Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: CE/13/01542/FPA

Redevelopment of main entrance building to provide new glass lobby and double heighted atrium. Erection of FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : animal care centre, animal sheds, equine centre, feed store and associated facilities

NAME OF APPLICANT : East Durham College

East Durham College, Houghall Campus, Houghall, ADDRESS : Durham, DH1 3SG

ELECTORAL DIVISION : Durham South

Ann Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 261393, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site relates to East Durham College’s Houghall campus which is an agricultural teaching college. It is situated approximately one mile to the south east of Durham city centre. The overall site is approximately 380 hectares in size. The main campus buildings are sited to the north of the site and accessed from the main A177 road. They comprise reception, dining room and classrooms. The building is largely single storey with a 2 storey element to the centre. Other buildings comprise of workshops and storage buildings. Directly to the south of the buildings is a car park and area laid out for tractor driving. There is an arboretum to the northern edge of the site. The campus boundary to the north is formed by the edge of the Durham (City Centre) Conservation Area with its southern boundary defined by the River Wear which forms the western edge of Shincliffe Village Conservation Area. The site is low lying and predominantly flat. The site is essentially a patchwork of green open fields defined by hedgerows and trees with denser areas of woodland within the site and enveloping it, most notably Great High Wood ancient woodland) and Houghall, Maiden Castle & Little Woods Local Wildlife Site forming a scenic green backcloth to the west.

2. To the north of the site is the Durham University Sport campus. Sports pitches also lie to the east and west of the college buildings. To the east of the site is a plant centre and café, and approximately 750m to the south west of the main buildings is Houghall College Farm and an outdoor ménage. The farm is accessed from a separate road (Farm Road) off the A177, further east of the main access and is also connected to the main college campus by a track extending northwards. To the south east of the ménage is a residential property, which is no longer associated with the college.

3. The site as a whole is located within the Durham City Green Belt, with the main group of buildings being designated as a major developed site in the Green Belt. The site is within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV). A blanket tree preservation order also covers the site. The medieval barns to the rear of Houghall Farm are Grade II listed.

The Proposal

4. The proposals form part of an overall master plan to create a “state of the art” learning centre for theoretical and practical land-based skills. Firstly, the proposals entail the redevelopment of the main entrance building incorporating a new glass entrance lobby with 2 storey glass atrium to the rear which would house the reception, social space, classrooms, laboratories and computer space/enhanced IT infrastructure. Alterations would be made to the front entrance, including removal of the doors and surround to widen the access and incorporate a glass portico, as well as removal and replacement of windows.

5. As well as refurbishment, the College is seeking to extend its built form on land adjoining the southern and western boundary of the main campus. It is proposed to construct new agricultural buildings which intend to replace existing buildings at Houghall Farm, comprising of cattle shed and forage store incorporating workshops, sheep shed, pig shed, feed store, organic waste store and associated external works. Some of the buildings incorporate teaching space. The size of the four buildings would range from 70m by 30m and 6.7m in height (cattle shed and feed store) to the sheep shed which is 45m by 16m and 5m in height. They would extend around the back of the existing buildings, largely running parallel to the existing site and extending for a short way along an internal road. The feed store would be sited within the edge of the main developed site and replace an existing area of conifer trees. The buildings would be of typical agricultural style and design comprising red brickwork and Yorkshire timber boarding.

6. To the north west of these, following the line of the proposed new buildings, a new animal care facility is proposed comprising a single storey building of 56m in width, 6m in height and 24m in length. This would include housing for small mammals, dog grooming areas, workshops and staff facilities. It would be constructed of slate roof, natural stone walling, render panels and Yorkshire timber boarding. The roof to the north east elevation would be a ‘sedum’ green curved roof with the south eastern roof slope incorporating photovoltaic cells. This would be sited on a grassed area at the edge of a football pitch. The existing overflow car park, which can accommodate up to approximately 40 cars between the farm buildings and the animal care centre would remain. A dog agility area and kennels were previously proposed but have now been removed from the plans, after concerns were raised regarding their siting. Hedgerow planting around the farm buildings and tree planting around the animal care centre is proposed, as well as abutting the ancient woodland. Access for staff, students and deliveries, including lorries, would be taken from the main entrance to the college off the A177.

7. Originally it was proposed to wedge the proposed new buildings in an area of open space in between the main buildings and the ancient woodland. However, concerns were raised by officers regarding the impact of the buildings on the openness on the Green Belt and the visual amenity of the ancient woodland. Revised plans show a reduction in number of the buildings, one of the buildings being relocated within the existing major developed site designation and the rest of the buildings extending round the edge of the existing built development. This leaves a swath of open land between the woodland and the proposed buildings.

8. To the north east of the existing Houghall agricultural teaching farm, approximately 0.4 miles to the south of the main buildings it is proposed to create a new equine centre. This would be sited on an existing field in between woodland, directly to the south of the existing outdoor ménage. The field is currently used for horse jumping. The building would incorporate 36 stables, isolation area, arena, tack room, muck store, store areas, toilets, lockers etc. Car parking accommodating 30 spaces would be sited to the western frontage of the site with access taken from the south western corner off Farm Road which extends northwards onto the main A177. Access would also be provided from the existing farm from the south extending around the eastern perimeter to the existing ménage. Additionally this would provide access into fields to the east. The structure would be 10m in height (at the highest point), 84m in length and 60m in width. A yard area and covered walkway would link the two elements of the stables and arena. Significant landscaping and hedgerow planting would be proposed around the equestrian facility. The existing outdoor ménage would be retained and to the east of this an existing relocated horse walker would be sited. The equestrian centre layout has also been revised after concerns were raised by the nearest residential property regarding their amenity.

9. The application is reported to County Planning Committee as it represents a large scale major development.

PLANNING HISTORY

10. There have been 20 previous planning applications in the last 18 years at the College which have largely been for advertisement consent, works to trees and temporary buildings.

11. Outline planning permission was granted in 2002 for additional residential and administration blocks, sports pitches, car park and an indoor tennis centre. This permission was never implemented.

12. Planning permission was granted in 2006 for the erection of a wooden cabin for use as a café.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY :

13. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant.

14. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

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

19. Part 9 – Protecting green belt land . The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Green Belt land serves 5 purposes; to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

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

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

24. 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)

25. Policy E1 – Durham City Green Belt . Reflects national advice in PPG2 and outlines the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt in order to preserve its intrinsic openness.

26. Policy E2 – Major Developed sites in the Greenbelt – Infilling. Limited infilling will be allowed provided that it has no greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing development, it does not exceed the height of existing development and it does not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site.

27. 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.

28. Policy E10 – Areas of Landscape Value. Is aimed at protecting the landscape value of the district's designated Areas of Landscape Value.

29. 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.

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

31. 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.

