+ Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00845/FPA

Erection of 167 dwellings, associated infrastructure FULL APPLICATION and landscaping. DESCRIPTION :

Taylor Wimpey North East. NAME OF APPLICANT :

Land North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Co. ADDRESS : Durham

Deerness ELECTORAL DIVISION :

Colin Harding, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 263945 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site comprises approximately 5.5 hectares of agricultural land and semi derelict former allotments bordered by hedgerows to the northern edge of Ushaw Moor. Immediately to the south of the site lies Ladysmith Terrace which hosts detached garages of varying condition on its northern side and residential terraced properties to on its southern side. To the south east lies a relatively modern development of detached properties at Welby Drive. To the west of the site is agricultural land and to the north, a willow plantation. The eastern side of the site is bordered by Whitehouse Lane which runs on a north – south axis between Bearpark and Ushaw Moor. Beyond this road lie residential properties at Whitehouse Court, some of which face westwards, towards the site.

2. With Ushaw Moor lying on the northern side of the Deerness Valley, the site naturally slopes downwards from north to south to significant extent, with south eastern corner lying some 20m below the north western corner.

3. Ushaw Moor is located approximately 3 miles to the west of Durham City Centre and approximately 1 mile to the south west of Bearpark. The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural and residential, with supporting community facilities scattered throughout the village. As set out in the City of Durham Local Plan, the site is beyond the identified settlement boundary, which is defined by Ladysmith Terrace and Whitehouse Lane, and is situated beyond the western extent of the Durham Green Belt. The site lies approximately 0.6km to the north of Deerness Valley Local Wildlife Site. There are 2 designated heritage assets located within 1km of the site, namely the Grade II* and II listed Ushaw College complex and Grade II listed Long Barn at Red House Farm. The site itself contains no heritage assets, landscape or ecological designations.

The Proposal

4. The application is for full planning permission for 167 no. dwellings, of which 33 no. would be affordable, equating to a 20% provision. The market housing would comprise 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings, and the affordable element of 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings.

5. Vehicular access to the site would be taken from Whitehouse Lane to the east of the site. Pedestrian access would be via accesses in the south eastern corner of the site onto Whitehouse Lane and at the southern boundary of the site onto Welby Drive. A further pedestrian access from the development onto Ladysmith Terrace was originally proposed, but has since been removed following objections from local residents.

6. The site exhibits a regular layout taking account of the topography, with a main east/west artery within the site, serving three north/south links. Pedestrian links run through the site on an east/west axis and include an area of public amenity space towards the centre of the site. Several different housetypes are evident within the site, including terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings and exhibiting a range of car parking arrangements such as driveways, shared driveways and parking courts. Various surfacing materials are proposed.

7. The proposal includes comprehensive landscaping, including trees and hedges both within and at the edge of the site. Furthermore, in a field to the north of the site which currently hosts a willow plantation, a significant landscape buffer is proposed in order to screen the site from the north and prevent the appearance of coalescence between Ushaw Moor and Bearpark.

8. The application is being reported to the County Planning Committee as it represents major development with a site area of more than 4 hectares.

PLANNING HISTORY

9. There is no relevant planning history at this site.

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 proceed without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.

11. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:

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

13. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

14. NPPF Part 2 – Ensuring the vitality of town centres. Town centres are recognised as being at the heart of communities, with the pursuit of their viability and vitality as being paramount. Planning applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres firstly, then in edge of centre locations. Only when these are not available should out of centre locations be considered.

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

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

17. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Developments should be safe and accessible; Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, local services and community facilities to enhance the sustainability of community and residential environments. An integrated approach to consider the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.

18. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

19. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment . The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.

20. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

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

21. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters.

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

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

City of Durham Local Plan (2004) (CDLP)

22. Policy E7 – Development outside of Settlement Limits. Development outside of settlement boundaries will only be permitted when it accords with other policies in the plan.

23. Policy E14 – Protection of Existing Trees and Hedgerows . Views hedgerows and trees as a valuable resource to be protected when new development is being considered.

24. Policy E15 – New Trees and Hedgerows. Tree and hedgerow planting is encouraged.

25. Policy E16 – Nature Conservation – the Natural Environment . Is aimed at protecting and enhancing the nature conservation assets of the district. Development proposals outside specifically protected sites will be required to identify any significant nature conservation interests that may exist on or adjacent to the site by submitting surveys of wildlife habitats, protected species and features of ecological, geological and geomorphological interest. Unacceptable harm to nature conservation interests will be avoided, and mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts upon nature conservation interests should be identified.

26. Policy E18 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. The Council will seek to safeguard sites of nature conservation importance and development which would be detrimental to their nature conservation interests would not be permitted unless it meets certain criteria.

27. Policy E21 – Historic Environment . Requires the Council to preserve and enhance the historic environment by requiring development proposals to minimise impact upon features of historic interest, and encourage the retention, repair and reuse of visual of local interest.

28. Policy E23 – Listed Buildings. The Council will seek to safeguard listed buildings by not permitting development which detracts from its setting.

29. Policy E24 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Remains. Ancient monuments and other nationally significant archaeological remains and their settings will be preserved in situ and damage would not be permitted. Archaeological remains of regional and local importance will be protected in situ and where preservation in situ is not justified by, ensuring that in areas where there is evidence that significant archaeological remains exist, or reasons to pre-suppose they exist, pre-application evaluation or archaeological assessment will be required and requiring as a condition of planning permission, that a programme of archaeological investigation, recording and publication has been made.

30. Policy H3 – New Housing Development in the Villages. New housing development comprising windfall development of previously developed land will be permitted with settlement boundaries. Ushaw Moor is identified as a larger village.

