Representations to the Darlington Borough Council Proposed Submission Local Plan - August 2020

Prepared on Behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd

September 2020

Representations to the Darlington Borough Council Proposed Submission Local Plan - August 2020

Prepared on Behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd.

Status: Draft Final Issue/Rev: 01 02 Date: September 2020 September 2020 Prepared by: CB CB Checked by: JH JH Authorised by: JH JH

Barton Willmore LLP 1st Floor 14 King Street Leeds LS1 2HL

Tel: 0113 204 4777 Ref: 29109/A5/Reps/CB

Email: [email protected] Date: September 2020

COPYRIGHT

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Barton Willmore LLP.

All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetable oil-based inks.

Contents Page

1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Vision, Aims and Objectives 3 3.0 Sustainable Development 6 4.0 The Settlement Hierarchy 7 5.0 Design, Climate Change and Construction 9 6.0 Housing 12 7.0 Environment 21 8.0 Transport and Infrastructure 26 9.0 Conclusions 29

Figures 6.1 Policies Map Extract

Appendices A Site Context Plans (Great Burdon and Burtree Lane) B Indicative Great Burdon Masterplan

Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 Barton Willmore is instructed by Bellway Homes Ltd. (hereafter referred to as our ‘Client’) to submit representations to the Darlington Borough Local Plan Proposed Submission currently subject to public consultation until 17 September 2020.

1.2 Our Client is one of the UK’s leading housebuilders, committed to the highest standards of design, construction and service. They have a large number of site interests across Darlington and are therefore keen to engage with the Council and assist in preparing a sound plan which is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent.

Land Interests

1.3 Our Client’s principle land interests in the Borough include the following:

• Great Burdon (identified as Site 20 within the Proposed Submission) and;

• Burtree Lane (identified as Site 109 within the Council’s Housing Employment Land Availability Assessment 2018).

1.4 Site Context Plans outlining these sites is found in Appendix A of this Report and site-specific representations are provided within separate documents.

Consultation

1.5 The current consultation seeks comments on the Proposed Submission version of the Darlington Borough Local Plan.

1.6 The Plan sets out the broad spatial planning and policy framework for the Darlington Borough up to 2036. The current consultation runs for a period of six weeks from 6 August to 17 September 2020 and this is the final opportunity to comment on the legal compliance and soundness of the Local Plan before it is submitted for independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate.

The National Planning Context

1.7 These representations set out our Client’s comments on the Proposed Submission Local Plan and highlight several issues in relation to the Local Plan that our Client believes should be addressed during the Examination stage.

1.8 Where appropriate, these representations refer to relevant paragraphs in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (the Framework), with which the Local Plan must be consistent. Paragraph 35 of the Framework sets out that the plan must be:

19015/A3/Reps/CB 1 September 2020

Introduction

Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;

Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and

Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.

1.9 We trust these representations will be afforded full consideration by Darlington Borough Council (the ‘Council’) and the Inspector in relation to the emerging Local Plan.

Structure of this Report

1.10 These representations are set out as follows:

• Vision, Aims and Objectives; • Sustainable Development; • The Settlement Hierarchy; • Design and Construction; • Housing; • Environment; • Transport and Infrastructure; • Site Specific Representations at Great Burdon and Burtree Lane; and • Conclusions.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 2 September 2020

Vision, Aims and Objectives

2.0 VISION, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 Chapter 2 of the Local Plan sets outs the Council’s overarching vision, aims and objectives which sets out sets out what the Plan is seeking to achieve. The vision will set out what the Council believes the Borough will look like at the end of the Plan period (2036). In order for this vision to be realised, a number of overarching aims and objectives have been identified.

Vision

2.2 The vision, as set out within the Proposed Submission, states:

‘In 2036, Darlington Borough will have maintained its identity as a cohesive historic market town situated amongst countryside and villages, whilst developing its reputation for ingenuity and its status as an economic driver in the Tees Valley. Its coherent community, natural and historic environment will be enhanced and continue to be cherished protected and celebrated. The opportunities available in Darlington and its links with other centres will make the Borough an attractive place for both residential and commercial investment, with the Borough’s needs for housing, jobs and other development being met, supported by new and improved built and green infrastructure and community facilities. Together with excellent national and regional connectivity and accessibility, these characteristics will mean Darlington continues to thrive and be a great place to live, work and invest.'

2.3 In general, our Client is supportive of the proposed vision; however, it is considered that further emphasis should be placed on the commitment to provide a variety of house types and sizes through the delivery of much needed new homes in sustainable locations to better reflect the emphasis on sustainable growth and boosting the supply of housing as highlighted in the Framework. This is particularly important given the past undersupply of housing that has been recorded in the Borough.

2.4 In light of this we advocate the following points being added to the vision which state:

• The Local Plan will seek to boost significantly the supply of housing within the Borough; ensuring that housing need can be sufficiently met over the plan period and that an appropriate balance between jobs and new homes is achieved. • That growth is focussed on sustainable locations within the Borough including logical extensions to the existing urban area.

2.5 As set out within national policy, the Council must allocate sufficient sites for new housing to meet the social and economic needs of the area, as well as ensuring the right locations are chosen to accommodate sustainable growth.

2.6 Paragraph 59 of the Framework states that:

19015/A3/Reps/CB 3 September 2020

Vision, Aims and Objectives

“to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay”.

2.7 For this to be achieved through the plan making process, it requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to fully illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery and set out a strategy to describe how the required delivery will be maintained.

2.8 In order to meet the identified housing need within the Borough, the emerging Local Plan identifies that a minimum requirement of 422 net additional dwellings will be required per annum over the Plan period from 2016 to 2036. This results in a total net minimum requirement of 8,440 dwellings. The Council’s housing target (which makes allowance for economic growth) is; however, 492 net additional dwellings per annum over the same period, resulting in a total net target of 9,840 dwellings over the Plan period.

