th dwelling.

Adverse Impact

103. The loss of agricultural land would arise, and this should be considered an adverse impact in the event that the land is best and most versatile.

CONCLUSION

104. The commercial/industrial element of this proposal would in principle accord with the SBLP, providing employment uses within a designed employment site. The cemetery extension is also supported by SBLP policy.

105. The residential development would be contrary to SBLP Policy IB3, however. In this case, the NPPF, a significant material consideration, sets out that on the basis of the Council’s housing land supply position and the out-of-date nature of its relevant housing land supply policy, that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged residential development is required to be considered in the context Paragraph 14, which states that the development should be approved without delay, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

106. The provision of affordable housing in an area where the supply of housing is lacking is a significant benefit of the scheme along with the provision of 15% affordable properties. This would contribute to the economic and social aspects of sustainability. The development of part of the site for residential uses would help provide a meaningful cross subsidy to allow for the development of the employment part of the site retained, thus ensuring delivery of the employment allocation to the benefit of the locality and the County. Some loss of agricultural land would arise, and this should be considered an adverse impact in the event that the land is best and most versatile

107. While there would be some visual impact, particularly in the early years of development, this is considered to be localised and not adverse due to the mitigation indicated .Subject to mitigation, the development would have an acceptable impact on the wider highway network and provide a safe means of access, while the site is considered to be located in sustainable location in this respect. The scheme would not significantly impact on the residential amenity of surrounding properties, while not impacting on any ecological interests. The development would not give rise to flood risk elsewhere subject to fully developing the site drainage strategy.

108. In the planning balance, it is considered that the adverse impact does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme in assisting to maintaining housing land supply, including market and affordable housing and the associated economic and social benefits. Furthermore there are no specific policies within the NPPF which indicate that the development should be restricted. Accordingly, the NPPF is significant material consideration which in this case is considered to be of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

109. The proposal has generated some public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed development. Whilst mindful of the nature and weight of public concerns it is considered that these are insufficient to outweigh the planning judgement in favour of the proposed scheme.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application is APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the provision of 15% affordable housing units and the following conditions.

1. Approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") for the relevant phase shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced other than demolition and remediation works.

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 strict accordance with the following approved plan:

Proposed Masterplan, Drwg A10-03-01 Rev D

Reason: To define the consent and ensure a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Parts 4, 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework

3. Application for approval of reserved matters for the first phase of the development shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the date of approval of the last reserved matter to be approved for that phase. In case of approval of reserved matters for subsequent individual phases on different dates, development of each phase must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the approval of the reserved matters for that phase. All reserved matters shall be submitted within a period of 10 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4. Prior to the commencement of development (excluding archaeological investigation, services diversions, any land remediation/ground improvement or highway improvement works) a phasing plan setting out the proposed phasing of the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter each reserved matters application for a phase or part thereof submitted pursuant to Condition 3 shall be accompanied by an updated phasing plan for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The updated phasing plan shall set out any proposed changes from the phasing plan previously approved pursuant to this Condition. For the purposes of this permission all references to a "phase" shall be interpreted as being a reference to a phase or part thereof as defined on the phasing plan approved pursuant to this condition.

Reason: To define the consent and ensure a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Parts 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. The phasing plan required under Condition 4 shall set out the delivery of landscape mitigation along the A167 in conjunction with the delivery of the residential or commercial element of the scheme, whichever comes first. The phasing plan shall also set out the implementation of highways infrastructure to serve the first phase of the commercial development prior to the occupation of the 100th residential dwelling hereby approved.

Reason: To define the consent and ensure that satisfactory landscaping is achieved and to encourage the delivery of the commercial element of the scheme in accordance with Policies E1, D1 and D5 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Parts 1, 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Uses Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting those Orders with or without modifications), this permission shall relate solely to the use of the land and buildings for up to 4,600 m2 (GIA) of Use B1(B), up to 2,700 m2 (GIA) of Use B1(C), and up to 5,220 m2 (GIA) of Use B2 and for no other purposes, including any other activity within the same class of the schedule to that Order.

Reason: In order to define the permission and in the interests of highway safety and residential amenity in accordance with Policies IB5, D3 and D5 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan Parts 4 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework

7. Notwithstanding the submitted information, a minimum of 8,100sqm of informal play and amenity space shall be provided within the development. Full details of which, including the mechanism for the subsequent management and maintenance of these areas, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 4 the open space areas shall be made available allowing free and unrestricted access by residents of the development before the occupation of the 100th dwelling hereby approved.

Reason: In order to supply sufficient amenity space for future residents in accordance with saved Policy L2 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework

8. Prior to the commencement of any development (excluding, archaeological investigation, services diversions any land remediation/ground improvement or highway improvement works) an Air Quality Impact Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted Assessment shall include-  a description of baseline conditions and how these could change;  relevant air quality concerns;  the assessment methods to be adopted and any requirements around verification of modelling air quality;  sensitive locations;  the basis for assessing impact and determining the significance of an impact;  construction phase impact; and/or  the detailing and timing of the delivery of mitigation measures where necessary.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Reason: In order to mitigate any potential negative impacts on of air quality caused by the development, in accordance with Part 11 of the NPPF.

9. Prior to the commencement of any development (excluding, archaeological investigation, services diversions or any land remediation/ground improvement) a mitigation scheme for the improvement of the north bound approach to Rushyford roundabout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include full engineering layout and detailed drawings. The approved mitigation scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the sixtieth dwelling and before the occupation of any of B1 or B2 uses hereby approved.

Reason: To improve capacity on the north bound approach to Rushyford roundabout in order to mitigate the impact of the development and maintain highway safety in accordance with Policies D3 and D4 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework

10. Prior to the commencement of any development on site relating to the B1 or B2 uses hereby approved, (excluding, archaeological investigation, services diversions or any land remediation/ground improvement), full engineering layout and detailed drawings showing the extension of the carriageway and footway on the former A167 to serve the B1 and B2 uses hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved highway works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implemented prior to the occupation of any of the B1 or B2 uses hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that a suitable access into the site can be provided in accordance with Policies D3 and D4 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework

11. No development of the relevant phase (excluding, archaeological investigation, services diversions, any land remediation/ground improvement or highway improvement works) shall commence until a Framework Travel Plan for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To reduce reliance on the private motor car and to promote sustainable transport methods in accordance with Policies D1 and D3 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Parts 4 and 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework

12. Within a period of six months of the first occupation of any part of the development of the relevant phase, a final Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented thereafter in accordance with the approved timescales.

Reason: To reduce reliance on the private motor car and to promote sustainable transport methods in accordance with Policies D1 and D3 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Parts 4 and 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework 13. No development approved by this permission (excluding, archaeological investigation, services diversions, any land remediation/ground improvement or highway improvement works) shall commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall detail the restriction of surface water discharge rates from the development to greenfield run off rates and incorporate sustainable drainage systems where appropriate for the relevant phase. The development shall be carried out and implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and timings thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the adequate disposal of surface water and to minimise flood risk in accordance with Policy D1 Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.

14. No development for the relevant phase (excluding, archaeological investigation, services diversions, any land remediation/ground improvement or highway improvement works) shall commence until a scheme to embed sustainability and minimise Carbon from construction and in-use emissions for the relevant phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme and retained while the development is in existence.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable construction and energy generation in accordance with the aims of Policy D1 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. No development shall take place on any phase until a scheme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation for that phase has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide for:

i; Measures to ensure the preservation in situ, or the preservation by record, of archaeological features of identified importance. ii; Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts. iii; Post-fieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses. iv; Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals. v; Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories. vi; A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. vii; Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. viii; A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including sub- contractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications. ix; Timings for the submission of a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy

The archaeological mitigation strategy for that phase hall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timings.

Reason: To safeguard any Archaeological Interest in the site, and to comply with Paragraphs 135 and 141 of the NPPF. This is required as a pre commencement condition in order to mitigate potential archaeological interest which may be disturbed through site works. 16. Notwithstanding the submitted information, prior to the development of any phase commencing (excluding, archaeological investigation, services diversions, any land remediation/ground improvement or highway improvement works) a lighting strategy for the relevant phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The lighting strategy shall incorporate mitigation detailed within section 5.2.1 of the Extended Phase 1 Survey compiled by Argus Ecology Consultants, Dated March 24th July 2015. The approved lighting strategy shall thereafter be incorporated into the development.

Reason: To ensure the preservation and enhancement of species protected by law in accordance with Policy E11 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

17. Notwithstanding the submitted information the rating level of noise emitted from fixed plant/equipment associated with any B1 or B2 uses hereby approved shall not exceed, 49 dB LAeq (1hr) between 07.00-23.00 and 32dB LAeq (15 mins) between 23.00- 07.00. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142:2014.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents from the adjacent industrial use to comply with policies D1 and D5 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

18. Notwithstanding the submitted information the operational hours of the B1 and B2 uses hereby approved shall be restricted to within the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Fridays, 8am-5pm Saturdays only. The premises shall not be used on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents from the adjacent industrial use to comply with policies D1 and D5 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and Part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

19. No development of any phase shall commence shall take place until a Construction Management Plan for that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Construction Management Plan shall provide for:

i. The timing of construction works ii. Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors iii. Loading and unloading of plant and materials iv. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development v. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents from the development to comply with Policies D1 and D5 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This is required as a pre commencement condition in order to mitigate potential impact on residential amenity which needs to be considered before site works commence.

20. The development of any phase shall not commence until a scheme to deal with contamination for that phase has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following:

Pre-Commencement

(a) No development approved by this permission other than preliminary site excavation and remedial works shall commence until a Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment (Desk Top Study) has been carried out, to identify and evaluate all potential sources and impacts on land and/or groundwater contamination relevant to the site.

(b) If the Phase 1 identifies the potential for contamination, a Phase 2 Site Investigation and Risk Assessment is required and shall be carried out before any development commences to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications.

(c) If the Phase 2 identifies any unacceptable risks, remediation is required and a Phase 3 Remediation Strategy detailing the proposed remediation and verification works shall be carried out. No alterations to the remediation proposals shall be carried out without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. If during the remediation or development works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Phase 3, then remediation proposals for this material shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works and timescales.