32. Policy E18 – Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The Council will seek to safeguard sites of nature conservation importance unless the benefits from the development outweigh the nature conservation interests of the site, there are no alternatives sites and measures are undertaken to minimise adverse affect associated with the scheme and reasonable effort is made by appropriate habitat creation or enhancement to compensate for damage.

33. Policy E21 – Historic Environment. The Council will preserve and enhance the historic environment by requiring development proposals to minimise adverse impacts on significant features of historic interest and encourage retention repair and re-use of buildings and structures which are not listed but are of visual and local interest.

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

35. 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.

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 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.

38. 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 .

39. Policy R16 – Equestrian Facilities. Establishment of equestrian facilities will be permitted provided that proposals. in the green belt are consistent with Policy E1, stables relates to amount of grazing land available, new commercial facilities are close to bridleways/permissive paths, close to residential accommodation to allow supervision, are of appropriate scale and do not detract from the landscape and accord with nature conservation.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. Policy U10 – Natural Flood Plains. Proposals shall not be permitted in flood risk areas or where development may increase the risk of flooding elsewhere unless it can be demonstrated by way of sequential test that there is no alternative option available at lower risk, there will be no unacceptable risk of flooding, there will be no unacceptable increase in risk of flooding elsewhere and appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place to minimise the risk of flooding which can be controlled by planning condition.

44. Policy U12 – Development near Contaminated Land. Measures must be undertaken which would be sufficient to stop contaminants leaches or gases penetrating the site and accumulating in buildings and structures which could be harmful gases should be prevented from migrating into surrounding land.

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 (Durham City Local Plan)

EMERGING POLICY:

45. The emerging County Durham Plan is now in Pre-Submission Draft form, having been the subject of a recent 8 week public consultation, and is due for submission in spring 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. To this end, the following policies contained in the Pre- Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:

46. Policy 14 – Green Belt. Within the Green Belt the construction of new building will be regarded as inappropriate and will not be permitted apart from exceptions which minimise the openness of the Green Belt such as agricultural buildings and a number of other forms of development such as mineral extraction.

http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

47. Highways Authority – Originally additional information was sought as to the likely additional vehicle movements which the facilities would generate and about the size of the vehicles likely to be required to ensure the existing highway which leads from the A177 to the proposed equine centre can accommodate the increase in vehicle movements without the need for any significant improvements. Officers advise that the existing passing places would need to be brought up to a suitable standard to accommodate an increase in vehicle numbers, and that if the sizes of vehicles are larger than those which currently operate to the existing farm then the junction at the entrance to the main site would require improvement and the turning areas within the equine area enlarged. Officers consider the size of the car park is acceptable, although an overflow area should be made available if it is likely that events are to be held at the centre. The required visibility splays at the entrance to the new equine centre should be kept clear of obstruction.

48. Officers consider that it should be demonstrated that large vehicles could pass one another at the entrance off the carriageway of the A177 in order to avoid having stationary vehicles on the A177. The entrance should also be such that all vehicle movements would not be required to cross the centre line of carriageway of the A177 when accessing the site. Visibility at the entrance would be improved if the hedge is maintained at a height of 1 metre. If student numbers are to remain at or near the same level then the car park arrangements appear acceptable.

49. After receiving additional information from the applicant officers advise that no objections to the proposals are raised subject to the attachment of conditions restricting the numbers of trailers and horseboxes allowed to access the equine site from the A177/Farm Road access as well as the implementation of a traffic management plan. Furthermore, as there is a record of vehicle accidents on the A177 at or near the entrance to the college, officers consider that the applicant should provide details of this entrance to demonstrate that vehicles such as HGV’s can pass one another at the entrance but off the carriageway of the Road A177 in order to avoid having stationary vehicles on the Road A177 or that the entrance so by improved to accommodate such traffic.

50. Environment Agency – Offers no objections subject to the imposition of a condition requiring that development is carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment and the mitigation measures contained within. The EA also consider that the controlled waters are of low sensitivity. They advise that the sewerage undertaker should be able to demonstrate that the sewerage and sewage disposal systems have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional flows, generated as a result of the development. They advise that farm waste must be stored in accordance with DEFRA guidance and that any new, enlarged or altered agricultural facility must comply with Control of Pollution Regulations.

51. Northumbrian Water – Advises that sufficient detail with regards to the management of surface and foul water from the development has not been provided to be able to assess capacity to treat the flows. It is therefore requested that a condition is attached to any permission requiring a scheme for the disposal of surface and foul water from the development to be agreed.

52. Sport England – Sport England originally objected to the development on the grounds that part of the site which some of the development is on forms part of a football playing pitch. To comply with the exceptions test in Sport England’s policy and paragraph 74 of the NPPF the area of playing field lost to the development should be replaced as the proposed development would result in deficiency in the provision of playing field in the area. Sport England advised that there appears to be sufficient land at Houghall College to replace the playing field. Sport England would also give weight to the College agreeing to formalise the use of pitches through a community use agreement. Subsequently it is on this basis that Sport England has removed their objection, on the basis that the College is willing to enter into a formal community use agreement.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

53. Spatial Policy – Advice and guidance is provided as to the relevant green belt policies and tests that should be considered and the additional information that is required to be submitted by the applicant in order to attempt to justify the development in the green belt and provide very special circumstances to enable the proposals to be acceptable.

54. In response to the additional information received officers advise that the college provides a unique facility in the County in that it provides courses that are not available elsewhere in the County. Officers consider that the College has provided substantial additional evidence to demonstrate the very special circumstances for developments in the Green Belt. This includes information from an Ofsted report from the 2000’s which highlights the need for improvements to the fabric of the College.

55. The case continues that improved facilities are predicted to generate additional students, who would then bring higher skills to the local and regional economy in accordance with the North East LEP strategic aims, and would allow the College to offer higher level courses. These benefits also accord with the altogether wealthier strand of the County Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy, which seeks “competitive and successful people”. A strong economic case is put forward for the improvements, including considering the consequences of the closure of the College if the scheme was refused, which as a worst case scenario could see over 100 job losses and an estimated loss of £6m from the local economy. The more positive consideration, for the redeveloped College, would, it is suggested, bring about 100 new staff and generate in the order of an additional £4.6m to the local economy. This does not include the jobs and benefits brought to the local economy from the construction project. The evidence provided indicates that the project will bring not just local but regional benefits and go a long way to guaranteeing the County’s only agricultural college’s future.

56. Officers consider that the proposal fulfils the ‘very special circumstances’ required in the NPPF. These circumstances include the location of the site at an established agricultural college, the need to improve facilities in order to improve the educational offer and the contribution the College makes for the local economy in financial terms and in the provision of training.