2.9 The aims and objectives set out within the ‘vision’ detail the Council’s overall ambitions and provide the link between the vision and the spatial strategy.

2.10 Our Client considers that a stronger emphasis should therefore be placed on housing delivery, which in turn will support economic growth. The Borough requires a demonstrable supply of residential development sites which are well located to key essential amenity including public transport links, education, healthcare and recreational facilities and which also have the potential to provide long term economic and infrastructure benefits.

2.11 It is considered that residential development at Great Burdon and Burtree Lane will provide all these benefits and help support the provision of a significant number of new dwellings to meet the Council’s identified housing need.

Aims and Objectives

2.12 With regard to the overarching aims and objectives identified by the Council, it is noted that these do not specifically refer to the delivery of housing and as a result, these are considered to be unsound for being ineffective and not consistent with national policy. Housing delivery is vital for the growth of the Borough and this should therefore be recognised as a key overarching aim within the Plan.

2.13 A number of objectives are the set out. Our Client is generally supportive of these and, in particular, the specific aims of enabling the development of at least 10,000 new homes in order to meet the housing needs and aspirations of those living and working in the Borough.

2.14 Our Client believes the Council’s housing targets within the Policy should be increased to at least 10,000 new homes so that the Local Plan is then aligned with its own aims and objectives.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 4 September 2020

Vision, Aims and Objectives

As it stands, the aims and objectives require a different figure to the wording of the policy which is unsound.

2.15 Objective 2 relates to Meeting Housing Needs and identifies that the Council will:

a. Maintain a supply of land for new housing developments that meets the needs of the growing number of households in Urban and Rural areas of the Borough.

b. Achieve and maintain a 5 year supply of housing land.

c. Provide a range of housing products providing types and tenures of homes suitable for all people, including people who are unable to access housing on the open market and for the Borough's ageing population.

d. To have a portfolio of sites of different sizes, different housing products and delivery rates for the short, medium and long term.

2.16 Our Client welcomes this approach and acknowledges that it is consistent with the Framework.

2.17 Whilst this is supported, the most recent data shows that the Council has issues with previous low levels of housing supply. Therefore, to realise this objective throughout the new Plan period, the Council must tackle these issues. Without a consistent and robust approach, the objectives can be regarded as unsound for being ineffective and inconsistent with national policy as the Local Plan will be in direct conflict with the clear aspirations of the Framework and will undermine the delivery of the overarching vision.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 5 September 2020

Sustainable Development

3.0 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Overview

3.1 This chapter sets out Policy SD1: The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development.

SD1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

3.2 Policy SD1 reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the Framework. Generally speaking, our Client supports the aims of this policy, which closely aligns with the contents of the Framework, and in particular our Client welcomes the acknowledgement that the Council will to work proactively with applicants to find solutions, rather than problems, which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible as emphasised in the Framework.

3.3 Our Client; however, questions whether the Policy is necessary given it is effectively a repeat of policy contained at paragraph 11 of the Framework. If the policy is considered to be necessary then we suggest that the wording of Policy SD1 needs to be amended to reflect the wording within the Framework in order to make it sound.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 6 September 2020

The Settlement Hierarchy

4.0 THE SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY

Overview

4.1 This chapter sets out the proposed settlement hierarchy for the Borough. This seeks to reflect and support the specific roles and functions of different communities and ensure that development is appropriate for its location.

SH1: Settlement Hierarchy

4.2 Our client acknowledges the need for a policy that sets out the spatial approach to delivering sustainable development and meeting the objectives of the Local Plan. Policy SH1 enables this by setting out a settlement hierarchy for delivering growth. Policy SH1 states:

“The broad distribution of development in the Local Plan area will be shaped by the role and function of places, based on the following hierarchy of settlements: Darlington Urban Area; Services Villages: Heighington, Hurworth and Middleton St George; Rural Villages: (Bishopton, Brafferton, High Coniscliffe, Low Coniscliffe, Merrybent, Neasham, Piercebridge, Sadberge) In meeting the objectives for each level of the settlement hierarchy, development should not compromise the ability to meet the objectives for other tiers in the hierarchy. Only those places with defined Development Limits are classified as settlements for the purposes of this Policy. All areas outside the Development Limits are to be regarded as ‘countryside’ unless specifically identified for other uses in the plan (including Policies E 1, E 2 and E 3). The Development Limits are defined on the Policies Map”.

4.3 The settlement hierarchy identifies that the majority of new housing and employment growth is proposed within the main urban area of Darlington. As the largest and most sustainable settlements within the District, the main urban areas should be the focus for the largest percentage of growth.

4.4 Whilst this overall approach is supported by our Client, it is considered that sustainable growth should also be supported throughout the Borough on suitable sites. This is particularly important given the persistent under delivery experienced within the Borough. Priority should therefore be given to those sites that are free from constraints and benefit from the support of a developer and can therefore be delivered early in plan period.

4.5 Our Client’s site at Burtree Lane is available, suitable, achievable and deliverable and can contribute to meeting the needs of Darlington’s identified housing need. A separate site- specific representation documents has been submitted alongside this document for the site. In summary, the site is sustainable and can be delivered in the next 5 years; it is therefore

19015/A3/Reps/CB 7 September 2020

The Settlement Hierarchy

considered that the land at Burtree Lane should be allocated and given priority for development early in the Plan period.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 8 September 2020

Design, Climate Change and Construction

5.0 DESIGN, CLIMATE CHANGE AND CONSTRUCTION

Overview

5.1 Chapter 5 sets out specific policies relating sustainable design principles and climate change. The paragraph 124 of the Framework states that “Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”

DC1: Sustainable Design Principles

5.2 Policy DC1 encourages high quality design as well as the protection and enhancement of the districts characteristics that contribute towards the local distinctiveness is both the rural and urban environments. The Policy requires that all development will be required to meet a number of key principles of good design.