Completion

(d) Upon completion of the remedial works (if required), a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Phase 3 Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risk to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Part 11 of the NPPF. This is required as a pre commencement condition in order to consider potential impact of land contamination which may be disturbed by site works.

21. All burials in the cemetery extension hereby approved shall be located: - a minimum of 50 m from a potable groundwater supply source; - a minimum of 30 m from a water course or spring; - a minimum of 10 m distance from field drains;

No burials into standing water and the base of the grave must be above the local water table

Reason: To minimise the risk of water pollution, in accordance with Part 11 of the NPPF.

22. No development shall take place until a scheme/programme for the provision of targeted recruitment and training opportunities arising as a result of the development has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme could include but may not necessarily be restricted to the following;

- Job Opportunities - Apprenticeship - Traineeship - Graduate Internship - Work Placements Thereafter the approved scheme/programme shall be implemented.

Reason: In order to maximise the economic and employment opportunity benefits arising from the development having regards to Part 1 of the NPPF. Required to be pre-commencement as the scheme of targeted recruitment must be determined prior to the commencement of the construction works.

23. No development shall take place until a Tree Constraints Plan and a Tree Protection Plan have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until all trees and hedges, indicated on the approved tree protection plan as to be retained, are protected by the erection of fencing, placed as indicated on the plan and comprising a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, well braced to resist impacts, and supporting temporary welded mesh fencing panels or similar approved in accordance with BS.5837:2005.

No operations whatsoever, no alterations of ground levels, and no storage of any materials are to take place inside the fences, and no work is to be done such as to affect any tree.

No removal of limbs of trees or other tree work shall be carried out.

No underground services trenches or service runs shall be laid out in root protection areas, as defined on the Tree Constraints Plan.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policies E15 and D1 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan. Required to be pre- commencement to ensure trees are protected at the start of works on site.

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 35(2) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)

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 Borough Local Plan  Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.  County Durham Settlement Study 2012 Outline proposal for up to 135 Dwellings, 13 no. Research & Development, Industrial and Light Industrial Buildings (12,520 sq.m total, Planning Services B1 and B2 use), cemetery extension and associated landscaping (all matters reserved except access) at Land North Of, West Chilton Terrace, Chilton (DM/15/02326/OUT)

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 18 July 2016 Scale 1:2500

Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

DM/15/03748/WAS & DM/15/03747/WAS APPLICATION NO: 1) Change of use to materials recycling facility (DM/15/03748/WAS) & 2) reuse of existing materials FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: storage area (DM/15/03747/WAS)

Viridis Group Ltd. NAME OF APPLICANT: Eldon Brickworks, Eldon Estates, Eldon, Bishop ADDRESS: Auckland

Shildon and Dene Valley ELECTORAL DIVISION: Chris Shields, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER: 03000 261 394, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site is the former Eldon Brickworks which is located north of the C43 road between Eldon to the west and Old Eldon to the east. The site is situated approximately 16km to the south of Durham City, 3km to the east of Bishop Auckland and 4km to the west of Newton Aycliffe. The settlements of Close House and Coundon Grange are also located to the west of the site. The nearest residential property, Colliery House, is located directly opposite the site entrance. Properties at Office Row and Pasture Row are some 250m to the southwest of the application boundary. These properties are screened by the intervening hedgerows and trees between them and the site. The closest property in Old Eldon is some 850m to the east of the application boundary and the nearest in Close House some 350m.

2. The brickworks is based on a site of approximately 8.7ha and consists of 4 large interconnected buildings used for the manufacture of bricks, storage of materials, offices and welfare facilities. There is also a brick chimney stack associated with the brick making process.

3. To the immediate east of the brickworks is Eldon Quarry which provided brickmaking materials in the form of shale and clay to the brickworks. These materials were won from the quarry on an annual or biannual campaign basis with materials stored in stockpiles to the north of the brickworks buildings. The brickworks and adjacent quarry have not operated for several years with the quarry awaiting restoration and all stock of bricks has been removed from the site. There has been no intervening use at either site and they remain vacant. 4. The brickworks site has a relatively flat topography but sits at an elevated position from the C43 road limiting views into the site and obscuring views of the buildings entirely. The only view into the site from public viewpoints is from the top of Eldon Bank to the south. The site has a steel palisade fence around the perimeter with security gates at the existing access point. There is a woodland plantation on the western and northern boundary and part of the southern boundary.

5. There are no landscape or nature conservation designations within or adjacent the site boundary. The nearest site of local conservation interest (Eldon Grassland Local Wildlife Site) lies approximately 500m to the north east. There is a Public Right of Way, Footpath No. 18 (Eldon Parish) located to the north of the site boundary but is located within the woodland and is more than 20m from the site boundary.

The Proposals

6. Two planning applications have been submitted at the former Eldon Brickworks site. One for the change of use of the Eldon Brickworks (buildings) to a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and the second for the reuse of the brickclay storage area for the recycling of inert materials. The two areas would share the site access but would otherwise be separate operations.

Materials Recycling Facility (MRF)

7. Through the change of use of one of the existing building (8,500m2) the applicant seeks to create a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) for up to 300,000 tonnes per annum of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) residual Commercial and Industrial Waste (C&I) and residual Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) at the site. MSW being material sourced from residential properties, C&I being controlled waste arising from factories, industrial plants, wholesalers, catering establishments, shops and offices and C&D being material from construction projects.

8. The MRF development would comprise only the existing brickworks buildings and associated hard standing areas, which would be internally refitted with plant for processing of waste materials. Parking for staff vehicles would be on the eastern side of the site and HGV parking would be on southern boundary. Site offices and amenity buildings, used in association with the brickworks, would be retained on the eastern side of the site with a weighbridge installed on the western side. The main brickworks building would be divided into three operational areas with a materials acceptance area to the north, materials reception area in the centre and materials processing in the long southern building. The building to the west would be used for plant storage.

9. The process would involve raw waste material being deposited inside the materials acceptance building, which has capacity for 6,500m3 of material, or the equivalent of approximately 50 vehicle loads. Vehicles would reverse into the building to deposit their loads and drive out forwards. Deposited material would be subject to a visual inspection before being transferred to the materials acceptance area by a loading shovel. Any material failing an inspection would be transferred to an internal quarantine area.

10. Once the material has been transferred to the materials acceptance area the processing stage would begin. The material would be loaded into the primary shredder where it would be reduced to fractions of between 0 and 150mm. Most metals would be removed at this stage before the shredded metal is fed directly into a trommel to remove organic matter, which would be stored in a container. The material would then be passed through a density separator to remove any heavy fractions such as bricks and hardcore that could damage downstream plant. The retained light fractions would then be passed through an over band magnet that would remove any ferrous metals and then an eddy current separator which removes ferrous metals.

11. The fine material removed by the trommel would be passed through a flip flow separator to remove <10mm material and separates heavy and light materials. The light materials would then pass through a high speed Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) shredder being wrapped into 1 tonne bales. Material recovered throughout the process would be stored in containers before being exported for further processing, including recycling, elsewhere. The SRF bales would be transported to end users as fuel.

12. The MRF would accept and process waste during 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. There would be no operations on Sundays or Bank or other public holidays.

Materials Storage Area

13. To the north of the brickworks buildings is an area previously used for stocking clay and other brick making materials from the adjacent Eldon Quarry. Approximately 110,000 m3 remains in storage. The applicant is also seeking permission to reuse this storage area for the importation and recycling of inert waste materials. The types of materials that would be accepted into the storage area would be topsoils, subsoils, clay, stone, concrete and bricks. The material would be sourced from construction and demolition projects.

14. The material storage area has a site area of approximately 6 ha. It is proposed to treat up to 75,000 tonnes per annum of materials suitable for the production of soil, soil substitutes and aggregate by means of sorting, separation, screening, crushing and blending as covered under the Environment Agency Standard Rules permit (SR2010 No.12) for the treatment of waste to produce soil, soil substitutes and aggregate. A maximum of 40,000 tonnes would be stored at any one time. The operations would be carried out using track mounted mobile crushing plant and screen in conjunction with an excavator and loading shovel. Treatment would take place in campaign runs when sufficient material is available, which is likely to cover two days per week. The maximum height of any stockpile would be 5 metres. Materials would only be accepted if they conform to the description in the documentation supplied and its chemical, physical and biological characteristics make it suitable for its intended treatment, as controlled by the relevant EA Permit.

15. The operating hours for the materials storage area would be 1000 to 1600 Monday to Friday with no operations on Saturdays, Sundays or bank or public holidays.

Traffic and access

16. Vehicles for both proposals would share the former brickworks and quarry entrance from the C34 road. All vehicles exiting the site would turn left towards Newton Aycliffe to avoid minor roads through Eldon and South Church. HGV’s entering the site would be directed to the weighbridge on the western side of the site and from there would be directed to either the MRF or materials storage area, depending on the load that is being carried.

17. Vehicle movements would be restricted to 24 per day with an average of 4 per hour (2 in and 2 out). The MRF and materials storage area would be distinct operations and although they would share the site entrance and weighbridge the materials would be kept separate.

18. There has been no employment on the site following the closure of the brickworks. The proposed developments would, in combination, provide up to 50 new jobs.

19. Both applications are being reported to the County Planning Committee because they are for major waste developments with a site area greater than 1ha.

PLANNING HISTORY

20. It is understood that Eldon Brick Company was formed in 1933 on the closure of Eldon Colliery, although bricks have been made on the site since 1877. Planning permission for the brickworks was granted under a number of separate consents.

21. The quarrying of brickshale was granted at Eldon Quarry under Interim Development Order (IDO) arrangements by Shildon Urban District Council, in February 1948. A new schedule of planning conditions for the working and restoration of the site were approved by the Development Control Sub Committee in 1994 under the requirements of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Under the current planning permission mineral extraction at the site is permitted until February 2042. The IDO permission area covered two areas to the north and south of Road C34. The right to work the southern IDO area was removed by legal agreement in 1998 in association with Eldon Deep opencast coal scheme.

22. In 1988 planning permission was granted for an extension to the materials stockpiling area at the brickworks in order to accommodate stockpile heaps of shale and clays for brickmaking. Part of this area is included in the current planning application area for use as soil storage.

23. Working the brickshale exposes some ancillary coal in the shallow seams and pillars. In 2000 planning permission was granted for the extraction of this ancillary coal which had previously been extracted and transported off site without the necessary planning permission. In 2003 planning permission was granted to reshape and retain an overburden mound to the south of the site.