57. Landscape Team – Concern was originally expressed regarding the location of the development which was considered to have a detrimental effect on the openness of the green belt, its visual amenity as well as the amenity of the ancient woodland and its relationship with the open areas beyond. Officers considered that there would be a reduction of the openness of the green belt to the rear of the existing buildings resulting in the coalescence of the built form with the ancient woodland. Officers advised that at present the buildings have "breathing space" around them and although are not of high quality this is part of the existing characteristic of the College and green belt in this location. Officers recommended that in order to avoid a loss of the openness between the existing campus and the ancient woodland the proposed development should be relocated without compromising the openness of the site and Green Belt.

58. In relation to the submitted revised plans, officers recommend the proposal to extend the woodland edge of Great High Wood should be removed as this defeats the object of retaining a separation between the woodland and the College. Proposed hedge planting along the internal college road should include hedgerow trees at irregular intervals to help to mitigate any adverse visual impact that the farm development may have when viewed from Farm Road. Officers advise that the layout and landscape proposed around the equine centre is an improvement but that hedgerow planting should be undertaken to the north where it bounds the internal road to lessen the visual impact of the proposed car park.

59. Design and Conservation Team – Officers advise that overall the setting of the Grade II Listed Building would be preserved and no other heritage assets would be affected. The proposed development would not be harmful to the setting of the nearby Conservation Areas and the setting and views to/from the World Heritage Site would be protected. However, retention of the existing entrance doors and stone surround and new timber windows would be highly beneficial in preserving the external appearance and character of the main college building.

60. Archeology Team – Officers advise that the submitted heritage assessment was not complete to enable assessment of the impact of the proposed development on known and potential archeological assets and that archeological evaluation and assessment works would be required and potentially mitigation put in place.

61. Pollution Control Team (noise) – Advise that officers have assessed the proposals in terms of noise, odour and artificial light. Conditions to minimize the potential for a statutory nuisance are recommended covering safeguarding drainage, water systems and land from contamination from manure.

62. Pollution Control Team (contamination) – Have no objections. Officers advise that the overall land contamination risk assessment is low-medium. This was due to an above ground tank on site. A ‘hot spot’ of contamination was predicted in the Desk Top Survey and subsequently found in the Phase 2 Site Investigations. Therefore officers advise that only a Phase 3 validation report would be required after remediation measures are implemented at the site, in accordance with the measures set out in the Phase 2 report.

63. Ecology – Confirm that that the proposal is acceptable in respect of bats. However, following receipt of a Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report the Ecologist advises that four ponds were recorded as having excellent suitability for GCN and two as having good suitability. If GCN are present in the ponds the proposed development may have a detrimental impact on GCN populations. Officers advise that the presence or otherwise of European Protected Species must be known before planning permission is granted. All ponds within 500m of the developments should be surveyed between mid-March and Mid-June. Badger surveys should also be undertaken to clarify the extent of disturbance and any loss of habitat. This would assess how the badger population use the habitats surrounding the setts as the development could fragment the foraging habitat and sever commuting routes between setts.

64. Access and Rights of Way Team – Officers advise that Public Footpath No. 32, (Durham City) lies along the western site boundary of the site. They consider that neither the development nor construction works would affect this footpath as the path is located within the adjacent woodland. Public Footpath No. 31 (Durham City) crosses Houghall farmland but is situated away from the proposed equine centre.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

65. The application was advertised in the press, on site and in the locality. Letters were sent to neighbouring residents. Three letters of representation have been received (one of objection). The main concerns and comments received from local residents are summarised as follows:

Objection

66. The occupiers of the nearest residential property to the proposed equine centre have raised an objection based on light, including security lighting, noise, smell, 24 hours a day, loss of residential and visual amenity, increases in traffic and associated parking and risk of flooding. Concern is raised about the height and size of the equine building which would destroy views from the residential property and views of walkers. Concern is raised regarding the impact of increased traffic, blocking of passing places on a road which is currently in a poor state of repair and difficultly in turning out onto the A177 due to increased heavy traffic. Concerns are also raised regarding the negative affect on wildlife, the green belt and conservation area as well as devaluation of property price. The objectors feel that their concerns have not been addressed through the revised plans.

Representations

67. A regular visitor to the site can see the reasons behind the development and is glad the proposals do not involve demolition of the main buildings. However, they consider that the treatment to the main entrance is too modern and would rather physical alterations were done at the rear. Furthermore, they consider it a shame the field would disappear for the equine facility as it’s currently a fine view. More activity would also be detrimental to wildlife.

68. A further representation has been received from a local resident who is generally happy to hear about the redevelopment of the main building and one which adds a modern aspect to a fairly dilapidated building. Considers that the glass box may look rather odd though. Is also of the opinion that ramped access should be made at the front. Furthermore concern is raised regarding a number of footpaths which have not been considered. It is thought that the new buildings would block views and close in/impact on the routes. Opportunity should be taken to link existing routes.

69. City of Durham Trust – The Trust would urge these (acceptable) uses to be executed with care, such that its impact on openness is restricted as possible, with screening considered from paths.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

70. The proposed development involves the redevelopment of Houghall College Campus which will establish the reputation of Houghall College Campus as the region’s leading provider of land-based courses and training .Agricultural Colleges were formed in the UK between World War I and World War II. At that time, the Government delivered an Agricultural College in every UK County in order to train workers / students in agriculture. East Durham College are not aware of any Agricultural College in the UK which has closed and East Durham College consider that there is a risk that Houghall College could be the first Agricultural College in the UK to close if planning permission is not granted.

71. The current condition of the building stock at Houghall College Campus has been highlighted by Ofsted as far back as 2002 as a restriction to learning at Houghall College Campus. East Durham College have submitted a funding bid to the Skills Funding Agency for £10 million of investment to secure the delivery of the proposed development.

72. The proposed development involves the delivery of an up-to-date modern teaching environment which co-locates the practical and theory elements of land based studies. As the entire Houghall College Campus is located in the Green Belt, a range of confidential Very Special Circumstances have been submitted to Durham County Council to justify the proposed development. East Durham College have also worked closely with officers at Durham County Council to ensure a satisfactory form of development taking into account a range of planning and environmental constraints associated with the site such as flood risk, landscape, ecology, archaeology, and Green Belt. In conclusion, it is estimated that the proposed development will result in the following:

• 101 existing jobs retained; • 101 new jobs created; • An increase in student numbers of over 30% ; • Total staff salary spend of approximately £5.4 million per year; • Total spend of £5.4 million by Houghall College on goods and services; • Increased salary of students completing their studies to a total of approximately £2million per year; and • £60.4million benefit to society.