5.3 Whilst our Client broadly supports aims of this policy, we object to the wording of part b, which requires that development proposals demonstrate how buildings have been made energy efficient thereby reducing carbon emissions from development. The requirements of this should be better defined and not overly onerous on the developer. We therefore object on the basis that the policy wording is not effective.

5.4 In addition, we question the validity of the Council’s Design SPD which dates back to 2011 and pre-dates the Framework. Whilst our Client fully supports sustainable design in new development, it is considered that requirements should be subject to viability and specific provision for this should be made within the wording of the Policy.

DC2: Flood Risk & Water Management (Strategic Policy)

5.5 Policy DC2 sets out the Council’s policy position on ensuring all future development proposals recognise and respond to problems associated with flooding.

5.6 DC2 explains that development proposals will be focused in areas of low flood risk (Flood Zone 1) as identified by the Borough’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2018) or most recent assessment. It also sets out the order of priority for the discharge of surface water run-off.

5.7 At a national level, matters relating to meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal changes is set out section 14 of the Framework. It explains that Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk. Inappropriate development should be avoided in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing away from areas at highest risk, but where necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk. The Framework then sets out a number of tools that could be employed to ensure these aspirations are met.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 9 September 2020

Design, Climate Change and Construction

5.8 Whilst we accept that the general wording within Policy DC2 and its supporting text reiterates national policy within the Framework, we object to the wording of this policy on the basis that it is unsound and not in full compliance with national policy. In order to make it sound, the policy should be worded as flexibly, adding ‘where possible’, so that it can adapt to changing circumstances and be considered sound and up to date throughout the Plan period.

5.9 Section f also causes some concern where it states “retaining existing features of interest”. Needs to be made more flexible so object to this section and suggest “(where possible)”.

DC3: Health and Wellbeing

5.10 Policy DC3 provides support for improvements to health and wellbeing within Darlington. Whilst our Client is generally supportive of this policy, we have concerns regarding part g. which requires a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to be provided as part of any application for 100 or more dwellings.

5.11 Footnote 10 refers to the DHCS guidance which sets out what is expected. However, this is a short document, focussed on policy and this is not effective. As such, our Client Objects to the blanket threshold of 100 dwellings as this is arbitrary and therefore not justified.

5.12 The extent of a HIA should be dependent on the type, scale and location of development. Requirements should be on a case by case basis to ensure that the appropriate proportionate level of information is provided and not overly onerous. Our Client therefore objects to the wording of this policy on the basis that it is not effective or consistent with the Framework. Additional wording should be provided within policy and supporting text to clarify what is required to be submitted.

DC4: Safeguarding Amenity

5.13 Policy DC4 requires new development to be sited, designed and laid out to protect the amenity of existing users of neighbouring land and buildings and the amenity of the intended users of the new development.

5.14 Whilst our Client is generally supportive of this policy, clarification is required regarding the definition of “excessive movements of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) on residential roads”. Our Client objects on the basis that it is currently not clear what the Council will consider as ‘excessive movements’ and additional text should be provided to ensure that this policy is effective and consistent with the Framework and is not a constraint for construction.

5.15 Furthermore, it is noted that paragraph 5.4.7 of the supporting text states:

“This policy applies equally to amenity levels within new and existing residential developments. For instance, proposals should avoid locating living

19015/A3/Reps/CB 10 September 2020

Design, Climate Change and Construction

rooms, bathrooms and kitchens next to, above, or below neighbouring bedrooms of attached properties or any proposed.”

5.16 Our Client objects to the wording of this on the basis that it is not justified, effective or consistent with national policy and therefore unsound. Whilst our Client supports the protection of amenity for both existing and future residents, the requirements set out within this supporting text are flawed and wholly inappropriate for new residential development. It is the norm that living space including living rooms and kitchens is provided above or below bedrooms in most residential properties and the requirement to avoid this is therefore unrealistic. This text should be reworded or removed to ensure that requirements are not overly onerous on developers and can be realistically achieved.

5.17 In addition to the points raised above, we note that this policy refers to the Council’s Design SPD which dates to 2011 and pre-dates the Framework. As such this guidance does not align with the framework and is considered out of date.

DC5: Skills and Training

5.18 Policy DC5 stipulates that where development proposals would generate a significant number of construction and operation phase jobs, the Council will seek to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure appropriate commitments and targets for employment skills and training, including apprenticeships appropriate to the development proposed.

5.19 Our Client actively promotes and encourages Trainee and Apprenticeship programmes throughout their business. Whilst our Client is therefore generally supportive of this policy, the wording should include ‘where possible’ to ensure that appropriate commitments and targets are realistic and effective and can be met.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 11 September 2020

Housing

6.0 HOUSING

Overview

6.1 Chapter 6 of the Local Plan deals with housing and sets out a number of policies which seek to ensure that appropriate housing is delivered within sustainable locations.

H1: Housing Requirement

6.2 Our Client has a specific interest in Policy H1 which sets out that provision will be made in the Borough over the Plan period for 422 new dwellings per annum, with a total net minimum requirement of 8,440 new homes (including affordable housing).

6.3 The Policy then goes on to state that the Council has a housing target of 492 net additional dwellings per annum, resulting a total net target of 9,840 dwellings over the Plan period.

6.4 Our Client objects to the Policy setting out a range and that the ‘target’ could be viewed as a maximum thereby limiting the development of new homes contrary to the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

6.5 We do; however, support the Council’s ‘target’ requirement in principle. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) outlines circumstances where it might be appropriate to plan for a higher housing need figure than the Government’s standard method indicates, such as where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends due to growth strategies for the area and strategic infrastructure improvements. The PPG also recognises that there may also be situations where assessments of need (such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)) are significantly greater than the outcome from the standard method. Authorities are required to take this into account when considering whether it is appropriate to plan for a higher level of need.