24. In 2008 an extension to the quarry was granted to continue supply of brick making materials to Eldon Brickworks under planning reference CMA/7/63.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

25. 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.

26. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies as these are contained within the National Planning Policy for Waste document. However, the NPPF requires local authorities preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in the NPPF so far as relevant. 27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

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

36. 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 air quality, transport, flood risk, waste and use of planning conditions.

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

37. National Planning Policy for Waste sets out the Government's ambition to work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management. Waste Planning Authorities should only expect a demonstration of need where proposals are not consistent with an up to date Local Plan and should not consider matters that are within the control of pollution control authorities. Waste proposals should not undermine the objectives of the Local Plan and should be environmentally sensitive and well designed. Of further relevance is the Waste Management Plan for England, which also advocates the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy in line with the requirements of the European Waste Framework Directive (WFD). One such requirement (which is also in the Waste Management Plan for England and the Waste Regulations) is an increase of recovery to 70% by weight of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste (excluding naturally occurring materials) by 2020.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-for-waste

LOCAL PLAN POLICY:

County Durham Waste Local Plan (2005)

38. Policy W2 – Need – requires the demonstration of need for a particular development which cannot be met by an alternative solution higher up the waste hierarchy.

39. Policy W3 – Environmental Protection – states that proposals for new development will be required to demonstrate that the natural and built environment and the living conditions of local communities will be protected and where possible enhanced.

40. Policy W4 – Location of waste management facilities – states that proposals for new waste management facilities will be determined having regard to protection of the environment and local amenity, traffic impacts, opportunities to integrate with other facilities or developments which will benefit from the recovery of materials and to extend or develop existing waste management facilities. 41. Policy W7 – Landscape – states that proposals for waste development which would result in the loss of important landscape features or which would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape will not be permitted.

42. Policy W13 – Nature Conservation (Local) – states that waste development likely to have an adverse effect on local sites including County Wildlife Sites (now Local Wildlife Sites) will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the harm to the substantive nature of the conservation value of the site.

43. Policy W17 – Nature Conservation (Minimisation Of Adverse Impact) – states that proposals should incorporate measures to ensure that any adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the site is minimised.

44. Policy W26 –Water resources – Proposals for waste development which does not involve landfill or landraise will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse impact or significant deterioration to: the quality of surface or groundwater resources; and the flow of surface or groundwater at or in the vicinity of the site.

45. Policy W29 – Modes of transport – requires that waste development incorporate measures to minimise transportation of waste.

46. Policy W31 – Environmental impact of road traffic – states that waste development will only be permitted if traffic estimated to be generated by the development can be accommodated safely on the highway network, the amenity of roadside communities is protected, the strategic highway network can be safely and conveniently accessed and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.

47. Policy W32 – Planning obligations for controlling environmental impact – states that in granting planning permission for waste development, planning conditions be imposed to cover, in addition to other issues, the prevention of the transfer of mud, dust, or litter onto the public highway by measures including the provision of wheel cleaning facilities, suitably metalled access roads and the sheeting of laden vehicles.

48. Policy W33 – Protecting local amenity – requires that suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into proposals to ensure that any harmful impacts from noise, odour, litter, vermin, birds, dust, mud, visual intrusion and traffic and transport are kept to an acceptable level.

49. Policy W36 – Locations for Waste Recovery Facilities - states that unless it can be clearly demonstrated that any environmental impacts can be effectively mitigated proposals for new or the expansion of existing waste management facilities should be fully contained within well designed buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process and appropriate in scale and character to their surroundings.

50. Policy W38 – Waste Transfer Stations - seeks to ensure that proposals for the recovery and recycling of inert waste materials including construction and demolition waste will be permitted, provided that they can be satisfactorily located on land identified for general industrial use, previously developed land or at an existing waste transfer station.

51. Policy W39 – Waste Recycling - states that proposals for the recovery and recycling of inert waste materials, including construction and demolition waste, will be permitted, provided that they can be satisfactorily located at existing waste transfer stations, on land identified for general industrial use or on previously developed land in sustainable locations.

EMERGING POLICY:

52. 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 (CDP) was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 18 February 2015, however that Report was quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. In accordance with the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP and a new plan being prepared. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight. As the new plan progresses through the stages of preparation it will begin to accrue weight.

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES:

53. Eldon Parish Council – has raised no objections to the proposal in principle but has requested that the operation of the site is subject to an Environmental Permit, assessments and mitigation works are carried out in respect of noise, dust, lighting, pest control, drainage and odour are to be carried out. The Parish has requested that all HGVs shall access and exit the site from the east via the C34 and A689 roads and that the applicant ensure and monitor that vehicles travelling through Old Eldon do so at the proposed 30mph voluntary limit. The Parish has also asked if a Liaison Committee could be established to deal with ongoing issues or concerns once the site is operational.

54. Highway Authority – has raised no objections to the proposals noting that the HGV route for both applications would be from the A689 via the C35, Middridge Road and the C34, Moor Lane. Officers welcome the voluntary 30mph speed limit through Old Eldon and state that there is no suggestion that any of the 14 recorded personal injury and road traffic collisions (past 5 years) on the 2 mile section of the C34 road between the site and the junction with the C35 are attributable to HGVs. Officers have requested that roadside vegetation on the eastern side of the access on to the C34 be cut back to improve junction sight visibility and also that existing junction give way markings are re-marked.

55. Natural England – has no comments to make on the application and states that it is for the local planning authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national and local policies on the natural environment.

56. The Coal Authority – has raised no objections stating that the application site does fall within the defined Development High Risk Area; however, the planning application is either for an application type or the nature of development which is listed as exempt from the requirement for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be submitted or for The Coal Authority to be consulted on this proposal.

57. Environment Agency – has raised no objections to the proposals. Conditions have been requested in relation to the MRF in respect of odour abatement, waste storage and fire suppression. No conditions have been requested for the inert recycling proposal. The Environment Agency has also provided advice to the applicant in relation to the requirement for an Environmental Permit.

58. Northumbrian Water – has no comments to make on the proposals having assessed the impact on its assets and assess the capacity within Northumbrian Water’s network to accommodate and treat the anticipated flows arising from the development.

59. Drainage and Coastal Protection – has raised no objections to the proposals stating that any surface water discharge from any new buildings or extension works to existing, should be dealt with in accordance with The Building Regulations 2010. Approved Document Part H (Drainage & Waste disposal) and that the applicant should ensure there is no run-off onto neighbouring land or the highway.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:

60. Landscape – has raised no objections to the proposals stating that there would be no significant landscape or visual effects and would not be in conflict with policies dealing with those matters.

61. Ecology – raise no objection. Officers state that a bat risk assessment carried out by Ecosurv Ltd states that the building is of negligible risk for roosting bats and that to address any residual risk a ‘Tool Box Talk’ for bats will be provided by Ecosurv Ltd. Given the results of the risk assessment, no further works are required on European Protected Species in relation to the building.

62. Access and Rights of Way – has no objections to the proposals stating that the land and buildings referred to should not impact on any of the nearby paths.

63. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (noise and dust) – has raised no objections to the proposals but has requested further details by condition in relation to noise, lighting and odour for the Materials Recycling Facility. Noise limits have been set in respect of the Inert Recycling Area. |A restriction on the start time for HGV movements has also been requested.

64. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (contaminated land) – has raised no objections to the proposals having assessed the available information and historical maps with respect to land contamination and has stated that there is no requirement for a contaminated land condition.

PUBLIC RESPONSES:

65. The application has been advertised in the press, by site notice and neighbour notification. 2 representations have been received which state that they raise no objections in principle but have nevertheless raised concerns in relation to the significant increase in volumes of 30+ tonne articulated and tipper wagons through Old Eldon, the impact of these vehicles in relation to noise, dust and vibration, the starting time and duration of such vehicles travelling through Old Eldon and road safety, particularly at the junction lying to the east of Old Eldon.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

66. The Viridis Group propose to utilise the disused and partly derelict buildings of the previous Eldon Brickworks for the purpose of a Materials Recycling Facility(MRF) and the currently abandoned stockpile area on the same site for the production and storage of soils, soil substitutes and aggregates. 67. With an investment of @£4.5M, the state of the art facilities will deliver a valuable sustainable waste management facility that will serve local businesses, allowing them to minimise landfill disposal, increase recycling rates and contribute towards carbon footprint reduction as the majority of the facilities residual materials will be utilised as a feedstock to fuel modern energy recovery facilities.

68. The proposed development benefits from substantial National and Local Planning Policy support, fully accords with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning and National Planning Policy for Waste as well as other policy documents which drive waste management towards more sustainable routes in accordance with the Waste Hierarchy.

69. The naturally well screened site is located just north of Main Road at the eastern edge of the village of Eldon which lies 1.8 miles south of Coundon, 2.6 miles south east of Bishop Auckland and approximately 12 miles south of Durham City. The site is set back from the C34 with main arterial transport routes all within short distances. Junction 60 of the A1M lies approximately 6 miles to the east via the A689 and the A167 is within 4.5 miles.

70. The previous operating hours of the Brickworks have been adopted so as not to impact on the locality. The Highway Consultee has confirmed that the slight increase in vehicle movements associated with the proposed development is not deemed to be significant, however, we have taken on board concerns raised by two residents in Old Eldon and will instruct all drivers by way of site induction, to observe a 30mph limit through Old Eldon. We will monitor our traffic through this area and if required support the residents in seeking an official reduction in the speed limit to 30mph.

71. Operational activities will be permitted by the Environment Agency and The Viridis Group will meet or exceed current industry standards, acting at all times as a good neighbour within the community.

72. Odour and noise modeling studies have been conducted demonstrating that local receptors would not suffer nuisance, with the noise contribution from the development predicted to be below typical background noise levels and odour below the stated H4 guidance threshold.

73. As company best practice, there will be ongoing monitoring of noise, light, odour, dust etc. to ensure the operations cause no nuisance to local receptors and the wider community.

74. It is envisaged that up to 50 permanent job posts will be created within the project; these are to include several apprenticeship schemes. Given that all employees will be given an extensive induction and training relevant to the operations of the site, it is hoped that many of these posts can be filled by people from the direct community or very near locality.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

75. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that if regard is to be had to the development plan, decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the policies contained therein are material considerations that should be taken into account in decision-making. Other material considerations include representations received. In this context, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: principle of development, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity, ecology, access and traffic, and other matters.

