Civic Centre, Crook, County Durham. DL15 9ES Tel: 01388 765555 Fax: 01388 766660 Minicom: 01388 761515 e-mail: [email protected] Iain Phillips Chief Executive
6th February 2007
Dear Councillor,
You are hereby summoned to attend a MEETING of the WEAR VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL which will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC CENTRE, CROOK on WEDNESDAY, 14th FEBRUARY 2007 at 6.00 P.M. for the purpose of transacting the business set out in the Agenda hereunder.
Yours faithfully
Chief Executive
AGENDA
Page No. 1. Apologies for absence.
2. To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held 6th 1 – 12 December 2006 as a true record.
3. To confirm the Minutes of the special meeting of the Council held on 13 – 14 19th January 2007.
4. To receive any announcements by the Chair of the Council.
5. To receive any announcements by the Leader of the Council.
6. To receive, in the order listed below, oral reports by the Chairs of Policy Committees, and, if approved, to adopt as is necessary the Reports and recommendations of the following Committees, as printed and circulated:-
(a) Housing Services 13.12.06 15 – 18 (b) Regeneration 10.01.07 19 – 25 (c) Community Services 17.01.07 26 – 28 (d) Special Central Resources 15.12.06 29 – 30 (e) Central Resources 24.01.07 31 – 36 (f) Policy and Strategic Development 31.01.07 37 – 39
7. To receive, and if approved, to adopt as is necessary the Reports and recommendations of the following regulatory Committees, as printed and circulated:-
(a) Licensing 14.12.06 40 – 42 (b) Development Control 07.12.06 43 – 51 (c) Development Control 04.01.07 52 – 59 (d) Development Control 01.02.07 to follow
TO: All Members of the Council Management Team
COUNCIL MEETING
6th DECEMBER 2006
PRESENT Councillor Murphy (Chair) Councillor Mrs Jones (Deputy Chair) Councillors Anderson, Bailey, Mrs Brown, Mrs Burn, Dobinson, Mrs Douthwaite, Ferguson, Gale, Grogan, Harker, Harrison, Hayton, Jago, Kay, Kingston, Laurie, McKeller, Mowbray, Nevins, Perkins, Mrs Pinkney, Seabury, V Shuttleworth, Sinclair, Stonehouse, Strongman, Taylor, Mts Todd, Townsend, David Wilson, Des Wilson and Zair
ADVISERS I Phillips, Chief Executive; M Laing, Strategic Director for Community; J Docherty, Chief Officer, Corporate Development; D Townsend, Head of Development and Building Control and Miss S Spence, Head of Committee and Democratic Service.
APOLOGIES Councillors Foote Wood, Moody and Mrs Lee.
346. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 18th October 2006, as printed and circulated were taken as read, confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
347. CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Adam Zair
The Chair was pleased to announce that Adam Zair, son of Councillor Sam Zair, had been declared one of the top three young organists in the country. Adam, 16, had finished third in the Young Theatre Organist of the Year competition. It had been the first time Adam, who had been playing the organ since he was seven, had showcased his skills in a competition. On behalf of the Council the Chair congratulated Adam on his achievement.
Neil Murphy
The Chair was also very proud to announce that his son Neil had that month, won a Regional Award for Administration and Training.
1 100th Birthday
The Chair had had the pleasure of presenting a lady 100 years young with a bouquet of flowers. He had wished her many more happy birthdays to come.
Signpost, Crook
The Chair was pleased to note that Signpost, Crook was referred to in Committee Minutes being considered that evening. He had recently resigned from Signpost on doctor’s orders; he had done so prior to Signpost’s approach to the Council.