6.6 The Council’s SHMA Update (2017) identifies flaws in national statistics for population and household growth in the Borough, such as very little growth between 2011 and 2016 which contradicts local administrative data. The national statistics for population and household growth is utilised in the standard methodology and so the Council has undertaken modelling work within the SHMA Update to derive a more reliable demographic projection to inform the Council’s housing target.

6.7 We fully support the approach taken by the Council. The SHMA Update 2017 identifies an Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) of 492 dwellings per annum which includes consideration of the demographic baseline, market signals, economic growth and the need for use class C2 accommodation. Our Client therefore supports the Council’s target of 9,840 dwellings over the Plan period.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 12 September 2020

Housing

6.8 Therefore, in order to make Policy H1 sound, the first four paragraphs of the Policy should be amended as follows:

“Housing will be delivered to meet a minimum requirement of 492 422 net additional dwellings per annum over the plan period from 2016 to 2036. This results in a total net minimum requirement of 9, 840 8,440 dwellings over the Plan period.

The minimum housing requirement will be met through: completions already achieved since April 2016, sites with planning permission (commitments), housing land allocations and mixed use allocations set out in Policy H2.

The Local Planning Authority also has a Local Plan housing target of 492 net additional dwellings per annum over the plan period from 2016 to 2036. This results in a total net target of 9,840 dwellings over the plan period. The housing target makes an allowance for economic growth and 7,000 full time equivalent additional jobs over the plan period. The increased housing target reflects the additional new homes required to meet the need of additional workers. The housing target will also be met by the sites outlined above

The above approach has been taken to provide a housing requirement range rather than a single figure. The housing requirement target is not a restrictive maximum figure”.

6.9 Whilst our Client generally supports the identified housing requirement set out within Policy H1, providing two different figures is confusing and we would recommend that the Council amend the housing requirement to reflect the identified OAN rather than introducing a second lower figure.

6.10 Policy H1 goes on to state:

“At any point in the Local Plan period where there is no longer a demonstrable supply of sites to fully meet the five-year land requirement, sustainable housing sites beyond development limits that would both make a positive contribution to the five-year supply of housing land and be well related to the development limits of the main urban area or service villages (as defined in policy SH1) will be supported. Such proposals should comprise of sustainable development and be consistent with relevant national and Local Plan policies.”

6.11 Whilst our Client generally supports this and the Council’s active approach to delivering housing in sustainable locations throughout the Borough, our Client would expect that support would also be provided for appropriate sites that are sustainable, consistent with relevant national and Local Plan policies and make a contribution to the five-year supply throughout the plan period, regardless of the supply position. Our Client therefore suggests that a more flexible and pro-active approach is taken to ensure that the identified housing need can be met.

6.12 Where sites are unallocated, but considered to be sustainable, these should be considered on their own merits and the policy should not restrict planning applications on such sites being approved.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 13 September 2020

Housing

6.13 Our Client’s site at Burtree Lane is available, suitable, achievable and deliverable and can contribute to meeting the needs of Darlington’s identified housing need. Our Client has submitted an Outline Planning Application for residential development comprising up to 150 dwellings with all matters reserved except for means of access. At the time of writing the planning application (19/01072/OUT) is pending consideration.

6.14 The site is located approximately 3km from Darlington Town Centre and in close proximity to a range of local facilities including convenience shops, cafes, banks and medical practices. The site is sustainable and can be delivered in the next 5 years; it is therefore considered that the land at Burtree Lane should be allocated and given priority for development early in the Plan period. However, should this not be allocated, the Council should not refuse development on this site on the basis that it is unallocated within the Plan.

H2: Housing Allocations

6.15 Policy H2 identifies the Council’s housing allocations in order to meet the housing target set out in Policy H1.

6.16 As set out above, Policy H1 currently provides for two different housing targets and it is considered that the higher target of 492 net additional dwellings per annum should be used in order to achieve the Council’s overall vision and objectives.

6.17 It is noted that our Client’s land interests at Great Burdon (identified as Site 20) and Elm Tree Farm (identified as Site 392) are allocated as urban extensions. These sites represent sustainable and logical urban extensions to the existing settlement and should be supported by the Council at the earliest opportunity The sites are deliverable and will significantly contribute to Darlington’s identified housing need. The allocation of these is therefore considered to be appropriate and is fully supported by our Client.

6.18 With regard to our Client’s land interests at Burtree Lane (Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) site reference 109), it is noted that this was not included as a draft allocation within the Consultation (Regulation 18) version or the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) version. The HELAA identified that the site is suitable, available and achievable for residential development and noted no major constraints which would preclude development from coming forward and this is echoed within the supporting documents submitted alongside the outline planning application.

6.19 The Council’s evidence base does not provide any justification for the exclusion of this site as an identified housing allocation and the decision to exclude this site is therefore not consistent or justified. The site is considered to be available, suitable, achievable, deliverable and viable for residential development and would help contribute to the Council’s housing target. As a

19015/A3/Reps/CB 14 September 2020

Housing

result, our Client objects to Policy H2 on the basis that it is not effective, justified or consistent with national policy.

6.20 It is noted that our Client’s land interests at Burtree Lane lie in close proximity to two planning applications for residential development which have been ‘minded-to-grant’ subject to S106 agreements. These include:

• 15/01050/OUT Theakston Estates (located to the south of the site) (identified as Site 003 within the Proposed Submission); and

• 15/00804/OUT Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon and Northumbrian Land Ltd. (located to the east of the site) (identified as Site 008 within the Proposed Submission).

6.21 Our Client’s site to the north of Burtree Lane is located in between both of these sites which lie to the south and east. Our Client’s land interests therefore form a sustainable and logical site for residential development. This was highlighted within the HELAA which identified that the site is suitable, available and achievable for residential development and noted no major constraints which would preclude development from coming forward. The Council’s evidence base does not provide any justification for the exclusion of this site as an identified housing allocation and the decision to exclude this site is therefore not consistent or justified.