31. Policy H5 – New Housing in the Countryside. In the countryside new housing development will be permitted only when it is; required by persons employed in agriculture or forestry where there is a functional need and the enterprise in financially viable, the size is commensurate with the established functional need; adequate provision cannot be made within the settlement/existing buildings and it respects the character of its landscape setting.

32. Policy H12 – Affordable Housing . Requires residential schemes of 25 units or more, of 1 ha or more, to provide a proportion of affordable housing where a local need exists.

33. Policy H12A – Type and Size of Housing. States that the type and size of dwellings will be monitored with where appropriate negotiation with developers to provide the right housing types and sizes to ensure balance.

34. Policy H13 - Residential Areas – Impact upon Character and Amenity. States that planning permission will not be granted for new development or changes of use which have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of residential areas, or the amenities of residents within them.

35. Policy Q1 – General Principles Designing for People. Requires the layouts of developments to take into account the requirements of users including: personal safety and security; the access needs of people with disabilities and the elderly; and the provision of toilets and seating where appropriate.

36. Policy Q2 – General Principles Designing for Accessibility. The layout and design of all new development should take into account the requirements of users and embody the principle of sustainability.

37. Policy Q4 – Pedestrian Areas. Requires that pedestrian area should be laid out and designed with good quality materials in a manner which reflect the street scene.

38. Policy Q5 – Landscaping General Provision. Sets out that any development which has an impact on the visual amenity of an area will be required to incorporate a high standard of landscaping.

39. Policy Q6 – Structural Landscaping. Development located on the edge of settlements or in exposed sites will be required to use peripheral structural landscaping in order to minimise.

40. Policy Q8 – Layout and Design Residential Development. Sets out the Council's standards for the layout of new residential development. Amongst other things, new dwellings must be appropriate in scale, form, density and materials to the character of their surroundings. The impact on the occupants of existing nearby properties should be minimised.

41. Policy Q15 – Art in Design . Encourages the provision of artistic elements within new developments.

42. Policy R2 – Recreational and Amenity Space in New Residential Developments. Seeks to ensure that the provision of open space for outdoor recreation is evenly distributed and is maintained at a level that meets the needs of its population. A minimum overall standard of 2.4 hectares of outdoor sports and play space per 1,000 population will be sought.

43. Policy R5 – Protection of Allotments states that permission for development which would result in the loss of allotments will not be supported, unless the allotments are genuinely redundant or where underused allotments can be improved by the redevelopment of a small part of the site or where alternative provision can be made in the immediate vicinity.

44. Policy R11 – Public Rights of Way and other Paths. Public access to the countryside will be safeguarded by protecting the existing network of PROW’s and other paths from development which would result in their destruction.

45. Policy T1 – Traffic – General. States that the Council will not grant planning permission for development that would generate traffic likely to be detrimental to highway safety and/or have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property.

46. Policy T5 – Public Transport. States that the Council will encourage improvements to assist public transport services within the district by a combination of measures.

47. Policy T10 – Parking – General Provision. States that vehicle parking should be limited in amount, so as to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the land-take of development.

48. Policy T19 – Cycle Facilities. The Council will seek to ensure the development of a safe, attractive and convenient network of cycle routes.

49. Policy T20 – Cycle Facilities. Sets out a requirement to encourage the provision of facilities for parking cycles in the city centre and at other appropriate locations.

50. Policy U8a – Disposal of Foul and Surface Water. Requires developments to provide satisfactory arrangements for disposing of foul and surface water discharge. Where satisfactory arrangements are not available, then proposals may be approved subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme and its implementation before the development is brought into use.

51. Policy U11 – Development on Contaminated Land. Development will only be permitted where the nature and extent of contamination is established, the development would not add to the level of contamination, proposals include remedial measures and that there is no detrimental effect on the environment.

52. Policy U13 –Development on Unstable Land. Development will be permitted provided that there is no risk to the intended occupiers from stability or that satisfactory remedial measures can be undertaken.

53. Policy U14 – Energy Conservation . States that the use of energy efficient materials and construction techniques will be encouraged.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

54. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. Further, the Planning Practice Guidance explains that in limited circumstances permission can be justifiably refused on prematurity grounds: when considering substantial developments that may prejudice the plan-making process and when the plan is at an advanced stage of preparation (i.e. it has been submitted). The following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application.

55. Policy 3 – Quantity of new Development. In order to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future residents at least 31,4000 new homes of mixed type, size and tenure are required in the County.

56. Policy 4 – Distribution of Development. To reflect the spatial approach the Plan allocates sufficient sites to provide for housing. In Central Durham the Plan allocates 8010 dwellings with 5220 in Durham City and 520 required in the smaller towns and larger villages.

57. Policy 8 – Durham City Strategic Sites . Strategic housing allocations are made within Durham City in order encourage economic growth and meet the development needs of the City. Three of the sites at Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Merryoaks will provide the funding the construction of the proposed Western Relief Road.

58. Policy 9 – Western Relief Road. In order to facilitate the development of Strategic Sites at Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Merryoaks, land is allocated for the construction of the Western Relief Road in Durham City. The three sites will be required to fund the Western Relief Road.

59. Policy 30 – Housing Land allocations. In order to meet the housing requirement and distribution set out in Policy 3 and 4 a number of sites are allocated for housing development.

60. Policy 31 – Addressing Housing Need. Requires all qualifying new housing to provide a percentage of Affordable Housing which is accessible, affordable and meets the needs of those residents unable to access the open housing market.

61. Policy 35 – Development in the Countryside. Planning permission for development in the countryside will only be permitted where it meets certain exceptions such as housing for countryside workers.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications can be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (City of Durham Local Plan) http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

62. Brandon and Byshottles Parish Council – Advise that it fully supports the application, which will add to the regeneration of Ushaw Moor. Initial concerns regarding access to the site and potential flood risk have been addressed within the submission.