He, along with his Crook Councillors, in particular Councillor Mowbray, had long believed that Signpost was of utmost importance to the people of Crook and the Town’s surrounding areas. As a past trustee and former Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board, he believed he was qualified to comment on the need of the service to Crook and its surrounding areas. When he had first joined the Board only a handful of ‘customers’ had crossed the doorstep. Now thousands per year used the service. Therefore, in his opinion Signpost was worthy of support to enable them time to secure their own future. functions attended by the chair of the council
Charity Evening, Chilton Town Council Darlington’s Civic Ball Durham County Civic Ball Sedgefield Charity Bond Evening Wear Valley District Council Bonfire Night Peterlee Mayor’s Charity Ball Switch Lights on at ASDA Bishop Auckland Charity Evening, Seaham Town Council Sunderland Civic Ball Willington Annual Chrysanthemum Show Crook and Bishop Auckland Remembrance Service Bishop Auckland Licensed Traders Association Annual Dinner Showman’s Guild Annual Luncheon Exclusive tour of Durham Cathedral Youth Forum Presentation Gateshead Civic Dinner Sid Chaplin Short Story Competition, Shildon Town Council Switching on of Xmas Lights, Seaham Town Council Switching on of Xmas Lights, Willington Wonderland St John Ambulance Charity Curry/Buffet Lunch Bad Oeynhausen Twinning Visit functions attended by the deputy chair of the council
Durham City Charity Fashion Show Charity Evening, Chilton Town Council
2 Spennymoor Town Council Civic Dinner Durham County Civic Carol Service Charity Coffee Morning, Sedgefield Borough
chair’s appeal fund
The Chair’s Charity Appeal Fund currently stood at £3423.57
348. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
The Leader of the Council referred to the last meeting of the Council when he had referred to a meeting with Durham MPs, which had taken place in the House of Commons on 22nd November, to raise concerns about the present draft of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The meeting had been attended by three MPs and Lord Foster of Auckland. All Districts and the County Council had been represented. The MPs and Lord Foster were fully behind the Councils position and offered all the support they could, including lobbying Ministers. One idea floated at the meeting had been to develop a press launch around a campaign of pledges for Durham i.e. things that the Councils would like to see for the county (maybe up to ten) and have prominent county figures from all sectors endorsing the pledges. Wear Valley represented by the Director of Environment and Regeneration had been leading on this and he understood the work was well advanced and a launch date before Christmas was envisaged.
On Local Government review, as Members would be aware, the previous Wednesday the County Labour Group overwhelmingly endorsed the decision to put in a bid for a County Unitary under the proposals in the new White Paper. District Leaders had met on the previous Friday to discuss their position and the consensus from that meeting was (a) unanimous opposition to the County bid and (b) that the Districts should submit a pathfinder enhanced two tier bid. There was some disagreement from this Authority and Chester-le-Street as to whether it was possible to submit such a bid without the support of the County. Written clarification was being sought to clarify this point.
He believed that the Council should endorse the position of the other districts to sustain unanimity but that it should continue to pursue the case within the districts’ forum for a South Durham Unitary, particularly as the Districts may need to reconsider their present position in the light of further clarification from GONE or DCLG. The Council should vigorously oppose the County bid because it would not benefit the people of Wear Valley. At the end of the day this was not about sustaining Councils or careers but about getting the best vision, the best governance and the best service provision for the people of Wear Valley and no Unitary County could provide that.
In 2000 this Council, demonstrating its community leadership role, became the first local authority to add the name of a soldier shot at dawn to the local war memorial. Sgt. Will Stones was now duly remembered with his
3 other comrades. The Council also asked the Government to grant a Millennium Pardon to all those others shot for similar offences. The Government were not minded to at that time, but, following dogged persistence from such campaigners as John Hipkin and Andrew Mackinley MP the Government relented and granted pardons to these men earlier this year. He was delighted at this and he was very proud of this Council’s action because he knew how much it meant to the Stones family. He was aware that a number of Councils had followed Wear Valley’s lead, but it had not been universal. He suggested that that be pointed out to the LGA, in the light of the Governments decision, as it is appropriate for all councils to consider adding the names of these men to the proper memorials. It cost very little but would mean so very much. This course of action was AGREED.
349. REGENERATION COMMITTEE: 1st NOVEMBER 2006
Consideration was given to the Minutes of the above meeting.
The Chair of the Regeneration Committee stated that, in light of the comments by the Leader of the Council regarding Local Government Review and whatever the outcome, this Authority would continue to plan for the future for the benefit of residents of the area.
The Strategic Director of Environment and Regeneration had given a further update to the Committee on the Regional Spatial Strategy. The Committee had endorsed the action identified to raise awareness of the issues. He had highlighted progress made in the areas of building control, economic regeneration and private sector housing. All targets had been hit from July in respect of planning applications in order to assess the maximum planning delivery grant. Members had been appraised of the progress made in the delivery of the capital programme 2006/2007 to date and considered minor changes to the programme.