H3: Development Limits

6.22 Policy H3 states that development within the identified settlement limits on the Policies Map will be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other relevant national and local policies.

6.23 Whilst our Client has no objection to the wording of this policy, we do have concerns regarding the lack of guidance relating to development outside of the development limits.

6.24 As set out in Policy H1, the Council identify a need for 422 new dwellings to be delivered per annum, with a total net minimum requirement of 8,440 new homes (including affordable housing) over the Plan period. It is considered that suitable windfall sites and additional site allocations made through the Plan will therefore be required in order to meet the identified need and assist in significantly boosting the supply of housing in line with the Framework.

6.25 One of the key restrictions to delivering homes during the Plan period is development limits of previous policies preventing any development on the ‘wrong’ side of an arbitrary boundary. Sites adjoining settlements can be equally sustainable, if not more sustainable, than those within settlements. It is therefore considered that this Policy should be revised to allow flexibility for appropriate developments to come forward on sustainable sites that are well related to existing settlements.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 15 September 2020

Housing

6.26 In addition, in order to ensure that the overall aims and objections of the Local Plan can be met, it is important that the settlement development limits are logical and allow for future expansion and flexibility. This is essential to ensure that the identified housing need can be delivered should some allocations not come forward. The identified development limits should therefore not be overly restrictive and should allow for future development in and around the existing and proposed urban area.

6.27 As set out above, our Client’s land interests at Burtree Lane lie adjacent to two planning applications for residential development which have been approved subject to S106 agreements. These include site references 003 and 008. An extract of the Policies Map showing the sites is provided below.

Figure 6.1 Policies Map Extract (site edged in red, centre of image).

6.28 As demonstrated by the Figure 6.1, the current proposed settlement boundary is considered to be illogical and has been fully defined by existing planning applications, rather than being justified, rational and based on appropriate site assessment and evidence.

6.29 Supporting landscape work has been prepared to support the current planning application these representations which concludes that the proposed development at the site could be accommodated into the landscape subject to appropriate mitigation and design. This also questions the current illogical settlement boundary.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 16 September 2020

Housing

6.30 Our Client therefore objects to Policy H3 in its current form and would suggest that the proposed settlement boundaries are amended to ensure that the identified development limits are appropriate, justified and defensible, as required by national planning policy.

6.31 Furthermore, it is considered that our Client’s site at Burtree Lane should be included within the proposed boundary to ensure that suitable and appropriate sites are not dismissed unnecessarily. Our Client also recommends that the wording of Policy H3 should be amended to ensure appropriate guidance relating to development outside of the development limits is provided.

H4: Housing Mix

6.32 Policy H4 sets out that proposals for housing development will be expected to provide an appropriate mix of housing types, sizes and tenures which meet local needs as identified within the most up to date SHMA or evidence submitted in support of a planning application. Our Client fully supports this requirement to balance the housing market and work towards a mix of housing in order to deliver a range of housing types and sizes that reflect the identified housing needs and demands within the Borough.

6.33 Our Client is concerned that the Policy fails to address the fact that development is required to be viable. Each application for development should be considered on its merits and the provision of housing types should be informed by market requirements and the availability of development funding. Unrealistic requirements can be an obstacle to house building and we urge the Council to include flexibility and include the consideration of viability in its wording of the policy.

6.34 The policy should also ensure that it is sufficiently adaptable over the Plan period and can reflect changing requirements that may emerge up to 2036.

6.35 Policy H4 also sets out:

“To ensure that new homes provide quality living environments for residents both now and in the future, the following standards from Building Regulations Approved Document M: Volume 1 (Access to and use of dwellings) will apply to new dwellings, subject to consideration of site suitability and site viability:

a. 80% of all new dwellings will meet category 2 requirements (accessible and adaptable dwellings).

b. 9% of all new dwellings will meet category 3 requirements (a) or (b) (wheelchair user dwellings). Where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling, homes should meet building regulation M4 (3) (2) (b). When providing for wheelchair user housing, early discussion with the Council is required to obtain the most up to date information on specific need in the local area. Where there is no

19015/A3/Reps/CB 17 September 2020

Housing

specific need identified, then M4 (3) (a) will apply, to allow simple adaptation of the dwelling to meet the future needs of wheelchair users”.

6.36 Whilst our Client supports the provision of quality living environments for residents, it is considered that specific evidence should be provided by the Council when seeking Category M4 standards. This evidence should demonstrate that the Council has fully assessed the requirement within the local area and identified the need. The policy requirement for M4 standard homes is clearly not justified and is onerous.

6.37 In other areas within the North East the level of requirements in adopted Locals Plans is much lower and therefore less onerous on developers. For example, in Newcastle and Gateshead required 25% Part M4(2), North Tyneside and Stockton only require some M4(2) and very limited M4(3); likewise, the requirements for Durham are 66% Part M4(2) and no M4(3).

6.38 Our Client objects to the requirements for Darlington being so high, comparative to other Local Authorities within the North East. Omitting the policy requirement for M4 standard homes where there is no identified need, will ensure that the right type of homes are provided in the right places and will not place unnecessary requirements on developers where there is no justification or identified need.

6.39 In order to adopt higher optional standards for accessible and adaptable homes, the PPG requires the Council to provide a local assessment evidencing their case. Evidence required includes likely future needs; the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed; the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock; how the needs vary across different housing tenures; and the overall viability.

6.40 It is not clear where this evidence is provided or how the Council has arrived at the percentage requirements set out within the Policy.

6.41 Whilst the Policy states that these requirements will be subject to site viability, it is unrealistic to negotiate every site on an individual basis and this will impact on delivery timescales for some sites.