63. Highways Authority – Officers object to the proposal. Officers have commented extensively on this proposal and originally raised concerns with regards to the potential impact of the development upon the wider highway network, considering it to be severe and also having concerns with the methodology utilised in the transport assessment.

64. Following further work carried out by the applicant, further comments have been received which reiterate the original objection. It is considered by officers that current junctions on the A167 are at saturation and that additional traffic from this development would simply add to existing queues. In such a situation, where signals are at saturation, small increments in flow lead to an exponentially larger increase in delay and this would be the case in this instance, resulting in a “peak spreading” effect and would constitute a severe impact upon the principle highways network. Officers also continue to have concerns over the methodology used in developing the Transport Assessment and whether the distribution of additional vehicles onto the road network has been accurately modelled,

65. Environment Agency – Having considered the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) the Agency advises that it has no objections subject to compliance with the submitted FRA and the rate of surface water discharge being agreed with Northumbrian Water. The Agency advises that substantial provision is made for biodiversity with suggestions as to the type of features which could form part of a SuDS and how habitats could be linked.

66. Northumbrian Water – Has raised no objections subject to specific foul and surface water discharge rates being adhered to as set out in the submitted utilities assessment.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

67. Spatial Policy – Officers advise that the scheme does not accord with the existing City of Durham Local Plan as it is considered to comprise residential development within the countryside which is not linked to an essential employment need. However, material weight can only be given to the City of Durham Local Plan insofar as it accords with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which takes a more flexible approach to settlement growth and development and directing it to sustainable locations.

68. It is noted that the site is allocated for housing within the emerging County Durham Local Plan, albeit phased for release over the “medium-term” of the plan, with it being anticipated that the site would deliver houses from 2021 onwards. This is stated as being due to road network capacity issues and that the site is scheduled to come forward only after the Western Relief Road included in the County Durham Plan is completed, which is expected to be in 2021. It is therefore considered that the application is premature at this time, although it is recognised that only limited weight can be afforded to the emerging Local Plan at this time.

69. Design and Historic Environment – Officers have raised no objections in principle. However a number of comments are made with regards to the proposed layout including that the density is too high, the development would not integrate into the existing settlement to the south and is very inward facing, the proposed house types and materials to be used.

70. Landscape – Officers raise no objections in principle. However, they have suggested amendments to the remote landscape buffer proposed to the north of the application site in terms of its depth. A number of comments are made with regards to the layout of the development.

71. Archaeology – Officers raise no objections, noting the results of the geophysical survey that has been carried out, which suggests that there is a low/medium potential for archaeology across the site. Conditions relating to monitoring and recording are suggested.

72. Ecology – Officers have no objections to the proposal and the intention to install bat and bird boxes is welcomed. It is requested that any new hedges are located outside of the curtilage of properties in order to prevent removal in the future.

73. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Noise) – No objections are raised. No concerns are raised with regards to external noise affecting the proposed properties, and that the levels of proposed lighting are considered to be acceptable with regards to impact on existing properties in the immediate vicinity. It is noted that there may be some potential for disturbance during construction. It is therefore recommended that conditions should be attached to any planning permission to reduce and mitigate dust and noise, operation hours should be restricted, the burning of material in site should be prohibited and all noisy plant, vehicles, equipment and machinery should be properly operated and maintained.

74. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated land) – Officers are satisfied with the content of the submitted report, but note that further site investigation and remedial works are likely. Conditions are suggested in order to secure this.

75. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Air quality) – Officers advise that the location of the proposed development has the potential to impact upon air quality in Durham City due to vehicle emissions. However, they are satisfied with the modelling carried out by the applicant that states that any increase in air pollutant concentration would be negligible. Consequently, they consider that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon air quality. Conditions relating to dust generation during construction and single car usage are suggested.

76. Sustainability and Climate Change – Officers consider the site is sustainable in terms of accessibility to community services and facilities. It is noted that the site not within a short walking distance of a secondary school / 6th form, post 18 education providers, or the facilities and employment opportunities associated with a main town, retail park, industrial park or large employer. However, this is not considered to be a significant issue given the level of bus service. It is noted that additional investment to bus services may be required to maintain the existing level of service to an increased population.

77. Officers also advise that the proposal to adopt a fabric first approach to embedded sustainability is supported and that the intention to improve upon Part L of the Building Regulations by 12.64% is acceptable.

78. Access and Public Rights of Way – Officers advise that there are no recorded Public Rights of Way as passing the through the site. They do however note that there is an unrecorded path leading through the south western corner of the application site which links to Public Footpath no.53 Brandon and Byshottles before continuing westwards into Farhill Plantation, and that this path would not be incorporated into the development.

79. Officers note that as of 7 th May 2014, the unrecorded path was well trodden and with recent signs of pedestrian and equestrian use. It is also likely that the path is used by motorbikes and quadbikes and form an element of anti-social behaviour. Aerial photographs from 2001 and 2012 both show the trodden path, but it is unclear as to whether the route has acquired public rights through long use.

80. School Places Manager – Advises that there is adequate secondary school capacity within the immediate locality to accommodate the level of students generated by the occupation of the development. They do however note that there is a deficit of 16 primary school places and then contributions will be required in order to address this capacity issue.

81. Employability Team – Officers consider that there is an opportunity to explore employment and skills opportunities that would assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability. They advise that during the construction phase it is estimated that between 402 and 804 person weeks could be attributed to a scheme of this size/duration which equates to between 7-15 FTE job opportunities/apprenticeships.

82. Drainage and Coastal Protection – Officers raise no objections to the scheme considering that the applicant appears to have complied with all the requirements of the surface water management plan and supplied the relevant documentation of evidence.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

83. The application was advertised in the press, on site and in the locality. Letters were sent to neighbouring residents. 7 letters of objection have been received, as well as a single letter of support.