The Strategic Director had highlighted the training events available. He was also to provide further information in respect of performance on appeals which had deteriorated with 57% of decisions going against the Council: the target was 25%. Reference had been made to the problem attracting and retaining planning staff, not just by the Authority but by authorities generally, in the North East. The Committee had received a progress report on the redevelopment of the Lafarge Cement UK site and had been advised that ONE NorthEast had made a provision of £750,000 to pursue the proposals over the next 9 months. Seconded by Councillor Mowbray, he moved the minutes.
RESOLVED that the Minutes be received, decisions taken under delegated powers noted and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.
4 350. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE: 8TH NOVEMBER 2006
Consideration was given to the Minutes of the above meeting.
The Chair of the Community Services Committee stated that the Department continued to concentrate on those matters that were most important to customers, clean, safe and green neighbourhoods. As proof of the work in this area he was pleased to report two awards given to the service. The first was an award from the Durham Wildlife Trust in recognition of an ‘outstanding accomplishment’ in conservation. The Council had worked with the community, including schools, to promote conservation along the Banks of the River Wear. He congratulated the Council’s Riverside and Country Warden for the excellent work he had done.
The second was an award in the National Loo of the Year Award 2006. The new loos had been given a 4 stars out of a maximum of 5 and the refurbishment in the Dales loos had been given 3 out of a maximum of 4. Members would recall discussion on these proposals over a number of meetings. Future agendas would reflect the services growing commitment to sustainability, to neighbourhood working, to community involvement and healthy living.
The Firework Display had been another success. He thanked all involved. Seconded by Councillor Sinclair, he moved the Minutes.
In response to Councillor Taylor, Councillor Kingston confirmed that when a school took advantage of the free fishing offer the onus was on the School to provide the required supervision.
In reply to Councillor Mrs Todd who enquired regarding the change for pest control and bulky waste, Councillor Kingston confirmed that charges would be considered during the budget discussions. A report on bulky waste collection – trial period would be presented to Members in the near future.
Councillor Taylor referred to the problem with moles at West Park, Coundon, in response the Head of Public Protection clarified that moles were not classed as a public health pest. The removal of moles was outside the expertise of the Pest Control Officers.
RESOLVED that the Minutes be received, decisions taken under delegated powers noted and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.
351. CENTRAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: 15TH NOVEMBER 2006
Consideration was given to the Minutes of the above meeting.
The Chair of the Central Resources Committee reported on the joint working arrangements with Teesdale District Council in relation to benefit
5 administration. In October 2005 the Council had been asked by Teesdale to help their benefit service. This had proven so successful that it had been agreed to process their benefit claims from Wear Valley starting within the next month. For Teesdale this meant improved performance and a more reliable service. For Wear Valley it means economies of scale and an enhanced reputation. The agreement with Teesdale was for a 3 year period and fitted nicely with the Government’s push toward shared service delivery. He looked forward to informing Members of progress in this area in future.
He then referred to performance management. The Committee had considered BVPIs for the department for the first 6 months of the year. Performance was improving in areas where it needed to, in particular in benefit fraud administration. This was an important service in terms of BVPIs and public perception and the Council was increasing its numbers of investigations carried out and sanctions imposed on individuals. Against this however was the need to improve a number of corporate BVPIs, especially those relating to diversity. Although conscious that the Council was doing its best in this area it could, it could not afford to lose sight of the need to raise the game.
The Committee agreed to grant Signpost temporary funding to enable them to continue to provide services to local people. This temporary funding would also enable them to explore other avenues of funding so as to secure their future. This was a very important service to local individuals in need of help and the Council had received a letter of thanks from Signpost for the help given. Seconded by Councillor Mrs Pinkney, he moved the Minutes.
Councillor Mrs Brown, Bailey and Taylor expressed their support for Signpost.
Councillor Ferguson Supported the proposals for joint working with Teesdale District Council.
Councillor Jago thanked Members for their support regarding Escomb Amenity Hall.
RESOLVED that the Minutes be received, decisions taken under delegated powers noted and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.
352. POLICY AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: 22ND NOVEMBER 2006
Consideration was given to the Minutes of the above meeting.
The Deputy Chair of the Policy and Strategic Development Committee stated that the Committee had considered reports on a number of issues covering performance within the Council. Members had received the
6 regular six-monthly report covering the progress that was being made with regard to the Best Value Performance Indicators and a report on the BVPIs that had been selected for closer attention. Some of the indicators were affected by seasonal performance issues and the Committee was assured that the end of year out-turn would be better than the exhibited mid-year figures.