73. The Applicant considers that it is clear that the proposed development delivers the three roles of sustainable development as set out in Paragraph 7 of the NPPF and that planning permission should be granted for the proposed sustainable development to ensure the future of Houghall College Campus.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at: http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MX6956BN5B000

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

74. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: the principle of the development, landscape and visual impact, highway safety, access and traffic, affect upon residential amenity, impact on heritage assets, ecology and nature conservation, flood risk, playing fields, archaeology and other matters.

Principle of development

75. The college is an established education institution located within the Durham Green Belt, the prime and protected characteristic of which is openness. CDLP Policy E1 precludes most built development from Green Belt land except where very special circumstances have been demonstrated, whilst paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF also seek to protect Green Belts from harmful development unless there are ‘very special circumstances’. These ‘very special circumstances’ will only exist when any harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The original campus buildings are designated as a ‘major developed site’ in the Green Belt by CDLP Policy E2, and as such, limited infilling is permitted. The vast majority of the new development proposed, notably to the south-west of the major developed site area and the field adjacent Houghall Farm is outside this area. With the above in mind the applicant must demonstrate that there are ‘very special circumstances’ that justify the proposals to extend its built form into the Green Belt. These requirements are clearly set out in the NPPF, and are also proposed to be reflected in Policy 14 of the emerging CDP.

76. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate apart from a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is to allow for alterations and extensions, providing they are not disproportionate in size to the original building. In this case it is considered that the main entrance building proposals would not result in a disproportionate alteration and extension to the main entrance building while making visual improvements. In this respect the proposal also accords with Policy E2 of the CDLP as the works would not exceed the height of the existing buildings, has no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development and does not significantly increase the developed proportion of the site. For clarification, whilst agricultural buildings are generally considered to be appropriate in the Greenbelt, it is considered that such an exception does not apply in this case, as the buildings, although the majority are agricultural in appearance, are predominantly required for educational purposes, and as such they are considered to amount to inappropriate development.

77. The College has submitted a detailed report which provides justification for the development in the Green Belt. The applicant advises that the proposed development has to be located at Houghall College campus where existing courses and lessons are provided and where the College own 380 hectares of land, all within the Green Belt. There is no land available within the main developed site which could accommodate the development. The location of the development has also been influenced by a number of planning constraints including, flood risk, woodland, existing buildings, playing fields, landscape and visual constraints. The applicant states that the site is already located within the Green Belt and unless it moves to a new location in the County some encroachment would be unavoidable.

78. It is the case that both an internal and external review of teaching and learning have evidenced that there is a poor standard of accommodation and resources at the College. An Ofsted inspection as far back as 2002 identified concerns relating to the provision of land based courses including poor resources and accommodation for equine and animal care studies and that overall quality of provision is poor, which impacts on the education that students receive. It is the case that due to the standard of facilities available at Houghall students are now choosing to study at other agricultural colleges outside County Durham. This is due to the fact that no other colleges provide agricultural courses in County Durham. It was also identified that the location and distance of facilities at the farm, away from the main campus was adversely impacting on education. The proposed development is thus aimed at addressing this shortfall and predominantly co-locating the practical and the theory elements in a single location. The proposed development would relocate horticultural, arboricultural, agricultural and animal care provision into an integrated environment, by extending the existing built up site.

79. Co-locating the educational facilities would provide a number of operational efficiencies, including cost, time, increased safeguarding and security. In addition increased accessibility to study and increased opportunities for students with learning disabilities and difficulties particularity through centralisation of facilities and improved IT facilities. Furthermore, the development of land-based and environmental skills has been identified as a regional need in the north east through the North East Local Partnership. Therefore, attracting people into the land-based sector through a modern college with state of the art facilities is integral to alleviate skills shortages which are required by the local economy and to meet the needs of employers. The proposed development would also allow the college to offer higher and further levels of courses as well as increased apprenticeship provision which is required by North East Local Enterprise Partnership priorities, as well as additional courses, students and jobs.

80. Houghall College considers the proposed development to be necessary to improve the level of education to serve existing students and attract new ones with the key drivers being improvement of space utilisation and environmental conditions to create modern flexible teaching and learning space to provide a better learning and teaching environment to enable higher levels of attainment to enter universities and better jobs prospects for the whole spectrum of students. The applicant considers that the future of the College and thus subsequent jobs, spending power and knock on effect on the local economy are presently at risk without any development of the College. Securing planning permission would meet a condition of securing £10 million investment of Skills Funding Agency grant which would finance the proposals.

81. In considering the acceptability in principle of the equine centre, Policy R16 of the CDLP requires that development conforms to the requirements of Policy E1 including the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. It also requires that there is adequate grazing, and the proposal is appropriate is scale and character as well as being sensitively located. Although clearly contrary to the requirements set out in Policies E1 and E7 of the CDLP, as the development is in the open countryside and would impact on the openness of the Green Belt, the principle of the equine centre hinges on the acceptance of the ‘very special circumstances’ set out above. Adequate grazing land would be available. Consideration of siting, design, massing and scale shall be considered in the relevant section below.

82. Although substantial weight is given to harm to the Green Belt, it is considered that a case has been demonstrated showing that the economic and social benefits of the proposals, that have been determined through carefully assessed evidence, constitute the very special circumstances set out at CDLP Policy E1 and NPPF Part 9 to justify otherwise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The agricultural, equine and land-based teaching college is a well-established, unique and valuable facility for the whole County and the proposals would support and benefit the local economy by providing both employment and skills development which can contribute to the well- being of the local economy and community. In principle, its improvement and update is welcomed and supported to enable the college to achieve its ambition of becoming a leading provider of land based courses and training. The College would also provide public access to the facilities which adds a community benefit element to the justification. It is these considerations which clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness as required by CDLP Policy E1 and paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF and the development is only considered acceptable in principle because it is accepted in this particular case there are very special circumstances. In accordance with the direction set out in the Town and County Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the proposals must be referred to the Secretary of state for consideration as a result of the amount of new floorspace proposed and which amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Landscape and visual impact

83. The site is located within the countryside and in an Area of High Landscape Value. Great High Wood to the south west of the main college buildings is designated ancient woodland. In respect of the proposed new farm buildings to the north of the site it is considered that their design, scale and massing reflect their function, and thus are considered to be appropriate to this countryside location. Furthermore, in visual terms the proposals would be located behind the main buildings when viewed from the highway. From other viewpoints these buildings would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing buildings, where existing activities, such as tractor driver training and a yard area take place at present.

84. The plans have been amended and the layout improved to allow a large swath of green space which acts as breathable space between the ancient woodland to the west and the college buildings to be retained. The public views across this land from the street frontage and the A177 would now remain undisrupted. Additionally, the cluster of buildings would be set further back within the site which has less of a public outlook lessening their visual impact. The revisions to the scheme reduce the impact of the proposals on the openness of the greenbelt. One of the buildings has now been sited within the main developed site, in its southern edge. This is to replace a row of conifer trees (three groups). This is considered acceptable on the basis of the type of trees to be lost and that the presence of the farm buildings would reduce the need for the visual screening of the main site which the trees do at present. Landscape officers have advised that the proposed hedge to the eastern side of the buildings comprises of trees in addition to hedgerow, in order to assist with the screening of the building in long distance views.