Principle of Development

76. National and local planning policies are generally supportive towards sustainable waste management initiatives and seek to promote the movement of materials up the waste hierarchy. The Government’s ‘Waste Strategy for England 2007’ set out the Government’s objectives to reduce waste and increase recycling of waste and energy recovery. The Waste Review of 2011 sets out the Government’s aims for a ‘zero waste’ economy. The direction of travel set by the Review is a new focus in national policy on the use of materials throughout the economy; the integration of business and household waste; a smaller and different role for central government; and more focus upon the householder or business and the importance of this agenda – from waste prevention to waste management – for the “green economy”. Waste is considered a valuable resource.

77. The NPPW sets out in the waste hierarchy that prevention of waste and re-use of materials should be considered before recycling, recovery and final disposal of waste. This is reflected in WLP Policy W2 requiring developments to demonstrate an established need for the facility and to show that they would make a contribution to the County’s sustainable waste strategy and achieve overall environmental benefits, and move waste up the Waste Hierarchy. Both proposals would accept waste material and process it to raise it up the waste hierarchy from disposal to recovery and recycling. WLP Policy W4 refers to the location of new waste management facilities and criteria to be considered. This is reflected in Appendix B of NPPW which sets out criteria for the assessment of waste sites. These include land instability.

78. NPPW paragraph 7 states that in determining planning applications waste planning authorities should ‘consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B and the locational implications of any advice on health from the relevant health bodies. Waste planning authorities should avoid carrying out their own detailed assessment of epidemiological and other health studies’ and ‘ensure that waste management facilities in themselves are well-designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located’. WLP environmental protection policies relevant to this proposal are Policies W7, W17, W26, W29, W31, W32 and W33 but also summarily covered in Policy W3 which requires evidence to demonstrate that new waste development will protect or enhance the natural and built environment. The applicant has provided details of the necessary environmental protection measures that are assessed later in this report.

79. WLP Policies W38 and W39 make specific reference to Materials Recovery and Inert Recycling Facilities and are the key policies against which the proposals should be considered. Both policies state that proposals of this nature will be permitted provided they can be satisfactorily located at existing waste transfer stations, on land identified for general industrial use, on previously developed land in sustainable locations or as part of an integrated waste management facility. In addition supporting text supporting Policy W38 states that these facilities will normally require industrial style buildings and accommodate a large tipping hall to deposit and load material and accommodate equipment to store, sort, compact and bale materials. The proposal would see all mixed waste being tipped, processed and loaded in HGVs for export inside existing buildings on the site. There would be associated storage for vehicles and empty waste containers within the former brickworks site area but no waste associated with the MRF would be stored outside of the building in accordance with WLP Policy W39. Inert waste would be processed and stored outside on land to the north of the brickworks buildings that has historically been used for storing similar quantities of soils, clay and brickshale. As the inert materials would not have polluting characteristics and are, by nature, bulky it is considered acceptable for them to be stored outside and in accordance with the WLP Policy W39.

80. Within this Policy context the proposed MRF would make a contribution to the delivery of targets for diverting waste away from landfill and regional and local targets for the recycling and recovery of waste materials.

81. The proposed reuse of the brick making materials storage area for the recycling of inert materials would contribute towards the diversion of waste from landfill in a location that would be suitable for this activity that has previously been used to store similar materials from the adjacent quarry. Material would arrive from construction and demolition projects and would be processed to produce aggregates and soils for reuse in similar projects.

82. It is considered that the proposals, using a suitable vacant industrial building and ancillary land are acceptable in principle and would accord with WLP Policies W2, W4, W38 and W39. WLP Policies W2, W3, W4, W7, W17, W29, W31. W33, W36, W38 and W39 are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and WLP Policy W32 is considered to be partially consistent with the NPPF and can therefore be afforded weight in the decision making process.

Landscape and Visual Impact

83. The site is not located within or adjacent to a designated landscape and is visually well contained by topography and vegetation. The proposed re-use of the brickworks building, yard and materials storage area would be similar in character to established uses on the site. The restriction of materials stockpiles to <5m in the former stockpile area would ensure that they are not conspicuous in views from the wider landscape.

84. The proposals would have no significant landscape or visual effects and it is considered that the proposals would accord with WLP Policies W6 and W7 and Part 11 of the NPPF. Policies W6 and W7 are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and can therefore be afforded weight in the decision making process.

Residential Amenity

85. The site is located between the villages of Eldon and Old Eldon. The nearest residential property, Colliery House, is located directly opposite the site entrance. Properties at Office Row and Pasture Row are some 250m to the southwest of the application boundary. These properties are screened by the intervening hedgerows and trees between them and the site. The closest property in Old Eldon is some 850m to the east of the application boundary and the nearest in Close House some 350m.

86. The proposed development is a large industrial facility that would process waste from 07:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. The Parish Council has requested that issues of noise, dust, odour, light and pest control are to be fully investigated and concerns have been raised by local residents that the working hours are too early in respect of vehicle movements travelling through Old Eldon. 87. The applications were accompanied by assessments for noise, dust, light and odour. Following discussions with the Environment Agency and Environmental Health Officers these assessments were revised and resubmitted as an Environmental Procedure Manual. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection have considered the proposals and are satisfied that impacts can be mitigated but have requested further details to be submitted through condition in respect of noise, odour and lighting. Additionally, officers have stated that 07:00 is too early for vehicle movements to commence and it is therefore considered that HGV movements should be restricted to 08:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. This would address the concerns raised by the residents of Old Eldon without significantly increasing the frequency of movements per hour. Provided that facility operates in accordance with the limits set out in the details to be agreed, it is considered that the proposals would accord with WLP Policy W33.

88. The MRF would be fully enclosed inside an existing building. Vehicles would be tipped off and loaded inside the building. Waste would be stored in bales or containers and all processing would occur within part of the building that is away from the vehicle access points to reduce noise, dust and odour emissions. This approach would meet with the criteria set out in WLP Policy W36 in respect of waste management facilities being contained within well designed buildings.

89. Waste would be processed and baled on site quickly at a rate of 50 tonnes per hour offering limited opportunity for odour to occur, or for pests to be attracted. The inert materials to be processed and stored on the area to the north would also not attract pests or create odour. The development would require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency and mobile plant would require permits from the Local Authority. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection have raised no objections to the proposed development in terms of dust or air quality.

90. Due to waste processing activities being carried out inside a building it is considered that dust and odour mitigation would be acceptable in accordance with WLP Policy W33. In addition, the building would prevent any potential impacts in the form of litter, vermin and birds. Due to the inert nature of the materials to be stored externally there would be no issues arising in terms of odour, litter, vermin and birds and dust can be mitigated through the use water sprays and careful material handling methods.

Ecology

91. 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 licence from Natural England.

92. Although the brickworks buildings and associated storage areas have been dormant for some time the land has limited habitat potential. The proposal does not involve any demolition works or removal of any trees or hedgerows. It is therefore considered that there would be no risk of a direct impact upon any protected species. The building was surveyed for bats and no roosts were found. The land to be used for the material storage area is disturbed land and has a partial stockpile in place with no ecological value.

93. At more than 500m the proposals are significant distance from the nearest Local Wildlife Site (Eldon Grasslands) and would not cause harm to this designation. Natural England and the Council’s Ecology officers do not consider that the proposals would adversely impact upon the European, national or locally designated nature conservation sites. It is therefore considered that the proposals would not conflict with WLP Policies W13 and W17 and Paragraphs 109, and 118 of the NPPF which requires that impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and net gains provided where possible. WLP Policies W13 and W17 are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and can be afforded weight in the decision making process.

Access and Traffic

94. The NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

95. The site is accessed from the C43 road using the existing access for the brickworks and associated quarry. This existing access would be used for all vehicles entering and leaving the site.

96. The proposed use of MRF would generate up to 120 vehicle movements per day (60 in and 60 out) Monday to Friday and up to 60 (30 in and 30 out) on Saturday. The materials storage area would generate up to 24 vehicle movements (12 in and 12 out) Monday to Friday. The combination of the two proposals would see the permitted number of daily HGV traffic movements increase from 76 to 144.

97. The materials storage facility would see a maximum of 24 HGV movements over a 6 hour period, between 10am and 4pm, with the MRF facility relating to a maximum of 120 HGV movements over a 12 period, between 08:00 and 19:00.

98. The 76 permitted HGV vehicle movements operating between 7am and 7pm could relate to 1 HGV movement every 9-10 minutes on the public highway network. At the times when only the proposed materials storage HGV traffic would be expected to be on the local public highway network you could expect an average of 1 HGV movement every 6 mins which could increase to 1 HGV movement every 4 minutes or so when both the proposed materials storage and proposed MRF HGV traffic could be on the local public highway network. On average the potential increase in HGV movements on the local public highway network could be in the region of 1 HGV movement every 5 minutes.

99. Whilst this is an approximate doubling of HGV movements on the local public highway network as there is no history of recorded personal injury road traffic collisions in the last 5 years there is no suggestion that the increase in HGV movements would result in an increase in road traffic collisions. As a result the Highways Authority has advised that it would be difficult to object to these proposals on highway safety grounds.

100. The Highway Authority has advised that works are to be carried out to cut back the vegetation at the junction with the C34 road to improve visibility and to remark the give way markings as they have been worn away. It is recommended that these works are secured by condition and carried out within 3 months of the commencement of development. 101. The Highway Authority has assessed the proposals and considers that the proposed increase in vehicle movements would be acceptable subject to conditions. It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with WLP Policies W29, W31 and W32 and Part 4 of the NPPF. WLP Policies W29 and W31 are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and although W32 is only partially consistent, as it does not fully reflect Section 122 of the CIL Regulations, there is no conflict in relation to these proposals and therefore can be afforded weight in the decision making process.

Other Matters

102. The application sites are 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 produced for both applications concludes that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon flooding in the area in accordance with WLP Policy W26 and Part 10 of the NPPF. The Drainage and Coastal Protection Team, the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water has raised no objections to the proposal. WLP Policy W26 is considered to be consistent with the NPPF and can be afforded weight in the decision making process.