Objection

84. Concerns raised within these letters relate to the impact of the development upon congestion and highway safety both in the immediate vicinity and throughout the village. Particular concerns are raised with regards to the location of pedestrian accesses onto Ladysmith and previous commitments previously given by the applicants with regards to these. It is also noted that there is an existing lack of parking in the village centre, which this development would exacerbate. The ability of existing local services, to cope with the increase in population is also a cited point of objection.

85. Residents on Ladysmith Terrace consider that it is likely that properties on this street would be overshadowed by the development and it would also have a unacceptable impact upon the levels of privacy they currently enjoy. They also note the level of Anti Social Behaviour associated with the existing informal footpath which crossed the south western corner of the site and are concerned whether the development would make these problems worse, or would displace them to elsewhere in the village. The current condition of Ladysmith Terrace is also raised as a matter of concern.

86. There are also objections on the basis that the development would lead to increased flooding and that it would lead to a loss of ecological habitat. The wider views across Deerness Valley from the road between Bearpark and Ushaw College are noted as being of value and it is considered by objectors that the proposed development would erode these significantly. There are also concerns as to whether residential development in this location would prejudice any potential future redevelopment of Ushaw College. It is also considered that there are preferable brownfield sites elsewhere in Ushaw Moor.

Support

87. A single letter of support has been received, noting that the proposed development would bring in additional population which would lead to improved village infrastructure and enhance facilities. The removal of the existing wooden buildings on the site is also supported.

Non-statutory Representations

88. Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison) – Advises that the removal of the footpath onto Ladysmith Terrace is supported as it represented a potential crime generator. Further comments are made regarding layout and boundary treatments.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

89. The site is suitable for residential development in principle and is sustainably located, being situated in close proximity to a range of services/facilities and accessible via sustainable modes of transport. The suitability and sustainability of the site is confirmed both by Durham County Council’s SHLAA and its allocation in the draft County Durham Plan.

90. Whilst the application proposals for 167 dwellings exceed the draft CDP’s estimated yield of 120 dwellings, the application proposals are considered to be acceptable given that the density is appropriate, that the proposals comprise an acceptable form of development and are environmentally sustainable and the there is a need for a higher level of delivery to meet the housing needs of Ushaw Moor.

91. Whilst the application has come forward in advance of the site’s medium term phasing within the draft CDP, the proposals are appropriate because there are no other allocations within the locality which will be prejudiced by the early delivery of the site, because Durham County Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, that is sufficient capacity in the sewage network and the development will not have a severe highway impact and because there is a precedent for the early release of “medium” term sites.

92. The application must be determined in accordance with the NPPF’s Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development because the extant development plan is out of date and that there is not demonstrable 5 year housing land supply. The proposed development is sustainable and the are no significant adverse impacts with justify the refusal of the planning application. In particular, the proposals are socially sustainable, economically sustainable and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.

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/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=467DF1E2DCFCA22B6DA2210915EE43D4?action= firstPage

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

93. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: the principle of the development, affordable housing, access, traffic and highway safety, landscape and visual impact, design and layout, affect upon residential amenity, ecology and nature conservation, public rights of way, flooding and drainage and other matters.

Principle of Development

94. The main issues in realtion to the principle of the proposed development are: the extent to which the proposed development accords with the existing development plan; the extent to which the proposed development accords with the emerging development plan; and, the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government guidance in relation to planning for housing and other policy objectives set out in the NPPF, with particular regard towards delivering a wide choice of high quality homes that widens opportunities for home ownership and helps create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

95. The site is situated outside of the existing settlement boundary for Ushaw Moor, as defined by CDLP Policy H3. Policy H3 defines a series of ‘settlement boundaries’ for main towns and villages to indicate where new development is permissible. The implication is that housing development would normally be approved where it lies inside of the boundary, to help to contain settlements and prevent sprawl into the surrounding countryside. As the application site falls outside of the designated boundary, this proposal draws no support from this Policy.

96. Sites located outside of settlement boundaries should be assessed against ‘countryside’ policies and objectives as set out within CDLP Policies E7 and H5. There is a general presumption against allowing housing development beyond a settlement boundary unless it is required to fulfil an employment role. In view of this, it is considered that this proposal is in conflict with this element of the development plan.

97. Whilst the City of Durham Local Plan remains a statutory component of the development plan and a tool for determining applications, Government advice is to only afford existing Local Plans material weight insofar as they accord with the NPPF. In this context, settlement limits are not fully supported by the NPPF, which instead takes a more flexible approach to settlement growth and development. Paragraphs 47- 55 of the NPPF seek to boost significantly the supply of housing to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. To accord with the NPPF new housing development should be located to provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car. The key matter in applying the NPPF relates to directing development to sustainable locations.

98. The site is a proposed housingallocation within the emerging County Durham Plan as set out at Policy 30. In the context of paragraph 216 of the NPPF, it is considered that some weight can be attached to such a proposed allocation at this stage, given that the emerging Plan has been the subject of statutory consultation and submission of ahead of examination in public. Furthermore, there has been only one objection to this particular allocation as part of the emerging plan consultation. This was received from Brandon and Byshottles Parish Council, who have since indicated that the concerns that they raised with the proposed allocation have been adequately addressed in this submission.

99. The application site represents the only housing allocation proposed for the Ushaw Moor settlement, having been categorised as suitable for development within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Ushaw Moor is recognised within the County Durham Settlement Study as being a 2 nd tier settlement with a good range of services and facilities. As a consequence, the site is considered to be suitable for housing development, being located in a sustainable location and forming a logical extension to the village.