85. The general scale and massing of the development although large is generally in keeping with the existing built form. The sizes of the buildings are required to deliver appropriate educational provision. The buildings in the southern part of the site are galvanised portal framed sheds with a mixture of materials; Yorkshire boarded walls, brick plinths, cement roofs etc. with the animal care building to the north a mixture of natural stone, render, timber and slate. The density, courtyard arrangement and simplistic design of the buildings themselves, and the materials proposed for use, are considered to be appropriate to the sites rural context and character. The larger animal care building will be a distinctive building adding a degree of interest as it adopts contemporary elements to its design. This would result in the loss of 3 trees, but they would be replaced within the proposed landscaping scheme and are considered to not be of type or age whereby it is considered necessary for them to remain, especially given that the placement of the building is sited directly against the main built form.

86. It is considered that the proposed equine centre would not be highly visible from the surrounding public realm, in particular from the main road, and it would be contained between two dense areas of woodland which would provide effective screening. Additional planting would be introduced along the new service road, around the car park and to the sites frontage which would assist in further assimilating the development into the surrounding landscape. The building proposed would adopt a farm like arrangement in forming a U-shape around a central courtyard. Although it is acknowledged that the building is large it is considered that the massing is successfully broken up by variations in its scale and roof form interlinked by a lower covered walkway. It would consist of a steel portal framed structure of a barnlike design in a mixture of timber and colour coated metal cladding panels, appropriate to the site’s rural context and character. It is considered that the siting of the equestrian centre is acceptable, as is the scale and character of the building, subject to residential amenity considerations which are set out below, having regard to Policy R16 of the CDLP.

87. It is considered that the development would not cause significant adverse harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the surrounding landscape, including important features or views, acknowledging that the site is in an Area of High Landscape Value, nor would there be adverse impacts on the ancient woodland to the west of the site. It is considered that they are appropriate in scale and character as well as being sensitively located as required by Policy R16 of the CDLP. Landscaping would further soften the views of all the buildings through the integration of tree, shrub, hedge and grass planting. However, small alterations to the landscaping plans to incorporate trees to the eastern boundary of the farm buildings, removal of an area of tree planting against the ancient woodland and extending the woodland edge along the whole of the eastern boundary of the equine centre site. It is therefore concluded that the objectives of Policies E10, E14, E15, R16, Q2 and Q5 of the CDLP as well as paragraphs 109 and 118 have been met.

Highway safety, access and traffic

88. The local road network is considered to be capable of safely accommodating the traffic generation associated with these proposals, subject to a number of restrictions. These being restricting the number of horsebox/ lorries using the Farm Road/A177 access to the equine centre to 15 a day, the implementation of a satisfactory traffic management plan to ensure that the number and type of traffic that could be generated by the development, particularly if events are to be held at weekends, would not compromise highway safety on the surrounding roads.

89. In assessing such impacts, paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe. The Highways Authority have advised that improvements should be made to the main site access to ensure it is both safe and suitable for the size and number of vehicles which would be using it, if it cannot be demonstrated that it is satisfactory already. These can be conditioned as part of any planning permission to enable the development to comply with paragraph 32 of the NPPF and Policies T1 and Q2 of the CDLP.

90. The existing level of car parking provided is also considered to be appropriate at the main campus which includes overflow parking to the rear of the site, as is the proposed car parking for the equine centre. The Highway Authority consider that overflow car parking should be made available in this area should this be required for any events of which there is a large amount of space to do so. Again a condition would require the size and location of this to be agreed. Furthermore there is the provision of free travel in the form of the East Durham College Bus Service for students, also the location of the site adjacent the A177 is well placed to take advantage of the frequent public transport services. There would be satisfactory space for manoeuvring of vehicles and for emergency access. The objectives of Policies T1, Q2 and T10 of the CDLP and Part 4 of the NPPF are considered to have been met.

Residential amenity

91. It is considered that there would be no residential properties that would be unduly affected by the construction of the proposed new agricultural buildings and animal care centre or the redevelopment of the main entrance of the building. The main concerns relate to the potential impact of the proposed equine centre on the nearest residential dwelling. Originally the submitted plans showed the building to be sited approximately 38m from the nearest residential property. However, after concerns were raised by officers and the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling, the building has been moved further away. It is now located approximately 56m to the northwest of the property, at the closest point which is the smaller, lower isolation part of the building with the main bulk of the building at a distance of approximately 64m away. This has been achieved through turning the arena itself onto a north-south axis. This enables a more oblique view of the main building from the north facing front elevation of the property, with the nearest view being of woodland, open grassed space, hedging and trees. The residential property’s principle outlook is also predominantly to the south, away from the proposed development. Furthermore, the main access road which was proposed adjacent to the property has been moved onto the other side of the building.

92. The concerns raised by the owners of the property are fully appreciated and acknowledged. The building is a large structure, relatively close to the property and the development would bring about an intensification of the use of the land and with it additional activity, including, people, horses and vehicular and associated noise. Without wishing to diminish the visual and amenity concerns raised by the residents it is considered that the existing equestrian use of the land by the College albeit an outdoor use, and one which will be restricted to daylight hours, means that the site is by no means one of tranquillity, this is further amplified by the adjacent location of the existing farm and associated activities. Having sought professional advice from the Council’s Pollution Control officers, it is their view, after considering issues such as, odour, noise and dust, that they do not raise concerns regarding the development.

93. Furthermore the tests set out in paragraph 123 of the NPPF require that planning decisions avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life. The view is taken that this would be minimised and mitigated, as recommended in paragraph 123 of the NPPF through the use of conditions to control the construction and end use operating times to social hours and by the Local Planning Authority retaining control over lighting and use of tannoys on the site as well as the number of large vehicles using Farm Road and allowing provision of overflow car parking facilities to take vehicles off the road.

94. It is considered that the conditions suggested by Pollution Control officers regarding the pollution of drainage systems and land by manure would be controlled under Environmental Protection Act regimes rather than through the planning system.

95. It is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity and the imposition of conditions would ensure this. The proposals would accord with paragraph 123 of the NPPF.

Impact on heritage assets

96. The main building on site is considered to be a prominent non designated heritage asset of some character. It comprises of a two storey central core flanked by single storey wings. It is constructed from red brick beneath a mansard style roof of green Westmorland slate and features cornice detailing, tall brick chimney stacks, Georgian style timber casement windows, and a grand entrance formed by solid timber double doors set in a stone surround with hood. The buildings to the rear are of limited architectural quality and of little interest.