103. The application sites are within a mixture of High and Low Coal Mining Risk Areas. However, the types of development are those which are exempt from requiring a Coal Mining Risk Assessment as there would be no buildings or excavations. The Coal Authority has raised no objections to the proposals and it is therefore considered that the proposal would not conflict with Paragraphs 120 and 121 of the NPPF.

104. Both proposals would be subject to Environmental Permits and would be regularly inspected by the Environment Agency.

105. The Parish Council has requested that a liaison committee be established for the site to deal with ongoing issues or concerns once the site is operational. The applicant has agreed to this in principle and it is therefore recommended that a condition be imposed to require that a liaison committee be established within the 6 months of the commencement of development which would then meet at intervals of 6 months, or shorter, thereafter.

CONCLUSION

106. Planning policy is generally supportive towards sustainable waste management initiatives and seeks to locate material recycling facilities on land identified for general industrial use or on previously developed land in sustainable locations. The proposal for a MRF would be located within an existing industrial unit and on adjacent ancillary land and would make a substantial contribution to diverting waste materials up the waste hierarchy, away from landfill. The proposed inert recycling facility would be located on previously developed in a sustainable location and would also contribute to diverting waste away from landfill. It is considered that the proposals would be appropriate in this location and would not give rise to any unacceptable environmental impacts

107. The NPPW sets out in the waste hierarchy that prevention of waste and re-use of materials should be considered before recycling. However, there are still residual waste streams that need to be managed containing materials that cannot be readily reused without processing. The proposals would facilitate the separation of recyclable fractions from mixed waste streams that would normally be landfilled. The residual product of the process would be suitable for use as a fuel and would avoid the need for landfill

108. The proposals have generated some public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed developments. Careful consideration was given to the concerns raised throughout the consideration process and these have been taken into account and addressed in detail within the body of the report. On balance these were not felt to be of sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application in this case. Potential impacts on local amenity associated with matters such as noise, dust, odour and visual impact can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions.

109. The proposals are considered to broadly accord with the relevant policies of the County Durham Waste Local Plan and meet the aims of national planning guidance contained within NPPW and relevant sections of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

That both applications be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

DM/15/03748/WAS Change of use to materials recycling facility

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:

Drawing No. Figure 2 ‘Showing Existing & Proposed Permissions’ MRF Site Layout MRF Vehicle Movements and Parking MRF Materials Storage Areas MRF External Lighting

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents

3. Prior to any machinery, plant and/or process being brought into operation, a detailed noise impact assessment and scheme of sound attenuation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme of attenuation measures shall ensure that the rating level of noise emitted from plant, machinery and/or process on the site shall not exceed the background (LA90) by more than 5dB LAeq (1 hour) between 07.00-23.00 and 0dB LAeq (15 mins) between 23.00-07.00. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142: 2014.

Within 28 days from the commencement of commercial activities a validation assessment shall be carried out to demonstrate adherence with the above levels. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

4. Details of the external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use. The detail provided must be sufficient to demonstrate adherence to the ILP guidance notes for the reduction of intrusive light. The external lighting shall be erected and maintained in accordance with the approved details to minimise light spillage and glare outside the designated area.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

5. Details of fire suppression measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

6. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme of odour abatement measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning. The aim of the scheme shall be to demonstrate adherence to the Institute of Air Quality Management, guidance on the assessment of odour for planning and the H4 odour management guidelines and also minimise any fugitive odour emissions. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the development and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

7. The total number of vehicles delivering and exporting waste to the Materials Recycling Facility shall not exceed a daily average of 60 in and 60 out. A record of all vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a copy of this record shall be afforded to the Waste Planning Authority within 2 working days of such a request

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W31.

8. All waste material must be deposited, processed and stored within the Reception Building, as shown on the Site Layout Plan. No waste is to be stored outside of the Materials Recycling Facility building.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

9. No burning of waste shall be undertaken anywhere on the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

10. Measures shall be taken to ensure that mud, dirt, and waste is not transferred onto the public highway. If at any time these measures are not sufficient to prevent the transfer of any material onto the public highway, vehicle movements shall cease until adequate cleaning measures are employed which prove effective. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W31.

11. All vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be appropriately sheeted or suitably covered to suit its load. In the interests of amenity and highway safety (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policies W31 and W33)

12. All vehicles leaving the site shall turn left on to the C34 Road.

In the interests of amenity and highway safety (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policies W31 and W33)

13. Within 3 months of the commencement of development the ‘give way’ markings on the site access road at the junction with the C34 road shall be repainted and the roadside vegetation be cut back on the eastern side of the access onto the C34 to achieve the best junction sight visibility splay in the easterly direction.

In the interests of amenity and highway safety (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policies W31 and W33)

14. Processing of waste material shall only take place between the hours of 0700 to 1900 Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 on Saturdays. There shall be no operations on Sundays or bank or public holidays.

HGV movements associated with the Materials Recycling Facility shall only take place between the hours of 0800 to 1900 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays. There shall be no operations on Sundays or bank or public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W33.

15. Measures shall be taken to suppress dust arising from the development hereby approved, such that none shall be detected beyond the site boundary as shown on Drawing No. Figure 2 ‘Showing Existing & Proposed Permissions’. In the event that dust is detected beyond the site boundary, and that it is directly attributable to the use hereby approved, causal operations shall cease until measures are put in place to prevent dust migrating beyond the site boundary.

In the interests of local amenity (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

16. Within 6 months of the commencement of development the site operator shall establish a liaison committee to discuss site issues. The committee shall consist of representatives from the site operator, County Council, the Parish Council and members of the public. Following the first meeting the liaison committee shall meet at least every 6 months, or shorter period, thereafter.

In the interests of local amenity (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policy W33) DM/15/03747/WAS reuse of existing materials storage area

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:

Drawing No. Figure 2 ‘Showing Existing & Proposed Permissions’ MRF Site Layout MRF Vehicle Movements and Parking MRF Materials Storage Areas MRF External Lighting

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents

3. The rating level of noise emitted from plant/machinery (associated with the inert storage area) on the site shall not exceed the background (LA90) by more than 5dB LAeq (1 hour) between 07.00-23.00 and 0dB LAeq (15 mins) between 23.00-07.00 at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. The background level will be taken when no commercial activities are occurring on the full site. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142: 2014. On written request by the planning authority the operator shall, within 28 days, produce a report, compiled by a suitable and qualified person, to demonstrate adherence with the above rating level.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

4. The total number of vehicles delivering and exporting waste to the Materials Storage Area shall not exceed a daily total of 12 in and 12 out. A record of all vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a copy of this record shall be afforded to the Waste Planning Authority within 2 working days of such a request

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W31.

5. Only soil, soil substitutes and aggregate materials shall be stored within the materials storage area as shown on Drawing No. Figure 2 ‘Showing Existing & Proposed Permissions’ and stored to a height of no greater than 5m above ground level.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

6. No burning of waste shall be undertaken anywhere on the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

7. Measures shall be taken to ensure that mud, dirt, and waste is not transferred onto the public highway. If at any time these measures are not sufficient to prevent the transfer of any material onto the public highway, vehicle movements shall cease until adequate cleaning measures are employed which prove effective.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W31.

8. All vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be appropriately sheeted or suitably covered to suit its load.

In the interests of amenity and highway safety (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policies W31 and W33)

9. All vehicles leaving the site shall turn left on to the C34 Road.

In the interests of amenity and highway safety (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policies W31 and W33)

10. Delivery and export of inert material shall only take place between the hours of 1000 and 1600 Monday to Friday with no deliveries on Saturdays, Sundays or bank or public holidays..

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W33.

11. Measures shall be taken to suppress dust arising from the development hereby approved, such that none shall be detected beyond the site boundary as shown on Drawing No. Figure 2 ‘Showing Existing & Proposed Permissions’. In the event that dust is detected beyond the site boundary, and that it is directly attributable to the use hereby approved, causal operations shall cease until measures are put in place to prevent dust migrating beyond the site boundary.

In the interests of local amenity (Durham County Council Waste Local Plan Policy W33)

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to approve the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 Submitted application forms, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant.  The National Planning policy Framework (2012)  National Planning Policy for Waste  Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (1996)  County Durham Waste Local Plan (2005)  Statutory, internal and public consultation responses 1

2

1) Change of use to materials recycling facility (DM/15/03748/WAS) 2) 2) reuse of existing materials storage Planning Services area (DM/15/03747/WAS) Eldon Brickworks, Eldon Estates, Eldon, Bishop Auckland 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 April 2016 Scale Not to scale

Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/16/01442/WAS New Household Waste Recovery Centre including FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: sorting facility, resale shop and staff facilities.

Durham County Council NAME OF APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Civic Amenity Site, The Green, Stainton Grove

Streatlam and Stainton ELECTORAL DIVISION: Chris Shields, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER: 03000 261 394, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

Site

1. The application is located on the northern side of Stainton Grove Industrial Estate 2km to the north east of Barnard Castle. The site is accessed from the A688 Road known as Stainton Bank via a short section of Unclassified road known as The Green, which serves the industrial estate and the housing located to the west on The Crescent and The Avenue. The site measures 0.5ha and is mainly hard surfaced open space, with buildings around the edges including 6 Romney Sheds, also known as the ‘tank garages’ on the northern boundary. The tank garages are part of the remaining military infrastructure of the former Stainton Camp, which has been incrementally transitioned into the industrial estate as it stands today. The tank garages are considered to be non-designated heritage assets.

2. The area surrounding the site is predominantly agricultural in nature, with the site screened on its northern side by tree planting on the verges of the A688. There are other industrial uses within the rest of the industrial estate including the Stainton Grove Waste Transfer Station (WTS). The site is located within an Area of High Landscape Value but is not subject to any other landscape or ecological designations. The site has a generally flat topography, although the land to the north slopes upward toward the A688 Road. There are no Public Rights of Way within the vicinity of the site.

The Proposal

3. The application is for the redevelopment of the former highways depot and adjacent pallet yard at Stainton Grove. The proposed development would comprise of a split level Household Waste Recovery Centre (HWRC), buildings including a sorting facility and resale shop, staff facilities (office and welfare); vehicle storage areas; vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas; drainage and water management system; perimeter fencing and lighting. 4. The proposed HWRC would be a split level arrangement to provide sufficient space for public waste management function alongside trade waste and a resale/reuse building, with the public side operating on a one-way system to limit the need for reversing. The split level arrangement would ensure a more efficient waste distribution within containers as the waste is dropped in by members of public.