100. Regular public transport provision is available through the village and bus stops are available on Whitehouse Lane, in close proximity to the site. It is therefore considered that the settlement is a sustainable location and furthermore, meets the aspirations set out within Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

101. Policy 30 of the County Durham Local Plan recognises that the site is phased for release over the medium term, and that it would deliver houses from 2020 onwards. Policy 30 states that the delivery of an allocation in advance of its phasing will only be approved if it does not prejudice the delivery of other allocated sites, is required in order to maintain a five year supply of deliverable sites and the infrastructure requirements of the development can be satisfactorily addressed.

102. In this instance it is considered that the delivery of other sites would not be prejudiced as this is the only allocated site in Ushaw Moor. Furthermore, the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to maintain a five-year supply of deliverable sites to ensure choice and competition in the market. The 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment concluded that a five-year supply could be demonstrated in County Durham, so there are no deficiencies which need to be addressed by the release of more housing land. However, it is not the intention to resist schemes solely on oversupply grounds, but instead recognise that the Local Planning Authority can be more selective over which sites it does release, to ensure that the most sustainable and appropriate sites are brought forward for development. Furthermore, as the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained with the paragraphs 12 and 47 of NPPF is not engaged.

103. Turning to the infrastructure element of Policy 30, the medium term phasing of the site is primarily driven by concerns relating to the potential impact that traffic generated by the development would have upon existing congestion on the A690 at Neville’s Cross, and the junction of the A167 with Toll House Road. It is proposed that the Western Relief Road, provision for which is made in Policy 9 of the emerging CDP, would run from the A690/B6302 roundabout at Stonebridge and would provide the capacity to allow the development of the application site by 2021. The Western Relief Road would be funded by contributions relating to the development of the Durham City Strategic Sites under Policy 8 of the emerging plan at Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Merryoaks.

104. It is clear therefore, that the intention within Policy 30 is for this site to not come forward until after the Western Relief Road has been completed, unless it can be demonstrated that there would not be severe impact upon the highway network. Whilst at the present time only limited weight can be afforded to this policy due to the emerging nature of the County Durham Plan, this issue is explored in greater detail in the following section of this report.

Access, Traffic and Highway Safety

105. A transport assessment has been submitted in support of the proposals due to the potential amount of traffic generated by the proposed development. In assessing such impacts, paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Furthermore, as outlined above, Policy 30 of the emerging County Durham Plan seeks to resist sites allocated in the medium and longer term from coming forward prematurely where infrastructure requirements that are considered necessary are not in place.

106. The comprehensive transport assessment submitted with the application has been considered in detail by Highways Officers. The report, which has been updated during the consideration process, concludes that the traffic associated with the development would have an insignificant impact upon the highway network in Ushaw Moor and at junctions on the A167 (Tollhouse Road and Nevilles Cross) and A690 (Stonebridge) during the weekday am and pm peak hours.

107. It goes on to clarify the levels of movements of generated vehicles over the 60 minute weekday peak periods would not result in severe impacts at each of the junctions assessed, noting that the junctions on the A167 and A690 are already operating over capacity with queues at peak times. It contends that the impact on the junctions that would result from the proposed development would only be to increase the length of these queues slightly.

108. In the first instance, the Highway Authority disagrees with the methodology utilised within the Transport Assessment to reach these conclusions. Whilst the revised levels of trip generation are now accepted, there is concern with the means by which trips have been assigned to the highway network and that the subsequent modelled impact on certain junctions cannot be considered to be accurate.

109. The assessment finds that the impact upon junctions local to the site would be acceptable and this is accepted by highways officers, however the junctions on the A167 and A690 are currently saturated at peak times. The assessment makes the case that a slight increase in traffic generated as a result of the development would simply lead to existing queues lengthening slightly. However, the Highway Authority considers that the modelling of saturated junctions is unreliable and cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, they note that where demand is nearing saturation, small increments in flow generally lead to a significant increase in delay. This is an exponential as opposed to linear relationship, and at signals that are saturated, residual queues will remain at the end of each cycle which add to delay and consequently have a significant impact upon circulation and would lead to a “peak spreading effect”, resulting in longer periods of peak congestion At key locations within the principle highways network of County Durham that already suffer from congestion, this is considered to constitute a severe residual cumulative impact, contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

110. Turning to Policy 30 of the emerging County Durham Plan, these conclusions suggest that the necessary infrastructure is not currently in place to accommodate this development and that its release in the medium term is justified. Consequently, the application cannot be considered to accord with this policy, although only limited weight can be afforded to it at the present time.

111. With regards to other highway matters, the application is considered to be otherwise acceptable. Policy T1 of the CDLP states that development that would be detrimental to highway safety will not be acceptable. Policy T10 of the CDP seeks to ensure that an adequate level of parking is provided within developments. The internal layout accommodates all modes of transport and following amendment, now includes adequate parking provision for both residents and visitors. The site is sustainably located and the proposal includes the provision of an additional bus stop on the southbound side of Whitehouse Lane to be secured by legal agreement. The application also includes a revised Travel Plan, adherence with which can be secured by condition. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies T1 and T10 of the CDP in these respects.

112. Concerns raised by local residents with regards to highway safety impacts generally relate to the road network immediately local to the site. With regards to this, the modelling within the transport assessment is considered to be adequate and robustly demonstrates that the development would not lead to unreasonable congestion or highway safety issues within Ushaw Moor itself. It is accepted that Whitehouse Lane is a steep road and that in winter conditions it can be difficult to negotiate, however this is a Priority 1 Winter Maintenance Route and is treated as soon as is practicably possible. Consequently, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to resist the proposal on this basis.