6.42 The Council’s Viability Assessment suggests that additional costs associated with providing the accessibility and adaptability standards has no material impact on viability. The impact on the requirements alongside other requirements has not; however, been considered and the Viability Assessment shows that low value areas are not viable.

6.43 Without the required evidence, this part of the Policy is not justified and is unsound and should be deleted.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 18 September 2020

Housing

6.44 If this part of the policy is not deleted, then the proportions need reviewing and our Client argues that a transition period is allowed for. Whilst the PPG does not specify this for Part M4, failure to provide a transition period could result in delayed delivery whilst the market responds to ensure appropriate mixes can be delivered on-sites.

H5: Affordable Housing

6.45 Policy H5 sets out that the provision of affordable housing will be expected in residential development schemes of 10 or more dwellings. Table 6.5 sets out that developments will be required to provide 10%, 20% or 30% of affordable housing, determined by the location (ward) the development is located within. The Policy goes on to state that where an application considers that the provision of affordable housing would make a scheme unviable, a viability assessment should be submitted to demonstrate the level of affordable housing which would be achievable.

6.46 Policy H5 suggests that affordable housing provision should provide approximately 50% affordable rent and 50% as other affordable products. Our Client objects to the wording of the policy because, whilst providing flexibility, the requirement is vague.

6.47 The Local Plan suggests that this tenure split has been derived from the SHMA and Viability Assessment; however, it does not appear that this split has been used within the Viability Assessment. Furthermore, for lower value area typology locations, the Viability Assessment states that the achievable affordable housing is likely to be restricted to around 10% and limited to affordable home ownership only. In line withParagraph 64 of the Framework that establishes that planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership subject to certain exemptions.

6.48 Paragraph 34 of the Framework requires that policies such as Policy H5 should not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. The Council’s Viability Assessment clearly concludes that in the low value areas, schemes are unable to contribute to either S106 or have any affordable housing, and that some of the medium value areas are marginal.

6.49 Our Client believes that development proposals should be viable and that it is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage

6.50 In order to meet the identified housing need, it is important that the aspirations of the Policy are not unrealistic as this could jeopardise future housing delivery. Our Client therefore objects to this Policy on the basis that it is unjustified, ineffective, not positively planned and inconsistent with national policy and therefore unsound.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 19 September 2020

Housing

H10: Skerningham Strategic Allocation

6.51 Policy H10 sets out specific guidance relating to the Skerningham Strategic Allocation including the key principles for development.

6.52 Our Client is supportive of this Policy and welcomes the Council’s commitment to delivering this urban extension. However, our Client has some observations regarding the wording of the Policy.

6.53 We note allowances for the access on to the A1150 and the location of the proposed employment in relation to Great Burdon.

6.54 Each application for development should be considered on its merits and the provision of housing types should be informed by market requirements and the availability of development funding. Unrealistic requirements can be an obstacle to house building and in order to promote development and increase the supply of housing, the Council should include flexibility and the consideration of viability in the policy wording.

6.55 With regards to housing density, national policy guidance stipulates that local authorities can set out their own approach to housing density this should be based upon local circumstances and not harm the overall objective of boosting significantly housing supply.

6.56 Our Client therefore wishes to register a holding objection to this Policy as questions remain about its effectiveness and Bellway wish to attend any sessions at the Examination to further understand the proposals and to contribute to any discussions which may affect its interests at Great Burdon.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 20 September 2020

Environment

7.0 ENVIRONMENT

Overview

7.1 Chapter 9 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan contains a number of policies relating to the natural and built environment.

Policy ENV 2: Stockton and Darlington Railway (S&DR)

7.2 Our Client is supportive of the Council’s aspirations for the conservation and enhancement of the former Stockton and Darlington Railway (S&DR). It recognises the importance of the heritage asset both locally and nationally. However, our Client considers that there are some inconsistencies in the wording of the Policy and that advocated in the NPPF in respect of heritage assets. The Policy refers to ‘conserve and enhance’ and ‘preserve’ whereas the NPPF refers to ‘sustaining and enhancing’ (para 192). Therefore it is recommended that the Policy is amended as follows to ensure it is effective:

‘Proposals which will conserve sustain and enhance elements which contribute to the significance of the Stockton and Darlington Railway and its setting, including its trackbed and branchlines, will be supported.

Proposals will be supported where they include measures that preserve sustain any physical remains along the route, include site interpretation and where appropriate reinstate a legible route where those remains no longer exist.

Development proposals that support the development of the S&DR as a visitor attraction will be encouraged.’

7.3 Similarly, it is recommended that supporting text at para 9.2.4 is amended as follows to also ensure consistency:

‘The Council, with its partners, will develop further planning guidance, including a Conservation Management Plan, to ensure the protection sustaining, enhancement and promotion of this locally distinct and nationally significant heritage asset in advance of the 2025 bicentenary celebrations.’

Policy ENV 3

7.4 Our Client recognises the importance of local landscape character to Darlington and the principle of making provisions to ensure distinctiveness is protected and enhanced. Policy ENV 3 makes provision for a Green Wedge at ‘Haughton/Red Hall’ which is identified on the Proposals Map. At present, the extent of the north eastern part of the Green Wedge to the

19015/A3/Reps/CB 21 September 2020

Environment

east of Burdon Farm is considered to be unduly restrictive on the potential development and deliverability of the northern part of the adjacent Great Burdon strategic allocation (Site 20) to the east.

7.5 Whilst the Housing Allocation Statement for Site 20 in Appendix B of the Plan states that development should be concentrated on the southern part of the site it is necessary to ensure that a sufficient quantum of development is provided in the north of the site to viably deliver the northern site access from the A1150 and the northern portion of the distributor link road. Bellway Homes and Story Homes have prepared a masterplan for the Burdon Hill site (Site 20) which has been submitted under separate representations to Policy H 2 and should be read in conjunction with this representation. This has been prepared taking into account detailed site appraisal work including topographical, landscape and ecological surveys of the Site. This demonstrates that whilst the Site can retain green open space to the east of Burdon Farm it is neither justified or effective to protect the extent proposed within the Green Wedge east of Burdon Farm and would unduly restrict development.