97. The size and scale of the proposed atrium extension is considered to be acceptable as its footprint is appropriately predetermined by the existing courtyard space. It would be a subordinate addition resulting from it being set below the eaves of the main building and lower than the adjacent wings. The extension would be successfully absorbed into the existing built form to the rear of the main building where it would be seen as an interesting part of the interlinked and varied roofs cape. The contemporary approach, along with the limited palette of modern materials, would create an extension of a stimulating design which is aesthetically pleasing and which would integrate well with the historic core.

98. The removal of the existing solid timber panelled double doors and the widening of the stone surround is not supported by the Council’s Design & Conservation Team which considers that they are integral components of the buildings architectural character within its principle elevation. Officers consider there is little justification for this change which it is considered to be unsympathetic. The applicant considers the proposals would enable the access to be widened to allow free flow of the entrance area. The addition of the front entrance porch is acceptable as this would be of a highly contemporary design, fully transparent, with a "light touch" resulting in very little physical and visual intervention. It was originally proposed to replace the existing timber single glazed windows with PVC windows but on the advice of officers the applicant now proposes to install timber windows of a design to match the existing which shall be conditioned. Overall, this proposal can be supported as it provides an inventive design solution where the historic and contemporary styles would integrate well together creating a more usable, lively, and significantly improved interior space and apart from removal of the door the proposals are considered to respect the requirements of Policy E21 of the CDLP.

99. The development is considered to cause no adverse harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed medieval barn at Houghall Farm due to the spacing distance and the existing natural screening between the two sites which would be retained, thereby preserving the farmsteads isolated character as required by Policy E23 of the CDLP.

100. The County Archaeologist has advised that the site lies in an area of pre-historic activity and appears to have archaeological potential. It is known that there is a breadth of designated and non-designated heritage assets and activity on the site and wider area. This suggests that there is potential for buried archaeologist assets dating from the Bronze Age through to the medieval period. In order to comply with Policies E21 and E24 of the CDLP, the applicant is currently undertaking evaluation and archaeological assessment works, both desk based and through evaluation trenching and geophysics on site, in line with advise given by the Council’s Archaeologist. This would enable a mitigation strategy to be designed should the assessment conclude that the development have to potential to impact on any archaeological assets or activity, this could involve foundation design or if more significant issues are identified, a re-design of the layout. The results would be assessed by the County Archaeologist who would then recommend specific conditions to be attached to any planning permission and implemented in order for the development to comply with CDLP Policies E21 and E24.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

101. Great High Wood of the south west of the main building is ancient woodland as well as a Local Wildlife Site (Houghall, Maiden Castle & Little Woods). It is not considered that the ancient woodland and locally designated site would not be adversely affected by the proposals.

102. The Phase 1 Habitats Survey has identified that the Houghall College campus provides suitable habitat for a number of protected species. It identifies that Great Crested Newts (GCN), a European protected species may be affected by the proposed development as there are 6 ponds within the site which have excellent or good suitability for newt habitat, and thus it is likely that GCN are present on the site. Unfortunately, the site could not be surveyed for GCN before the April to June breeding season. As set out earlier in this report, the application will require referral to the Secretary of State in the event that Members are minded to approve the application, and as such, given the timescales involved for the referral and the need to have planning permission in place at the earliest opportunity in order to secure significant funding for the project, it was consider appropriate in these exceptional circumstances to proceed to consider the application at this time and ahead of having the survey information. As such, the referral of the application to the Secretary of State would run in parallel with the completion GCN surveys.

103. The presence of protected species such as GCN is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) and Paragraph 119 of the NPPF. The requirements of the Habitats Directive were brought into effect by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the Regulations). The Regulations established a regime for dealing with derogations, which involved the setting up of a licensing regime administered by Natural England. Under the requirements of the Regulations it is a criminal offence to kill, injure or disturb the nesting or breeding places of protected species unless it is carried out with the benefit of a license from Natural England.

104. The species protection provisions of the Habitats Directive, as implemented by the Regulations, contain three ‘’derogation tests’’ which must be applied by Natural England when deciding whether to grant a licence to a person carrying out activity which would harm a European Protected Species (EPS). This licence is normally obtained after planning permission has been granted. The three tests are that: the activity to which the licence is required must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; there must be no satisfactory alternative and favourable conservation status of the species must be obtained.

105. Notwithstanding the licensing regime, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must discharge its duty under Regulation 9(5) and also be satisfied that these three tests are met when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a development which could harm an EPS. An LPA failing to do so would be in breach of Regulation 9(5) of the Regulations which requires all public bodies to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions.

106. For the Council to do this, GCN surveys in line with Natural England advice, should be carried out to firstly establish whether there are any on the site. The applicant’s Ecologist is currently undertaking the required surveys and would continue to undertake the required amount until June, as necessary. If it is established that there are GCN, then the applicant would be required to put mitigation proposals forward, on the basis of the findings. The Council’s Ecologist would then advise whether, if implemented, this was sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the local population of GCN and thus ensuring that the favourable conservation status of the species is maintained. This may entail trapping and translocation of newts and ensuring that they could not access the development site. This could enable one of the tests to be met. It is considered that the other tests, those of overriding public interest and there being no satisfactory alternative, are met, in that it is in the public interest for any planning permission to be implemented given the economic, social and community benefits that the development would bring to the College, students and the wider Durham City and County area. Furthermore, there is no alternative site or location for the development to be carried out given the site constraints already set out in this report. It is envisaged therefore, that officers, could, under delegated powers, and in the event that the Secretary of State does not call-in the application, consider the final derogation test to assess whether favourable conservation status of the species would be obtained to assess whether the proposals can comply with Paragraphs 118, 119 of the NPPF, the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and Policies E16 and E18 of the CDLP.

107. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey report also recommends that further badger surveys are undertaken to accurately assess how the badger population on site uses the habitats surrounding their setts. The proposed development could potentially fragment the foraging habitat and sever commuting routes between setts, rather than have any direct impact on any setts. The applicant’s ecological consultant is currently mapping how badger utilise the site, including an assessment of foraging areas which would be considered by the Council’s Ecologist to ensure that there would not be impact on badgers and to comply with the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Badger Act 1992 as well as paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Policies E16 and E18 of the CDLP. This work would be undertaken before the planning decision is made and it is envisaged that the development, although foraging habitat would be reduced, a significant area would remain available.

108. A submitted bat survey risk assessment of the main entrance building has also been undertaken which concludes the building has minimal bat potential. Although recommends a method statement for use by contractors. The Council’s Ecologist has advised that the proposals can comply with Paragraphs 118 and119 of the NPPF, the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and Policies E16 and E18 of the CDLP.