Affordable Housing

113. In order to widen the choice of high quality homes and widen opportunities for home ownership, paragraph 50 of the NPPF encourages the provision of affordable housing based on evidenced need. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update report was completed in July 2013 and supplies the evidence base for 20% affordable housing across the Central Delivery Area in which the site falls. The requirement reflects an up to date needs assessment and identifies a significant requirement of approximately 189 net affordable units per annum throughout the Central Delivery Area up to 2016/17. This shortfall is greatest for one and two bedroom properties (68 net per annum). On the basis of the SHMA evidence base, Policy 31 of the submitted Local Plan identifies housing schemes of 15 dwellings or 0.5 ha or more where such an affordable housing provision should apply and that 10% of housing should be appropriate for older people.

114. In this particular case, the application proposes that on the basis of 167 dwellings being constructed, 20% would be affordable or 33 units overall. The proposal would assist in the delivery of a wide choice of homes based on current and future demographics as set out at paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

115. This level of housing development provides an opportunity to deliver major benefits by way of meeting the affordable housing needs of the City and its surrounds. In view of the cuts in Government support to fund affordable housing delivery, a contribution of this scale that would enable the 33 affordable units required by Policy to be provided, is a major benefit at a time when housing development is struggling to deliver enough value from many sites to make affordable housing viable.

116. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposals reflect the level of affordable housing recommended in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and as a consequence is consistent in Policy 31 of the emerging County Durham Plan and City of Durham Local Plan Policies H12 and H12A. The affordable housing provision would be secured in perpetuity by way of a legal agreement under the Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990.

Visual and Landscape Impact

117. The landscape is for the most part visually open, but there are more heavily wooded areas to the north and west. The site itself is made up of former allotments and small paddocks with associated structures, which are generally poor in condition. Residential development lies to the south and the site slopes significantly from north to south due to its position on the shoulder of the Deerness Valley. The site is not covered by any national or local designations but does lie close to areas of land identified as Area of Landscape Value in the CDLP. The site is in a relatively prominent location and is visible in distant and middle-distance views from the south, and in close views from the Whitehouse Lane heading north and also from the road linking Bearpark and Ushaw College, which runs to the north of the site.

118. The proposals would have no significant effect on landscape features as the site lacks mature features of any note. Existing hedgerows would be retained and in most cases improved. It is acknowledged that residential development would change the character of the site itself and being located at the edge of the village, it is critical that the development does not result in visual coalescence with Bearpark. Accordingly, a substantial landscape buffer is to be provided in the field immediately to the north of the site. This would aid the screening of the site from the Ushaw College road, and also from the most northerly part of Whitehouse Lane, where it meets the Ushaw College road and forms the visual entrance to Bearpark.

119. In more distant views across the Deerness Valley, primarily looking north, development in this location would be visible as an extension of the urban form of Ushaw Moor. While it would lead to an increase in the amount of built development visible in some views it would not affect the general character of the landscape to a substantial degree.

120. Objections have been raised by local residents with regards to the loss of views across the valley, particularly from the road to the north of the site. It is considered with regards to this that the local topography mitigates any impact to some degree, with the site sitting below the crest of the shoulder of the valley. Certainly, the development would be visible in particular views, however these would be specific, glimpsed views from particular viewpoints and it is considered unlikely that such views would be lost entirely. Furthermore, the development appears as a natural extension to the village and should be read in this context.

121. Structural landscaping within and around the site would assist in assimilating the built development in middle and long distance views in the medium term, provided it is sufficiently robust, which would progressively reduce the level of impact in wider views as required by CDLP Policies Q5, Q6 and E15. The proposals would be visible in some views from land within the Area of High Landscape Value, but would be read in the context of the settlement fringe of Ushaw Moor. The effect would not be significant and would not bring the proposals into conflict with CDLP Policy E10.

Design and Layout

122. The layout and design of the proposal have been developed with respect to the existing settlement, the topography of the site and the challenges and opportunities that these elements present. The proposal reflects the edge of settlement position of the site, with the density of dwellings reducing towards the north of the site, providing transition from existing housing in Ushaw Moor to the south, to open fields to the north and west. The site is somewhat inward facing, with only properties on the eastern edge addressing Whitehouse Lane. However, the southern boundary would not lend itself to such treatment due to the existing garage sites located on Ladysmith Terrace. Furthermore, any inward facing character is mitigated by the sloping nature of the site, whereby properties towards the northern edge of the site would face southwards with vistas towards and over Ushaw Moor, thus opening up the site to a degree.

123. It is considered that proposals are appropriate in density and character having regard to the local and wider area and would contribute positively to the areas townscape and landscape, incorporating substantial investment to the public realm, strong green infrastructure to delineate routes and spaces, and a structural hierarchy of routes and spaces.

124. It is considered the scheme promotes legibility, accessibility and permeability and that the public realm is attractively designed. The linkages within the site and to the wider area have been well considered, with pedestrian accesses at the south eastern corner of the site, providing convenient access to services located within the centre of Ushaw Moor. A further pedestrian access was originally proposed onto Ladysmith Terrace at the south western corner of the site. However, it was considered that this access offered minimal advantages in terms of pedestrian legibility and represented a potential generator of crime, as noted by both Durham Constabulary and local residents. Consequently, this pedestrian access has been removed from the scheme. Overall, it is considered the design and layout of the detailed element of the proposals minimises opportunity for crime and anti-social behaviour within its layout. It is considered that the layout provides for a varied and appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes as required by paragraph 50 of the NPPF, as well as Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

125. The Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) undertaken as part of the evidence base for the emerging County Durham Plan provides the most up-to- date evidence base from which to calculate the site’s open space requirements. The OSNA suggests there are deficits in terms of the amount of parks/gardens and semi-natural green space and allotments within New Brancepeth and Ushaw Moor. The proposed development includes provision of open space on site, including an area of informal open space. Policy R2 requires the provision 100 square metres of informal play space and 200 square metres of amenity space per 10 dwellings. This equates to a requirement of approximately 0.5ha to be provided within the site, of which 0.48ha has been provided. Whilst this is approximately 200 square metres less than the requirement contained within Policy R2, it is considered that a financial contribution towards the improvement of facilities within Ushaw Moor could be secured as part of a Section 106 legal agreement in lieu of this element of public open space.