5. The anticipated throughput of waste at the site is expected to be in the order of 3,950 tonnes per annum (tpa) which takes into account future municipal waste growth, anticipated to be 0.5% per annum. This would generate an estimated 325 vehicles arriving at the site on weekdays and 405 vehicles per day at the weekend. This in contrast to approximately 196 vehicles per day on weekends that the site currently accepts. The site has been designed to incorporate greater parking provision for residents disposing of waste and an increased number of waste receptacles for future use. Low-level hazardous wastes such as Waste Electrical and Electronic Items (white goods, TVs and monitors), gas bottles, fluorescent tubes, oil (engine and cooking) and batteries would be accepted at the site. These materials would be stored appropriately prior to being transported to a suitably licensed facility for processing. Non-hazardous waste would also be accepted including cardboard, glass, green waste, plastics, paper, metals, wood, textiles, soil and rubble, carpets, plasterboard and residual (black bag) waste.

6. A resale building, sorting building and weighbridge/welfare office are also proposed. The resale facility would be located to the south of the operational area being single storey and measuring 14.3 metres in length, 10 metres in width, with a ridge height of 6 metres. It would sell items recovered from the HWRC in order to maximise the level of reuse of materials from the site. The building would also accommodate site welfare facilities.

7. The sorting building would be a 2 storey construction measuring 7.9 metres in length, 4.5 metres in width, and of 4.3 metres height to eaves. The building would facilitate the sorting of materials centrally within the site but outside of public view. Welfare provision and the site’s weighbridge kiosk and office function will be housed in a preparatory single storey office unit measuring 11.4 metres in length, 3.4 metres in width, and a height of 4.3 metres. The weighbridge kiosk would provide an office, breakout area, and toilet facilities for the onsite staff.

8. Existing Council Depot functions would be retained on the site and a separate entrance would be constructed at the western boundary for this purpose. An existing building at the south western corner of the Council depot site would be retained and used as a refuse and recycling building. The western side of the site would also accommodate the new clean and green building, which would be a blockwork building of 24.1 metres in length, 8.1m in width and a ridge height of circa 6 metres. This building would accommodate Council waste vehicles within the site but outside of public view. The clean and green building would accommodate vehicles and equipment only and as such would be a simple pitched single roof structure with six electrically controlled roller shutter doors. Natural daylight would be provided by roof lights on the north side of the roof pitch.

9. The site would be surrounded by a 2.4m high security fence. Security gates would be fitted to the site entrance so the site can be locked when not in use. There would be 8 parking spaces for staff to the south of the operational area adjacent to the resale building. Staff access would be through the operations yard. There would also be facilities adjacent to the resale building for the storage of bicycles. 10. Construction works would be expected to last for approximately 4 to 5 months and would likely to take place between November 2016 and May 2017. During construction the weekend HWRC provision at the site would not be available. As part of ground preparation works, the existing pallet yard, store building, tank garages and barrack building would be demolished.

Site Operation

11. Following entry into the site, visitors would follow the one-way system into the main disposal/recycling area. Public vehicles would circulate in a clockwise direction with the raised drop-off area located after the at-grade recycling. Public footways on the raised area would be separated from the vehicle parking areas by a kerb. Appropriate signage would be put in place for vehicles and for identifying disposal and recycling locations by material type.

12. The operations yard would allow vehicles onto site to remove skips once full without requiring the site to be closed. The skips would be transported by hook lift vehicles and taken off site to appropriate reprocessing facilities. All operational waste vehicles would pass over the weighbridge.

13. Collection and emptying of the recycling banks on the south east side of the site would be carried out by smaller waste vehicles operated by various collection and recycling companies. Vehicle access to service these skips/containers would again be through the operational yard.

14. It is proposed that the HWRC would operate everyday with the exception of Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. The HWRC would be open to the public 09:00 to 18:00 from April to September and 09:00 to 15:30 from October to March. Operational hours of the HWRC would be extended by 1 hour at the beginning and end of each day to allow for site management, clean-up activities and removal/delivery of skips.

15. The application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it is a major development.

PLANNING HISTORY

16. The site was granted planning permission on 23rd April 1980 to use the former army buildings and land for industrial and community use and a council depot (6/1980/0112/DC).

17. There have been two subsequent applications seeking a determination as to whether pre approval for the method of demolition of redundant buildings in the south of the site was required (DM/16/00809/PND & DM/15/01208/PND).

18. Prior notification for the demolition of garage and store at 1 Stainton Grove Depot to facilitate this proposed HWRC development. The Local Planning Authority determined that prior approval was not required on 1 April 2016 (DM/16/00809/PND).

19. Demolition of Unit 1A, 1B, 2A Stainton Grove Industrial Estate to facilitate this proposed HWRC development (DM/15/01208/PND). The Local Planning Authority determined that prior approval was not required on 22 May 2015. PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

20. 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.

21. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies as these are contained within the National Planning Policy for Waste document. However, the NPPF requires local authorities preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in the NPPF so far as relevant.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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)

31. 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 air quality, noise, waste and use of planning conditions.

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

32. National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) sets out the Government's ambition to work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management. Waste Planning Authorities should only expect a demonstration of need where proposals are not consistent with an up to date Local Plan and should not consider matters that are within the control of pollution control authorities. Waste proposals should not undermine the objectives of the Local Plan and should be environmentally sensitive and well designed. Of further relevance is the Waste Management Plan for England, which also advocates the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-for-waste

LOCAL PLAN POLICY:

County Durham Waste Local Plan (2005) (WLP)

33. Policy W2 – Need – requires the demonstration of need for a particular development which cannot be met by an alternative solution higher up the waste hierarchy. 34. Policy W3 – Environmental Protection – states that proposals for new development will be required to demonstrate that the natural and built environment and the living conditions of local communities will be protected and where possible enhanced.

35. Policy W4 – Location of Waste Management Facilities – states that proposals for new waste management facilities will be determined having regard to protection of the environment and local amenity, traffic impacts, opportunities to integrate with other facilities or developments which will benefit from the recovery of materials and to extend or develop existing waste management facilities.

36. Policy W6 – Design – states that new buildings for waste management uses should be carefully sited and designed to complement the location and existing topography.

37. Policy W7 – Landscape – states that proposals for waste development which would result in the loss of important landscape features or which would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape will not be permitted.

38. Policy W26 –Water Resources – Proposals for waste development which does not involve landfill or landraise will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse impact or significant deterioration to: the quality of surface or groundwater resources; and the flow of surface or groundwater at or in the vicinity of the site.

39. Policy W29 – Modes of Transport – requires that waste development incorporate measures to minimise transportation of waste.

40. Policy W31 – Environmental Impact of Road Traffic – states that waste development will only be permitted if traffic estimated to be generated by the development can be accommodated safely on the highway network, the amenity of roadside communities is protected, the strategic highway network can be safely and conveniently accessed and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.

41. Policy W32 – Planning Obligations for Controlling Environmental Impact – states that in granting planning permission for waste development, planning conditions be imposed to cover, in addition to other issues, the prevention of the transfer of mud, dust, or litter onto the public highway by measures including the provision of wheel cleaning facilities, suitably metalled access roads and the sheeting of laden vehicles.

42. Policy W33 – Protecting Local Amenity – requires that suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into proposals to ensure that any harmful impacts from noise, odour, litter, vermin, birds, dust, mud, visual intrusion and traffic and transport are kept to an acceptable level.

43. Policy W36 – Locations for Waste Recovery Facilities - states that unless it can be clearly demonstrated that any environmental impacts can be effectively mitigated proposals for new or the expansion of existing waste management facilities should be fully contained within well designed buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process and appropriate in scale and character to their surroundings.

44. Policy W37 – Household Waste Recycling Centres - states that proposals will be permitted, provided that they can be satisfactorily located on land identified for general industrial use, previously developed land in sustainable locations or as part of an existing waste management facility. Teesdale Local Plan (2002)

45. Policy ENV3 – Development Within Or Adjacent To An Area Of High Landscape Value – Development will be permitted where it does not detract from the areas special character and pays particular attention to the landscape qualities of the area.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:

The County Durham Plan

46. 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 (CDP) was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 18 February 2015, however that Report was quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. In accordance with the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP and a new plan being prepared. In the light of this, policies of the CDP can no longer carry any weight. As the new plan progresses through the stages of preparation it will begin to accrue weight.

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/3271/Teesdale-Local-Plan(Teesdale 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)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES:

47. Environment Agency – has raised no objections to the proposal but has stated that the development would require an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

48. Natural England – has raised no objections to the proposal.

49. Highway Authority – has raised no objections to the proposal but has requested a condition requiring a scheme of signage for the access to the site from the A688 to be submitted.

50. Northumbrian Water – has raised no objections to the proposal.

51. Historic England – has raised no objections to the proposal.

52. Drainage and Coastal Protection – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers have noted that there does not appear to be a risk of flooding to the development site and recommend that the development be implemented in line with the proposed drainage scheme which should restrict surface water discharge to sewer at at restricted rate of 5l/sec.

NON-STATUTORY RESPONSES:

53. Landscape – has raised no objections but has requested the submission of a landscaping scheme through condition 54. Ecology – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers have commented that the Ecological Assessment is sufficient to inform the proposal but have requested that the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out within the assessment.

55. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – has raised no objections to the proposal but has requested further noise and lighting assessments to be submitted prior to the commencement of development.

56. Contaminated Land – has raised no objections to the proposal but has commented that contamination has been identified on the site and has recommended that a scheme to deal with the contamination be submitted through condition.

57. Design and Conservation – has raised no objections to the proposal although officers have not drawn a conclusion in relation to the harm to the non-designated heritage assets.

58. Archaeology – has raised no objections but has requested that conditions be applied to record the tank garages prior to demolition or relocation.

59. Sustainability – has raised no objections to the proposal.

PUBLIC RESPONSES:

60. The application was advertised in the press, by site notices and letters to neighbouring residents. 3 letters of objection have been received and 1 letter offering support and suggestions.