7.6 We also note that paragraph 9.3.4 of the Local Plan states that the three Green Wedges in Policy ENV 3 are ‘identified in the Darlington’s [sic] Green Infrastructure Strategy’. However, there are only five limited references to Green Wedges over the 153 pages of the suite of three Green Infrastructure Strategy documents (‘Green Infrastructure Strategy’, ‘Green Infrastructure Strategy Action Plan’, and the ‘Green Infrastructure Guide’) from 2013 and there are no spatial indications of the extent of these features as Green Wedges in the diagram entitled ‘Darlington’s Green Infrastructure Network’ (page 12) which is replicated in the Local Plan as Figure 9.1. This diagram does indicate semi-natural greenspace and an ‘Existing Strategic Corridor’ of 30m along the route of the River Skerne between Haughton and Red Hall but it does not identify any features immediately to the south or east of Burdon Farm.

7.7 Similarly, there are limited references to Green Wedges in the ‘Darlington Landscape Character Assessment’ (2015) and none specify or justify any need to extend a Green Wedge to the south and east of Burdon Farm.

7.8 It is therefore requested that the extent of the Green Wedge is amended and the portion highlighted in blue in Figure 7.1 is undesignated from Policy ENV 3 and included in the proposed allocation at Great Burdon (site 20) under Policy H2. This will provide flexibility for the delivery of the northern part of the Site and enable the Council to control the retention of the green space to the east of Burdon Farm through the planning application process in the same way that it will be managed for the Skerningham site (Site 251) under Policy H 10. Indeed, development at Burdon Hill will not be able to cover all the land to the east of Burdon Hill as there are there are gas mains running across part of the area and a need to respect

19015/A3/Reps/CB 22 September 2020

Environment

the heritage areas to the north west (as set out in the ‘Issues and requirements’ section for Site 20 in Appendix B of the Local Plan) which preclude unacceptable development.

ENV4: Green and Blue Infrastructure

7.9 Whilst our Client notes that the provision of Green Infrastructure is important to provide quality places, this needs to be balanced with the requirement to use development land efficiently and to ensure new development can be viable and deliverable. Furthermore, our Client has concerns as to whether the Green Infrastructure Strategy which was adopted in 2013 and runs to 2026 should be reviewed and updated as it only relates to half of the Plan period.

7.10 Our Client’s schemes integrate fully, through carefully planned Green Infrastructure and ecological mitigation within a robust landscape framework. This approach can only happen where viability is not unduly affected, and our Client therefore seeks flexibility in terms of any requirements for Green Infrastructure provision contained in the Local Plan to ensure that the plan is effective.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 23 September 2020

Environment

ENV5: Green Infrastructure Standards

7.11 Our Client is supportive of the general aims of this policy and welcomes the Council’s commitment to delivering good quality green space. However, our Client has some concerns regarding the wording of the Policy. The Policy requires developments including 20 dwellings (or 0.2 hectares) or more, or non-residential developments of 1,000m gross floorspace or more, to deliver new Green Infrastructure in line with the standards contained in the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, or its replacement.

7.12 Our Client seeks some flexibility in terms of any requirements for Green Infrastructure provision to ensure that viability is not unduly affected. Our Client’s schemes fully integrate through carefully planned Green Infrastructure and ecological mitigation within a robust landscape framework.

7.13 Each scheme for development should be considered on its merits. Unrealistic requirements can be an obstacle to house building and in order to promote development and increase the supply of housing, the Council should include flexibility in the Policy wording to ensure that the plan is effective.

ENV8: Assessing a Developments Impact on Biodiversity

7.14 Whilst our Client generally supports this Policy which seeks to reduce the impact on biodiversity within identified sites, we object to the wording which requires a which requires applicants to follow the sequence of actions set out within the Policy to identify how harm to biodiversity has been avoided, or failing that, adequately mitigated.

7.15 The requirements set out within the Policy should be better defined and not overly onerous on the developer. We therefore object on the basis that the Policy wording is not effective or justified.

7.16 Furthermore, our Client has concerns as to whether the Green Infrastructure Strategy which was adopted in 2013 and runs to 2026 should be reviewed and updated as it only relates to half of the Plan period.

ENV9: Outdoor Sports Facilities

7.17 Our Client supports the protection of outdoor sports facilities however our Client does not feel that the wording of parts b. and c of the policy is clear or unambiguous.

7.18 Clarification is required regarding the definition of “significant traffic congestion”. Our Client objects on the basis that it is currently not clear what the Council will consider as ‘significant traffic congestion’ and additional text should be provided to ensure that this Policy is effective and consistent with the Framework.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 24 September 2020

Environment

7.19 We therefore object on the basis that the policy wording is not effective.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 25 September 2020

Transport and Infrastructure

8.0 TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Overview

8.1 Chapter 10 of the Local Plan sets out the policies relating to transport and infrastructure. Paragraph 10.0.4 states that the Local Plan, in conjunction with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, will play a key role in securing public and private sector involvement in infrastructure delivery.

IN1: Delivering a Sustainable Transport Network

8.2 Our Client is broadly supportive of this Policy but would like to reiterate that the requirements must be subject to viability to ensure that new development can be deliverable.

8.3 Our Client is committed to ensure that new development is supported by suitable infrastructure to ensure that schemes are highly accessible and sustainable long-term. Our Client supports access by all modes of transport to ensure permeability and integration with adjacent uses. This needs to be set against viability and our Client therefore seeks flexibility in the wording of the Policy.