126. It is considered that the provisions to be made on site and those to be secured off-site are such that the proposals would fully comply with the requirements of CDLP Policies R2 and Q8. Although no specific provision has been made for artistic elements within the site as required by CDLP Policy Q15, it is considered that a proportion of the capital cost of development could be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement in order to provide public art elsewhere in the community.

Residential Amenity

127. The nearest properties to the site are situated across Ladysmith Terrace to the south and to the east at Whitehouse Court. Notwithstanding the recognised loss of private view, into the countryside the development of the site for housing generally is unlikely to substantially diminish levels of residential amenity that those living nearby can reasonably expect to enjoy in their homes and gardens, in terms of loss of outlook, light and privacy as required by CDLP Policies H13 and Q8, with the required separation of distances of 21m between facing habitable windows and 13m between windows and blank gables being retained between proposed dwellings and those which currently exist to the south and east of the site. Properties on Ladysmith Terrace lie approximately 27m to the south of the closest proposed dwellings, and properties on Whitehouse Court approximately 45m to the east. Furthermore, it is noted that the existing detached garages on Ladysmith Terrace provide a form of buffer to the site and furthermore, landscaping on this southern boundary has been increased in order to further lessen any impact that the development would have. Consequently, despite concerns raised by local residents on this basis, it is considered that proposal would have only an acceptable impact upon the levels of residential amenity enjoyed by occupiers of those properties on Ladysmith Terrace.

128. It is considered that the anticipated additional traffic associated with the proposed development would not result in diminished air quality. It is accepted that there would be increased traffic, comings and goings and noise associated with a new housing development, albeit additional housing close to existing residential properties would rarely be deemed unacceptable from a residential amenity perspective. Dwellings would be located within the site at appropriate separation distances, be of an appropriate scale and be screened by landscaping to some degree.

129. Given the number of dwellings proposed development would result in a potential lengthy build-out period of around 5 years. In order to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for existing residents and those who occupy dwellings in the earlier phases of development it is considered appropriate to require a construction management plan be developed and be implemented to ensure appropriate management of such issues as operations, deliveries, noise, dust, mud, vibration and light so that the construction of the dwellings would not adversely affect the amenity of residents. Other than suggesting conditions relating to construction methods and times, the Council’s Pollution Control team raise no objections to the scheme with regards to noise. It is therefore considered that the proposals would accord with Policies H13 and Q8 of the CDLP in these respects.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

130. There are no designated sites on or within the immediate locality of the site other than Deerness Valley Local Wildlife Site situated around 700m away. The vast majority of the site comprises arable land. The application has been supported by an ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecology Report’ and various surveys of protected species and birds undertaken. The site was found to be of low ecological value. The existing hedgerows are noted as being of some value and proposed as being retained. No plant species of conservation significance or protected species were recorded. A further reptile survey has also been carried out following the submission of the application and this has found no evidence of reptiles on the site.

131. The proposed landscaping scheme would enhance the ecological value of the site. Other ecological enhancements set out in the submitted ecological report include the installation of bat and bird boxes, planting of and improvements to hedgerows, native and wildflower planting and native woodland planting.

132. The Ecology Section accepts the submitted survey results, methodology and mitigation strategy designed to protect wildlife and their habitats. It is considered that the landscape and biodiversity enhancements on the application site meet the requirements of CDLP Policies E14, E16 and E18 and paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF, in that it is considered there would not be significant impact on wildlife, protected species and natural habitats and that the proposals contribute positively to connectivity and the creation and enhancements of habitats.

Heritage Assets and Archaeology

133. The application site is not situated in particularly close proximity to heritage assets, designated or otherwise, the closest being at Red House Farm approximately 185m to the north, and Ushaw College approximately 1km beyond. The local topography means that these buildings are over the crest of the valley, with the development lying on its northern shoulder. This means that it is unlikely that the development would be read in views of these listed buildings and would have no residual impact upon their setting. CDLP Policies E21 and E23 seek to preserve and enhance the historic environment and listed buildings and the application is considered to accord with these policies in this respect.

134. With regards to archaeology, Policy E24 seeks to ensure that the archaeological potential of development sites is adequately investigated and mitigated in order to preserve and record remains. With regards to this, the applicant has carried out a geophysical survey of the site which has concluded that the site has only low to medium archaeological potential. An historic field boundary in the form of a Scotch Dyke is evident, and it is recommended that this is recorded prior to topsoil stripping. It is considered that other archaeological potential can be addressed by means of condition relating to monitoring, mitigation and recording. Consequently, the application is considered accord with CDLP Policy E24 in this respect.

Public Rights of Way

135. There are no formal Public Rights of Way that would affected by this development. An informal path which crosses the south western corner of the site and runs along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the northern boundary of the residential property “Greenfield” located at the western end of Ladysmith Terrace. It would appear that this route is used to access Footpath 53 and an area of woodland further to the west and appears as well trodden on aerial photographs dating back to 2001. It is likely therefore that the path has been utilised for a number of years and it is possible that the path may have acquired Public Rights if its use has been unfettered for 20 years. However, it is has never been claimed as a formal Public Right of Way. Consequently, there is no current requirement for a stopping up procedure to be entered into at this time

136. It should also be noted that this informal path is cited by several objectors as being a source of anti-social behaviour and that no objections have been received with regards to its potential loss.