61. Objectors to the scheme have stated that the access to Stainton Grove from the A688 is not safe and requires additional visibility, signage and a lower speed restriction. It is believed that there will be a significant increase in traffic from construction and users of the HWRC with resultant increases in noise and pollution. It is stated that properties on the approach road into Stainton Grove can only park their vehicles on the roadside and are therefore vulnerable to damage from users of the HWRC. It is therefore requested that additional parking is created for the residents of properties 1 to 4 of The Green. There is no safe provision for pedestrian access into the HWRC. It was also questioned whether the site would include an aerobic digester.

62. In support of the scheme it has been commented that the proposal is long awaited and essential for this area of Teesdale, the buildings and facilities are comprehensive and well designed and the site chosen is eminently sensible, facilitating the removal of aged military structures. It is suggested that the scheme should incorporate a 30mph speed restriction on the section A688 running parallel to Stainton Grove to ensure safe access. It is also considered that the access from the A67 via Town Pasture Lane should be restricted to residential access only to deter users of the HWRC from using this route. The proposed operation of the HWRC should be reduced from 7 days per week to 6 days with a Sunday closure out of consideration for the neighbouring residents and evening and weekend construction of the HWRC should be avoided for the same reasons.

63. Open Spaces Society and Ramblers Association – have raised no objections to the proposal but have requested that the materials to be used in the construction of the buildings have a matt rather than shiny finish. APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

64. Durham County Council is proposing to replace the existing Household Waste Recycling Centre at Stainton Grove with a new modern facility meeting current and evolving legislative requirements and the expressed demands of local residents. The current HWRC lies to the west of the Council depot yard on the Stainton Grove Industrial Estate. The existing facility is only able to open at weekends due to conflict with Depot traffic (shared entrance) and is unable to offer the full range of recycling opportunities due to its restricted size as well as generating traffic management concerns.

65. The current HWRC is positioned less than 50m from the A688 main road running between Barnard Castle and Bishop Auckland and has an overall footprint of around 250m². This is too small to enable DCC to achieve appropriate redevelopment and as such, the replacement HWRC is proposed to be built on the current Stainton Grove Depot site to the immediate east of the present facility. The depot site offers a substantially bigger area of approximately 5,200m² in which to build a modern fit for purpose HWRC.

66. The new site will open 7 days a week and 362/3 days a year. It will provide opportunities to recycle every type of material currently available at the 11 other HWRC’s within the County and will also provide dedicated trade waste recycling, a first on a HWRC. It will remove the risk of traffic “backing up” onto the A688 and will be further away from residential property. The use of noise attenuation screens (acoustic barriers) and screen tree planting will reduce any visual and aural impact. Traffic management of both residential and service vehicles will be substantially improved.

67. There will also be the addition of a reuse shop on site with dedicated parking for residents to purchase refurbished and repurposed goods such as furniture, electricals, bicycles, garden equipment etc. This will help reduce the volume of deposited materials to be disposed of and provide a valuable service to the area.

68. There has been increasing demand for a local facility to be open all week as well as weekends, providing a bigger range of recycling opportunities and satisfy local business requirements for “local” opportunities to legally deal with their commercial waste. The new proposed site accomplishes all of these requirements and adds further value through reuse shop. The customer experience will be significantly better.

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 a http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

69. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that if regard is to be had to the development plan, decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In accordance with Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the policies contained therein are material considerations that should be taken into account in decision-making. Other material considerations include representations received. In this context, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: the principle of development, residential amenity, landscape and visual impact, heritage, design, ecology, highways and access and other matters. Principle of development

70. National and local planning policies are generally supportive towards sustainable waste management initiatives and seek to promote the movement of materials up the waste hierarchy. The Government’s ‘Waste Strategy for England 2007’ set out the Government’s objectives to reduce waste and increase recycling of waste and energy recovery. The Waste Review of 2011 sets out the Government’s aims for a ‘zero waste’ economy. The direction of travel set by the Review is a new focus in national policy on the use of materials throughout the economy; the integration of business and household waste; a smaller and different role for central government; and more focus upon the householder or business and the importance of this agenda – from waste prevention to waste management – for the “green economy”. Waste is considered a valuable resource.

71. The NPPW sets out in the waste hierarchy that prevention of waste and re-use of materials should be considered before recycling, recovery and final disposal of waste. This is reflected in WLP Policy W2 requiring developments to demonstrate an established need for the facility and to show that they would make a contribution to the County’s sustainable waste strategy and achieve overall environmental benefits, and move waste up the Waste Hierarchy. The proposed facility would significantly improve the existing service provision and would make a contribution to the delivery of targets for diverting waste away from landfill and regional and local targets for the recycling and recovery of waste materials by providing users with a convenient means of recycling items that may otherwise be discarded. WLP Policy W4 refers to the location of new waste management facilities and criteria to be considered. This is reflected in Appendix B of NPPW which sets out criteria for the assessment of waste sites. These include land instability.

72. NPPW Paragraph 7 states that in determining planning applications waste planning authorities should ‘consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B and the locational implications of any advice on health from the relevant health bodies. Waste planning authorities should avoid carrying out their own detailed assessment of epidemiological and other health studies’ and ‘ensure that waste management facilities in themselves are well- designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located’. WLP environmental protection policies relevant to this proposal are Policies W7, W17, W26, W29, W31, W32 and W33 but also summarily covered in Policy W3 which requires evidence to demonstrate that new waste development will protect or enhance the natural and built environment. The applicant has provided details of the necessary environmental protection measures that are assessed later in this report.

73. WLP Policy W3 seeks to protect the natural and built and environment and living conditions of local communities and where possible enhanced. The proposed development would provide significantly improved facilities and service on an existing site, which currently only operates a restricted part time service. The new HWRC would be positioned further away from the nearby housing and provide a much larger, safer and permanent facility that would not result in any further green space being lost.

74. WLP Policies W4 and W37 seek to ensure that new waste management facilities, and specifically HWRC facilities, meet environmental criteria in respect of their siting and operation. The location of the development within an existing building with good access close to major roads would ensure the environmental acceptability of the proposal in accordance with Policies W4 and W37. Specific concerns raised by objectors in relation to highways are addressed below. 75. WLP Policy W37 makes specific reference to HWRC sites and is the key policy against which the proposal should be considered. Policy W37 states that proposals of this nature will be permitted provided they can be satisfactorily located at existing waste transfer stations, on land identified for general industrial use or on previously developed land in sustainable locations. In addition text supporting Policy W37 states that these facilities should either be fully or partially enclosed with an impermeable surface and include appropriate design for surface water drainage.

76. It is considered that the proposal using previously developed industrial land is acceptable in principle and would accord with WLP Policies W2, W4, W3 and W37. WLP Policies W2, W3, W4, W7, W17, W29, W31. W33, W37 are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and WLP Policy W32 is considered to be partially consistent with the NPPF and can therefore be afforded weight in the decision making process.

Residential Amenity

77. The site is located on the northern edge of Stainton Grove Industrial Estate on land currently occupied by the Council Depot and a pallet yard. The topography of the land between the site and the nearest residential properties is generally flat with screening of current and proposed operations being afforded by buildings on the periphery of the site. Beyond the tree planting lies farmland. The nearest residential properties are located less than 10m to the west of the site on The Green and further housing is located approximately 250m to the south west on the Crescent and the Avenue

Noise

78. The application site has been in operation as a Council Depot with a small HWRC on the western side without any restrictions placed upon noise levels or operating hours. The existing HWRC has been in operation on the site for more than 15 years. The proposed development would see a significant increase in the size of the development and would allow operation 7 days per week throughout the year. Comments in relation to the scheme have cited mixed views as one states that noise is likely to significantly increase while another is satisfied with the hours of operation provided that they are adhered to. A resident not living within the vicinity of the site has requested that the HWRC does not operate on Sundays.

79. Whilst the development would be on a much larger scale than what is currently available it would move the noisier elements and, in particular glass recycling, to the eastern side of the site away from the nearest properties. The 7 day operation is likely to attract additional users but would also spread the use over a longer period of time so that the operation is less intense and cumulative noise reduced. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection officers have considered the assessments submitted with the application and raised no objections but have requested that additional noise and lighting assessments are submitted through condition to inform any potential mitigation measures. A condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed operating hours are adhered to. In view of this and given suitable controls would be put in place in terms of operating hours, it is considered that the proposals would not adversely affect the amenity of the nearest noise sensitive properties away and would therefore accord with WLP Policies W3 and W33 and Part 11 of the NPPF.

Odour

80. The HWRC would accept black bag waste, which is often putrescible. Whilst this has the potential to cause odour it is unlikely to cause a nuisance as the skips on the site are regularly removed. In addition, the development would be controlled through an Environmental Permit regulated by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency and Pollution Control Officers have raised no objections to the proposal in respect of odour. It is therefore considered that the development would not impact upon the amenity of the nearest properties in accordance with WLP Policies W3 and W33 and Part 11 of the NPPF.

Landscape and visual impact

81. The application site is situated within the Dales Fringe landscape character area; an area that is characterised as a broad rolling vale punctuated with historic parklands, wooded estates and is essentially rural in character with little urban or industrial development. The site is within an Area of High Landscape Value as defined in Policy ENV3 of the Teesdale Local Plan and is visible from within the industrial estate and also from the A688 to the north. Views from the A688 are partly screened by a narrow belt of trees close to the road, and to a certain extent, by the topography. However, the road is significantly higher than the site, which makes it difficult to achieve effective screening. At present the view into the site from the north is bounded by the gable ends of the former tank garages, which are painted black and are relatively visually recessive, while also being of a simple form.

82. Although the proposal would not seek to remove any of the surrounding vegetation, it would be likely to be more visually prominent given the scale and massing of the buildings and split level layout.. Landscape officers have no objected to the proposal in principle but have requested the submission of a landscaping scheme by condition. Through condition a landscaping scheme would be required which would seek to ensure that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the landscape or to the significance of the Area of High Landscape Value and visual amenity in accordance with WLP Policies W7 and W33, TDLP ENV3 and Part 7 of the NPPF.

Heritage

83. There are no listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments or Conservation Areas designations within or immediately adjacent to the site. There are 14 designated heritage assets within 2km of the site, all of which are Grade II listed buildings. Within Stainton Grove there are 7 non-designated heritage assets including a Roman Road, Stainton Medieval Village, Medieval Chapel, Post-Medieval Milestone, Second World War Prisoner of War Camp, Training Camp, Barracks and NAAFI (Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes) Building. Barnard Castle Conservation Area lies 1.8km to the south west.