Flood Risk

109. Paragraphs 99-104 of the NPPF require that new development avoids increased vulnerability of flooding. Where new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures. Paragraph 100 advises that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing it elsewhere. A sequential risk based approach to the location of development should be taken, to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk by applying the sequential test and exception test and using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes an impacts of flooding.

110. NPPF Paragraph 101 expects that the LPA to apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, by applying the sequential and exception test in areas known to be at risk from any types of flooding. This aim of this is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. NPPF Paragraph 103 advises that if, following application of the sequential test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding the exception test can be applied. This must demonstrate the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk and that a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

111. Furthermore within the site the most vulnerable development should be located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location. The development should be appropriately flood resilient and resistant including safe access and escape routes and that residual risk can be safely managed. The development of the farm building and animal care unit is located within a flood risk area, largely within flood zone 2, which means that the site is at medium risk of fluvial flooding and surface water flooding with a small area to the south west corner within flood zone 3 which has a significant risk of flooding.

112. The applicant’s agent has undertaken a sequential test to determine whether there are any reasonably available sites with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development and land use proposed given their vulnerability. It has been identified that the proposed development needs to be located within this part of the site as it is close to the existing buildings which has less impact on the openness of the greenbelt, has reduced visual and landscape impact and has security, safeguarding and other operational benefits for the students at the college as it is part of the main teaching area. It thus is considered that the proposed development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk.

113. The Environment Agency is satisfied that given the nature of the proposals which includes additional buildings located within the flood risk area and are farm related, that the level of risk to life would not be significantly increased subject to the mitigation measures highlighted in the submitted site specific flood risk assessment being incorporated into the design of the new buildings. These would ensure safe access and egress from the site, a reduction in the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. Flooding elsewhere would also be prevented by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided. The Environment Agency requires the conditioning of the mitigation measures detailed within the submitted flood risk assessment documents. These require; identification and provision of safe route(s) into an out of the site to an appropriate safe haven, setting of finished floor levels, flood proofing of buildings to prevent the ingress of floodwater and compensatory stored as set out in the flood risk assessment..

114. Subject to the implementation of conditions required by the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water, the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 100, 101, 102 and 103 of the NPPF and with CDLP Policy U10 which should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. In accordance with CDLP Policy U8a, and to comply with the requirements of Northumbrian Water, submission of satisfactory foul and surface water disposal schemes and their implementation before the development is brought into use can be conditioned.

Playing fields

115. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF requires that existing playing fields should not be built upon unless: the playing field is surplus to requirements or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location. The proposed animal care building is sited on the edge of a football pitch which forms part of the playing fields, to the north of the main College buildings. Sport England has removed its objection to the proposals on the basis that the College has agreed to enter into a formal community use agreement to formalise community use of the playing fields at the Houghall College site to ensure that they are available for local community and club use. This would be secured by way of planning condition and thus enable the development to comply with paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

Other matters

116. Given that the site is greenfield, rather than previously developed the overall land contamination risk is low to medium. This was due to an above ground tank on site and a ‘hot spot’ of contamination was found in the site investigations. Therefore Contaminated Land Officers advise that only a Phase 3 validation report would be required to be submitted after remediation measures set out in the Phase 2 report were implemented at the site. This would enable the development to comply with CDLP Policy U12.

117. Neither the development nor construction works would affect any paths designated as Public Rights of Ways. It is considered that there would not be any significant loss of amenity from any PROW's or other paths and tracks that may exist on the site. There is no conflict with CDLP Policy R11.

118. Concern is raised by the neighbouring resident about the loss of view to and devaluation of their property due to the proposed equine centre. These two concerns are not considered to be material planning considerations that would carry weight in the decision making process.

CONCLUSION

119. The proposals for the redevelopment of main entrance building at Houghall College and erection of animal care centre, animal sheds, equine centre, feed store and associated facilities would provide an opportunity to improve an established educational facility. This would benefit students attending the College as well as the reputation of the College. It is considered that the necessary very special circumstances have been provided in order to justify the development within the Green Belt. Substantial weight has been given to any harm that might result from such development, however, given the site’s modest level of sensitivity relative to more key parts of the Green Belt, balanced against its wider social, economic and community benefits, it is concluded that the benefits of the scheme outweigh harm, and justify a departure from Local Plan Policy in this particular instance.

120. Furthermore, the key Green Belt objectives of restricting the sprawl of large built-up areas; preventing neighboring towns from merging into one another; safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and assisting the recycling of derelict and other urban land are not considered to be fundamentally breeched by this proposal due to its position close to existing development and within one of the Green Belt’s less visually sensitive parts.

121. Apart from being a Green Belt incursion, this proposal is considered to be consistent with other relevant national and local planning policies relating sustainability, residential amenity, visual and landscape impact, design and layout, traffic generation and highway safety, playing pitches and flood risk subject to the necessary planning conditions.

122. In respect of the impact of the proposed development on protected species, it is considered that surveys are required to be carried out to assess whether the development would affect protected species and if it would, whether the mitigation to be put forward would maintain favourable conservation status of the species and enable the Council to be satisfied that the three derogation tests are met, when deciding whether to grant planning permission, having regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions.

123. In respect of the potential for the development to impact on buried archaeological assets, investigations and assessment is currently being undertaken and any necessary mitigation required, as a result of these investigations would be required to be secured by planning condition.

124. Concerns expressed regarding this proposal have been taken fully into account, and carefully balanced against the scheme’s wider social, economic and community benefits. However, they are considered to not raise issues that justify planning permission being withheld.

125. Should Members be minded to grant planning permission, it would be necessary for the application to be referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with the requirements of the Town and County Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 as a result of the extent of new floorspace proposed and which amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

RECOMMENDATION

That Members be minded to APPROVE the application subject to:

• referral to the Secretary of State via the National Planning Casework Unit; • the undertaking of satisfactory great crested newt surveys and badger surveys and submission of any necessary mitigation required to allow officers to undertake the remaining derogation test required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); • consideration of archaeological investigation and assessment, and any necessary mitigation required and to subsequently determine the application under delegated authority; and, • subject to the following conditions and any other conditions that may be necessary to safeguard protected species and archaeological assets.