137. It is therefore considered that there is no conflict with regards to CDLP Policies R11 and T21 in this respect.

Flooding and Drainage

138. The site lies within flood zone one where residential development is considered appropriate. The main consideration is the prevention of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment’s findings and recommendations, as well as surface and foul water drainage proposals, are accepted by Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency. This is subject to appropriate planning conditions which restrict the amount and location of foul and surface water discharge.

139. NWL has advised that its existing foul water drainage system has available capacity to accommodate a restricted discharge from the development. A Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) was considered in order to dispose of surface water, however the presence of impermeable soils, in the form of Glacial Tills on the site means that a SUDS scheme would not be possible. Consequently, it is proposed that surface water be drained from the site via a surface water sewer and ultimately, to a watercourse. The discharge levels will be restricted to the levels required by Northumbrian Water by means of underground flow attenuation measures. The objectives of CDLP Policy U8a and Part 10 of the NPPF are therefore considered to have been met. The concerns regarding this matter are noted, however it is the case that development of a site enables a positive drainage strategy to be implemented.

Contamination

140. The possibility of the site being contaminated has addressed by means of a ground investigation report. Although the report identifies nothing of significant concern on the site, the Council’s Pollution Control Team recommend that further investigative works take place and that a suitable remediation scheme be formulated, if necessary. The applicant has submitted remediation proposals to ensure the site is suitable for the proposed use which the Contaminated Land Officer considers to be acceptable. It is important that these works are carried out in accordance with the submitted remediation strategy together with a subsequent validation report to ensure that the proposed development complies with CDLP Policy U12 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF which would ensure the site and the surrounding area is safe and appropriately remediated. These requirements could be conditioned as part of any planning permission.

Other Matters

141. The site presents a good opportunity for innovative sustainable design and a fabric first approach has been taken in this instance and would lead to a 14.24% reduction in energy usage and a 12.64% reduction in CO2 emissions over the requirements contained within Part L of the Building Regulations. Consequently, the requirements of CDLP Policy U14 and the core principle of the NPPF of achieving sustainable development are considered to have been met. The imposition of a condition to meet this requirement would address concerns raised by the Sustainability and Climate Change Officer regarding improving the sustainability of the design and construction of the dwellings and the consideration of renewable or low carbon energy generation on the site.

142. The site formerly hosted allotments. This use is understood to have ceased in approximately 2006, with the site now being used primarily the equine grazing with some wooden structures remaining. However, it cannot be considered to be currently operating as an allotment site and would appear to have not done so for several years. Consequently the redevelopment of the site would not be in conflict with Policy R5 of the City of Durham Local Plan in this respect.

143. The School Places Manager considers that there is sufficient provision of secondary school places to accommodate the projected number of pupils that the development is likely to generate, but it is likely that additional primary school capacity will be required and that a financial contribution should be provided in order to secure additional classroom accommodation. This could be secured by means of a Section 106 agreement. It is considered that other services within the village are likely to be invigorated by additional residents and would serve to support the long term sustainability of Ushaw Moor.

144. Concerns regarding the condition of Ladysmith Terrace, and in particular the detached garages and condition of the road are noted and have been passed to the relevant services within the Council, however such matters are considered to not be material to the determination of the application.

145. It is considered that this development would be unlikely to prejudice any future plans for Ushaw College and furthermore, this would not represent reasonable grounds upon which to resist this proposal.

CONCLUSION

146. This proposal comprises residential development in a sustainable location and in many respects performs well against planning policy criteria.

147. Although not strictly in accordance with the CDLP as a matter of principle, the inconsistency of Policy H3 of this plan with the NPPF, means that this can be afforded only limited weight. The site is proposed to be allocated for residential development in the medium term within the emerging County Durham Plan and whilst there are concerns relating to prematurity in bringing the site forward at the current time, it is considered that the amount of weight that can be afforded to the emerging plan at this time is also limited and the application should not be resisted on this basis.

148. The development is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety, access, parking, subject to proposed mitigation. It is considered that the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties would not be significantly adversely affected. The proposed development is not considered to negatively affect protected species or nature conservation. It is also considered that any heritage assets would not be significantly affected. Adequate drainage to the public sewer would be provided and flood risk would not be increased elsewhere, subject to conditions. Conditions would also ensure that the site is safe for development and that archaeological investigations are carried out to ensure that any archaeological remains would not be affected by the development.

149. Careful and thorough consideration was given to the objections and concerns raised by local residents and these have been taken into account and addressed within the body of the report, with some matters of concern being addressed through the process of consideration. However, other matters raised are not considered to be of such weight that they would justify the refusal of the application.

150. Notwithstanding the above, significant concerns remain with regards to the impact that the development would have upon the wider strategic highway network, by means of increasing congestion and delays at key junctions on the A167 and A690 to an unacceptable degree and representing a severe impact contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

151. It is more than possible that these concerns would be alleviated following the construction of the proposed Western Relief Road and this forms the premise behind phasing the site in the medium term within the emerging County Durham Plan. With the applicant unable to satisfactorily demonstrate that the development would not have a severe impact upon the highway network, there is considered to be no compelling reason to bring the site forward at the present time, particularly as the presumption in favour of sustainable development has not been triggered, as the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an adequate 5 year housing land supply.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons

1. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development, as result of the levels of traffic that it would contribute towards already saturated junctions on the A167 and A690 at peak times would lead to severe cumulative impacts upon the transport network in form of exacerbated delays contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at the decision to refuse the application has sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application. This is evidenced by advising the applicant of objections to the proposal and encouraging discussions with the Highways Authority. However, the issue of concern could not be overcome and a positive outcome could not be achieved. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1)(CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• Submitted application forms, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant • The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)National Planning Practice Guidance Notes • City of Durham Local Plan 2004 • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

DM/14/00845/FPA Erection of 167 dwellings, landscaping and associated infrastructure at Land to the North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Durham Planning Services This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014 Scale Not to scale