84. A heritage assessment has been submitted with the application. The assessment considers the impact on heritage assets within the vicinity of the site, in particular the loss of the tank garages from the site. The assessment concludes that the development would result in a considerable negative impact on the heritage significance of the Stainton Grove Military Camp due to the loss of the tank garages and recommends that to mitigate this impact the buildings should be recorded prior to demolition and, if possible, relocated to another site.

85. Design and Historic Environment officers have not objected to the proposals but consider that further information is required in order to demonstrate that all efforts have been made to explore the recommendation in the heritage statement that suggests that the building could be relocated elsewhere. The actual loss of the tank garages is not considered to be significant provided that they are recorded. It is also recommended that a condition be included to demonstrate that all efforts have been made to relocate the tank garages. If the applicant is unable to relocate the tank garages then they would be demolished. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the tank garages are recorded.

86. Overall it is considered that the harm to the non-designated heritage assets would be outweighed by the benefits of the new HWRC for the area. It is considered that the proposal would accord with WLP Policy W6 and advice contained in Part 12 of the NPPF. WLP Policy W6 is considered to be consistent with the NPPF.

Design

87. It is considered that the design of the proposed HWRC would be to good standard representing an improvement on the existing facility and in keeping with the transition of the military camp to an industrial estate. Details of the materials and finishes would be required by condition. It is considered that the development would accord with WLP Policy W6 and Part 7 of the NPPF.

Ecology

88. 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.

89. An ecological assessment was submitted with the application and this identified that there are no protected habitats present. Natural England and the Councils Ecology officers have raised no objections to the proposals and it is considered that there would be no risk of a direct impact upon any protected species. It is therefore considered that the proposals would not conflict with WLP Policy W13 and Paragraphs 109, and 118 of the NPPF which requires that impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and net gains provided where possible.

Highway and Access

90. The NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. WLP Policy W31 seeks to ensure that new waste development can be safely accommodated on the local and strategic highway network. The proposed development would widen an existing but currently unused access point on the southern edge of the site for the HWRC traffic. The existing depot entrance would be retained for the clean and green and depot services.

91. The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement in support of the application which identifies the baseline conditions in relation to access, road safety, site operations, traffic movements and distribution and considers the impact of the proposed development. The HWRC would generate an estimated 325 vehicles arriving at the site on weekdays and 405 vehicles per day at the weekend. This in contrast to approximately 196 vehicles per day on weekends that the site currently accepts. The report concludes that the proposed increase in annual tonnage from the development would not have a severe residual impact upon the local highway network.

92. Concerns have been raised in respect of increases in traffic movements, access from the A688, residents parking with Stainton Grove and pedestrian access into the HWRC. The latter issue has been directly addressed with the addition of a safe footpath into the site for pedestrian users. Overall use and therefore traffic movements are likely to increase as a result of the redevelopment of the site but as this opening days would be increased from 2 per week to 7 per week it is likely that the intensity of traffic movements would actually be seen to reduce. The Highways Authority have considered the requests to reduce the speed limit on the A688 but resolved that this would not be feasible or necessary; however, they have required improvements to the access visibility and signage by way of condition. Whilst it is understandable that residents of the properties opposite to the site would like additional off highway parking it is not considered reasonable to require this to be delivered through this development as there is no direct impact. The access point in to the site would be moved further east into the industrial estate and away from The Green, where it is currently located, which should reduce potential conflict between residents and users of the HWRC.

93. The Highway Authority has assessed the application and considers the proposed development can be safely accommodated on the highway network and it is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with WLP Policies W29, W31 and W32 and Part 4 of the NPPF.

Other matters

94. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the proposed development but has noted that the site would require an Environmental Permit, which would allow regulation and monitoring of waste activities.

95. A Phase 2 Geo-Environmental Assessment has been submitted in support of the application which identifies that there is contamination on the site. Contaminated Land officers have raised no objections in principle to the proposal but have requested that a Phase 3 remediation strategy be submitted to investigate the made ground and gas protection measures on site. It is considered that this information should be submitted by way of condition in accordance with Part 11 of the NPPF.

96. A drainage scheme has submitted with the application which demonstrates that the surface water run off would be restricted to 5l/sec. As the site is below the 1ha threshold a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was not required. Northumbrian Water and Drainage and Coastal Protection Officers have raised no objections to the proposal and it is therefore considered that the development would accord with WLP Policy W26 and Part 10 of the NPPF. WLP Policy W26 is considered to be consistent with the NPPF and can be afforded weight in the decision making process.

CONCLUSION

97. Planning policy is generally supportive towards sustainable waste management initiatives and seeks to locate waste transfer and material recycling facilities on land identified for general industrial use or on previously developed land in sustainable locations. The proposal would be located on an existing industrial unit and make a contribution towards diverting waste materials up the waste hierarchy, away from landfill. 98. The site has an established use as a Council Depot and recent use as a temporary HWRC. Although an expansion of the existing operation it is considered that the proposed development would be appropriate in this location and would not give rise to any unacceptable environmental impacts in terms of noise, odour, visual impact or traffic impact and would be a net improvement upon the existing facility.

99. The proposal has generated some public interest, with 3 letters of objection having been received. Concerns expressed regarding the proposal have been taken fully into account, and carefully balanced against the scheme’s wider social, economic and community benefits. However, they are not considered to raise issues that justify planning permission being withheld.

100. The proposed development is considered to broadly accord with the relevant policies of the County Durham Waste Local Plan and meet the aims of national planning guidance contained within PPS10 and relevant sections of the NPPF.

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:

Drawing No. DCCSGR-ATK-ZZ-DR-C-0003 Rev. C1 ‘Proposed General Arrangement’ Drawing No. DCCSGR-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0013 Rev. P02 ‘Indicative Drainage Layout’ Drawing No. DCCBRH-ATK-XX-XX-DR-A-2200 Rev. P1.1 ‘Proposed Weighbridge Office / Welfare Building Elevations’ Drawing No. DCCBRS-ATK-XX-XX-DR-A-3200 Rev. P1.1 ‘Proposed Sorting Building Elevations’ Drawing No. 5122914-ATK-SGR-ZZ-DR-C-0006 Rev. P01 ‘Proposed Surface, Kerb and Fencing Layout’ Drawing No. DCCSTG-ATK-ZZ-DR-E-63-002 Rev. P01 ‘Electrical Services Proposed External Lighting Strategy’ Drawing No. DCCSGR-ATK-XX-XX-DR-A-1200 Rev.P1.1 ‘Proposed Resale Building Elevations’ Drawing No. DCCBRS-ATK-XX-XX-DR-A-4200 Rev. P1.1 ‘Clean and Green Proposed Elevations’

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents

3. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the colours and finishes for all buildings, fixed plant and machinery shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter take place accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents and in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W6.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed noise impact assessment and scheme of sound attenuation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme of attenuation measures shall ensure that the rating level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the background (LA90) by more than 5dB LAeq (1 hour) between 07.00-23.00 and 0dB LAeq (15 mins) between 23.00-07.00. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142: 2014. The agreed scheme of attenuation measures shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the site and permanently retained thereafter.

Within 28 days of the beneficial use of the site a report will be produced and submitted to the local planning authority to demonstrate adherence with the above rating level.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33.

5. Prior to commencement of the development, a lighting impact assessment for the lighting scheme proposed, shall take place and be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This should include the following, commensurate with the scale/type of lighting scheme provided:

 A description of the proposed lighting units including height, type, angling and power output for all lighting  Drawing(s)/contour plans showing the luminance levels both horizontal and vertical of the lighting scheme to demonstrate that no light falls into the curtilage of sensitive neighbouring properties;  The Environmental Zone which the site falls within, in accordance with the Institution of Lighting Professionals Guidance on the Reduction of Obtrusive Light, to be agreed with the LPA. The relevant light sensitive receptors to be used in the assessment to be agreed with the LPA in advance of the assessment.  Details of the Sky Glow Upward Light Ratio, Light Intrusion (into windows of relevant properties) and Luminaire Intensity.  The limits for the relevant Environmental Zone relating to Sky Glow Upward Light Ratio, Light Trespass (into windows) and Luminaire Intensity, contained in Table 2 (Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations) of the Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance on the Reduction of Obtrusive Light shall not be exceeded.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33.

6. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of road signage indicating the location of the site from the A688 shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme of signage shall be implemented and retained in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W31. 7. Prior to the commencement of development a Phase 3 Remediation Strategy detailing the proposed remediation and verification works shall be carried out by competent person(s). No alterations to the remediation proposals shall be carried out without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. If during the remediation or development works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Phase 3, then remediation proposals for this material shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works.

Upon completion of the remedial works (if required), a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Phase 3 Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risk to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with NPPF Part 11.

8. Prior to the commencement of development a landscaping scheme including full details of planting and soft landscaping shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for agreement in writing. The scheme shall be implemented within the first available planting season following the development being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W7.

9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in Section 6 of the Ecological Assessment dated August 2015.

Reason: In order to protect the ecological value of the site and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan W13.

10. Public opening hours for the HWRC shall only be from 09:00 to 18:00 from April to September and 09:00 to 15:30 from October to March. Removal of skips and site clean-up shall only be from 08:00 to 19:00 from April to September and 08:00 to 16:30 from October to March.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33.

11. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of the programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been approved in writing by the local planning authority as follows:

i. Methodologies for a Level 3 EH-style building record prior to any demolition works or stripping out of fixtures and fittings. ii. A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the approved strategy. iii. Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. iv. A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including sub- contractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.

The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with para 135 & 141 of the NPPF because the site is of archaeological interest.

12. Prior to the development being brought into use, a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record.

Reason: To comply with para. 141 of the NPPF, which requires the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of a heritage asset.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to approve the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant.  The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)  National Planning Practice Guidance Notes  National Planning Policy for Waste  County Durham Waste Local Plan  Teesdale District Local Plan  Statutory, internal and public consultation responses. DM/16/01442/WAS New Household Waste Recovery Centre including sorting facility, resale shop and Planning Services staff facilities at The Green, Stainton Grove, Durham

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 July 2016 Scale Not to scale