IN2: Improving Access and Accessibility

8.4 Our Client seeks to ensure that new development highly accessible and sustainable supported by all modes of transport. However, part d. of the Policy requires that 80% or more of the site must be within 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop served by a ‘regular’ bus service.

8.5 This requirement appears to be overly onerous and there is no definition of a ‘regular service’. Our Client questions the contribution to bus services where locations are poorly served and it is not clear what constitutes ‘poorly served’ under part f of Appendix B. As such our Client seeks flexibility in the wording of the Policy in order to make it justified and effective.

IN3: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans

8.6 Our Client Objects to this policy and questions why, if the ‘Travel Planning’ process is required on major schemes, is a Traffic Assessment also required? We suggest that the wording of the policy is amended to replace ‘Traffic Planning’ with ‘Traffic Assessment’.

8.7 Our Client reserves the right to comment further on this policy at a later date.

IN4: Parking Provision including Electric Vehicle Charging

8.8 Our Client objects to this policy on the grounds that it is not effective. The wording of the policy should be amended to include an element of flexibility on the access to sockets for

19015/A3/Reps/CB 26 September 2020

Transport and Infrastructure

parking other forms of residential development, other than apartments and care homes, that may have similar car parking court arrangements e.g. terraces with parking courts.

8.9 In addition to the above, paragraph 10.8.6 talks about the viability of providing such facilities and we recommend that this is explicit within the wording of the Policy and not just detailed within the supporting text.

8.10 Our Client reserves the right to comment further on this policy at a later date.

IN5: Airport Safety

8.11 Our Client objects to this policy on the grounds that the legibility of Appendix D is poor and it is hard to interpret areas not shown on policies map.

8.12 Our Client reserves the right to comment further on this policy at a later date.

IN8: Broadband Infrastructure

8.13 Our Client objects to the wording of this policy in so much as that it is not clear what is necessary to ensure that developments are accompanied by the utilities required to support the development at the time it is built, to ensure there is no net negative impact on the operation of existing networks. Greater clarity is required as to what constitutes ‘net negative’ in order to ensure the policy is effective.

8.14 Our Client reserves the right to comment further on this policy at a later date.

IN9: Renewable and Energy Efficient Infrastructure

8.15 Our client supports renewable and low carbon energy development in appropriate locations but objects specifically to part d. of the Policy which requires District Heating in major development over 300 houses to be enabled for district energy connection, unless demonstrated not to be feasible or financially viable to do so.

8.16 The requirement appears to be overly onerous with no justification, as such our Client objects to this Policy on the basis that it is unjustified, ineffective, not positively planned and inconsistent with national policy and therefore unsound.

IN10: Supporting the Delivery of Community and Social Infrastructure

8.17 Our Client generally supports the need to deliver community and social infrastructure but objects to the education requirements set out within the Policy, without reference to recognised and defined source relating to the capacity of local schools. Without that transparency the data cannot be interrogated meaning it is difficult to understand the evidence base and the reliability it.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 27 September 2020

Transport and Infrastructure

8.18 Our Client therefore objects to this Policy on the basis that it is unjustified, ineffective, not positively planned and inconsistent with national policy and therefore unsound.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 28 September 2020

Conclusions

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 Barton Willmore is instructed by Bellway Homes Ltd. to submit representations to the Darlington Borough Local Plan Publication Submission 2020 which is currently subject to public consultation until 17 September 2020.

9.2 Our Client is one of the UK’s leading housebuilders, committed to the highest standards of design, construction and service. Our Client has a large number of site interests across Darlington and are therefore keen to engage with the Council and assist in preparing a sound plan which is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent.

9.3 These representations set out our Client’s comments on the Publication Submission Local Plan 2020 and highlight several issues in relation to the Local Plan that our Client believes should be addressed during the examination.

9.4 Alongside these representations we have also provided site specific representations in relation to our Client’s land interests at Great Burdon (identified as Site 20) and Burtree Lane (identified as Site 109 within the Council’s Housing Employment Land Availability Assessment 2018).

9.5 Site Context Plans outlining these sites is found in Appendix A of this Report.

9.6 Our Client is committed to ensuring the Local Plan is prepared on a sound and robust basis and ensure that the correct provision of housing is provided throughout the plan period to meet the needs of residents within the district. Subject to a number of amendments, as set out within these representations, Darlington’s emerging Local Plan can be made sound.

9.7 We trust these representations will be afforded full consideration by Darlington Borough Council (the Council) and the Inspector in relation to the emerging Local Plan.

19015/A3/Reps/CB 29 September 2020

APPENDIX A

Site Context Plans

29109/A5/Reps/CB September 2020

The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured Revision Date Drn Ckd - --- N LEGEND

Site Boundary (c.7.45ha)

Live Applications on Adjacent Land

Project B U R T R E E L Burtree Lane A N E Darlington Drawing Title Proposed Site Plan *Subject to detailed site surveys

Date Scale Drawn by Check by 69m 04-05-2020 1:2000@A3 HJ MW Project No Drawing No Revision 29109 07 B 20 60 100m

0 40 80

Town Planning ● Master Planning & Urban Design ● Architecture ● Landscape Planning & Design ● Infrastructure & Environmental Planning ● Heritage ● Graphic Communication ● Communications & Engagement ● Development Economics

bartonwillmore.co.uk

Certificate FS 29637 Offices at Birmingham Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Ebbsfleet Edinburgh Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of HMSO. Crown Copyright Reserved. Licence No 100019279. J:\29000-29999\29100-29199\29109 - Burtree Lane, Darlington\A4 - Drawings & Registers\Masterplanning\CAD\29109-EH-M-07-B-Proposed Site Plan.dwg - A3 Glasgow Leeds London Manchester Newcastle Reading Southampton

APPENDIX B

Great Burdon Masterplan

29109/A5/Reps/CB September 2020