1. The development hereby approved must be begun no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications:

• Landscape Masterplan 99502/8003 Rev B 17/12/13 • Proposed Equine Centre Elevations A-3300 Rev A 02/12/13 • Application Boundary 99502/8013 • Main Entrance Building Refurbishment Proposed Elevations 0530 A_3000 02/12/13 • Equine Area Proposed Roof Plan 0530 A_2301 02/12/13 • Cattle Shed and Forage Store Proposed Roof Plan 0530 A_2403 02/12/13 • Animal Care Area Proposed Animal Care Centre Proposed Roof Plan 0530 • A_2204 02/12/13 • Growing and Finishing House, Farrowing House & Breeding House Proposed • 0530 A_2402 Rev A 02/12/13 • Cattle Area Feed Store Proposed Plans and Elevations 0530 A_2405 Rev A 02/12/13 • Animal Care Proposed Elevations 0530 A-3200 Rev B 02/12/13 • Drainage Layout Option 1 C001 02/12/13 • Drainage Layout Option 2 C002 02/12/13 • Equine Area Proposed Stables 0530 A_2300 Rev D 02/12/13 • Main Entrance Building Refurbishment Proposed Ground Floor Plan 0530 A_2000 02/12/13 • Main Entrance Building Refurbishment Proposed Roof Plan 0530 A_2002 02/12/13 • Main Entrance Building Refurbishment Proposed First Floor Plan 0530 A_2001 02/12/13 • Cattle Area Feed Store Proposed Roof Plan 0530 A_2407 • Proposed Sheep Shed 0530 A_2401 Rev A 02/12/13 • Cattle Shed and Forage Store Proposed 0530 A-2400 Rev A 02/12/13 • Animal Care Area Proposed Animal Care Centre Proposed Plan 0530 A-2200 Rev A 02/12/13 • Proposed GA Sections 0530 A_4000 02/12/13 • Bat Risk Assessment 02/12/13 • Biodiversity Mitigation Statement 02/12/13 • Green Travel Plan 02/12/13 • Odour Statement 02/12/13 • Environmental Desk Top Study 02/12/13 • Ground Investigation Report 02/12/13 • Landscape and Visual Appraisal 02/12/13 • Flood Risk Assessment Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 02/12/13

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies E2, E10, E16, E18, E21, E23, T1, T10, R11, R16, Q2, Q5, U8A, U10 and U12 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

3. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application samples of the external walling and roofing materials of the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the relevant phase of the development to which the material relates. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regards to Part 7 of the NPPF.

4. Notwithstanding the submitted landscaping scheme, the proposed ‘native woodland planting’ adjacent to the ancient woodland to the west of the farm buildings development shall be removed from the proposals and not be undertaken. The hedge planting along the internal College road should also include hedgerow trees at irregular intervals and tree planting shall be undertaken along the whole of the north eastern side of the equine centre internal road.

Reason: To meet the objectives of Policies Q5, E14 and E15 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004

5. A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and implemented as agreed throughout the whole of the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Part 11 of the NPPF.

6. No development shall be commenced on the equine centre until details of improvements to the passing places sited on Farm Road are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equine centre shall not be brought into use until the approved passing places have been constructed, in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regards to Policies T1 and Q2 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

7. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no vehicular access shall be provided through the site of the equine centre hereby approved between Farm Road and the existing Houghall College Farm site to the south-west.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Part 11 of the NPPF.

8. No development shall be commenced until details are submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that large vehicles such as HGV’s can pass one another at the entrance but off the carriageway of the A177, at the main College entrance. Should this not be demonstrated, then, details of an improved access to the main College building entrance, including the layout, construction, and sight lines to be provided, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agricultural buildings shall not be brought into use until the approved access has been constructed, in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1 and Q2 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

9. A plan showing the location and layout of an overflow car parking area for the approved equine centre shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should be made available for use for the parking of vehicles on any event or show days or at any other time when the equine centre car park is at full capacity. At these times measures should be put in place to prevent parking on Farm Road.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T10 and Q2 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

10. The approved development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved flood risk assessment by Shed, dated December 2013 and in accordance with the following mitigation measures detailed within the flood risk assessment;

1. Identification and provision of safe route (s) into an out of the site to an appropriate safe haven. 2. Finished floor levels set no longer that 36.68m AOD plus climate change and an additional freeboard. Buildings which adjoin existing buildings should be set no lower than existing buildings which must be flood proofed to prevent the ingress of floodwater. 3. Buildings unlikely to be classed as habitable should be allowed to flood to mitigate buildings in the floodplain. 4. Compensatory stored as set out in the flood risk assessment should be provided.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented before the development is occupied and subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding and prevent flooding elsewhere as required by Policy U10 and part 11 of the NPPF.

11. Details of the height, type, position and angle of any external lighting, temporary or permanent, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use. The lighting shall be erected and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the residential visual amenity of the area having regard to Part 11 of the NPPF and

12. The use/operation of the Equine Centre development hereby approved shall cease at 21:00 hours on any day.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity having regard to Part 11 of the NPPF.

13. No operations and deliveries associated with the construction phase of the development hereby approved shall be carried out outside the hours of: Monday to Friday – 08.00 – 1800hours Saturdays – 08.00 – 1200hours Sundays – None Public and Bank Holidays – None

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regard to Part 11 of the NPPF.

14. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, any replacement windows shall be of painted timber of which the design should match the existing windows.

Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Policy E21 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

15. The equine centre shall not be occupied until sight lines are provided at the junction of the access road with Farm Road in accordance with details which shall have been first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and any obstructions to visibility at any height greater than 600 mm shall be removed.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1 and Q2 of the Durham City Local Plan

16. The number of horse trailers and horse box vehicles allowed to use the A177/Farm Road access leading to the proposed equine centre is restricted to a maximum of 15 per day.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T10 and Q2 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

17. No development shall commence until a traffic management plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be implemented as approved for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T10 and Q2 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

18. Details of the height, type, position, and angle of any external tannoy/PA system and proposed times of use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use. The tannoy system shall be used, erected and maintained in accordance with the approved details at all times.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Part 11 of the NPPF.

19. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been identified in the site investigation, additional measures for the remediation of the source of contamination, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

After remediation measures are implemented at the site, a final ‘Phase 3’ validation statement shall be submitted in accordance with the remediation recommendations of the above ‘Phase 2’ report.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks, as required by Policy U12 of the Durham City Local Plan.

20. Development shall not commence on the approved Animal Care Building until a community use agreement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreement shall apply to all existing playing pitches within the ownership of the Applicant (as shown on Drawing Number 99502/8013 (Application Boundary) dated 19 March 2014) and include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-educational establishment users, management responsibilities and a mechanism for review. The community use agreement shall be adhered to at all times.

Reason: To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility/facilities and to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport having regard to the aspirations set out in paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

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

BACKGROUND PAPERS

− Submitted application form, plans and supporting documentation − National Planning Policy Framework (2012) − Planning Practice Guidance Notes − City of Durham Local Plan 2004 − Emerging County Durham Local Plan − Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Redevelopment of Main Entrance Building to provide new glass lobby and double Planning Services heighted atrium. Erection of animal care centre, animal sheds, equine centre, feed store, and associated facilities at Houghall College Campus, Durham (CE/13/01542/FPA)

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission of 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. Date April 2014 Scale Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 1:5000