The Committee also received reports that covered a proposed system for measuring progress against a basket of strategic indicators that were the basis of the Council Plan and a draft Quality Protocol for ensuring that the data produced was robust and reliable, the Committee supported the protocol.
The Committee considered a report that showed that the procurement pilot undertaken with Teesdale District Council had so far, delivered at least £85,000 of savings that would contribute to the realignment of departmental budgets to the priorities that the Council has set for itself.
It was of note that the meeting demonstrated the administration’s ongoing commitment to improving the performance of the Council as a whole and of course through that to improving the quality of the services citizens received whilst at the same time delivering ever-improving value for the taxpayer’s money. Seconded by Councillor Laurie, he moved the report.
RESOLVED that the Minutes be received, decisions taken under delegated powers noted and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.
353. HOUSING SERVICES
Councillor Gale updated the Council on the progress made on the housing service. Since the last Council meeting the Department had handed housing management duties to Dale and Valley Homes. A very strong services had been handed over. For example, in 2001 it had taken 120 days to re-let a house; in 2006 it took 16 days. Rent loss had been reduced from 4.8% to 1.07%. The standard of the voids that were re-let had vastly improved. They were cleaner, safer and had modern up to date fittings. Not the old fashioned kitchens and bathrooms of the past but good quality fittings. This was a clear sign of the Council’s respect and care for customers.
The service once used a long-winded allocations policy that stopped people getting a house. The service now offered choice to its customers. Delays had been removed and the service remained open to new ideas. This meant that the waiting list was the strongest in the County. While others struggled at around 2000 applications this Council’s was over 4000. In the future the service would work with Dale and Valley Homes to offer more choice, better fittings and improved performance. A Housing inspection was to be faced in January 2007. The service was seeking a 2 stars and an extra £27 million for customers.
7
354. LICENSING COMMITTEE: 26TH OCTOBER 2006
Consideration was given to the Minutes of the above meetings, which were moved by Councillor Mrs Douthwaite and seconded by Councillor David Wilson.
RESOLVED that the Minutes be received, decisions taken under delegated powers noted and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.
355. APPEALS COMMITTEE: 6TH NOVEMBER 2006
RESOLVED that the Report, for information only, be received.
356. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEES: 9TH NOVEMBER 2006
Consideration was given to the Minutes of the above meeting, which were moved by Councillor Laurie and seconded by Councillor Townsend.
RESOLVED that the Minutes be received, decisions taken under delegated powers noted and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.
357. NOTICE OF MOTION
Councillor Bailey declared a personal interest in this item as he was a helper with the Hospital Radio.
Councillor Zair moved that the Council collectively resolves to oppose any ward closures at Bishop Auckland General Hospital. This Council calls for an immediate enquiry as to what has exactly happened to the £79,000,000 flagship hospital opened by the Prime Minister in 2002.
Councillor Zair had been inundated with concerned members of the public who were appalled at the possibility that Ward 3 was to close. This Ward was full to capacity 7 days a week. He had spoken to the Leader of the Council on this matter and the latter had consulted with the Leaders of Sedgefield and Teesdale District Councils with a view to seeking a meeting with the Chief Executive of the Hospital. Councillor Zair had been given a copy of a leaked document stating that Ward 3 would close in March 2007, if not ward 3 then another. The document made no reference to customer care only cost cutting.
Councillor Anderson seconded the motion, stating that this proposal would have implications for the people of Wear Valley and adjoining districts. The Ward closure would be a massive blow to Bishop Auckland and the District. He feared that should the ward close it would be the first step towards the down grading of the Hospital.
8
The Leader of the Council, although supporting the principle of the first part of the motion, could not support the second part as it was too woolly. Who would undertake the inquiry Parliament, Government, the Health Service? The sentence was meaningless.
He had arranged a meeting with Mr Saxby and invited Leaders of Sedgefield and Teesdale District Councils to discuss the hospital. In order to do his job and to represent the people of Wear Valley at the proposed meeting, on the 10th November he had privately asked Councillor Zair for a copy of the leaked document. As he had not to date received a copy he sought a public assurance from Councillor Zair that he would provide a copy of the document so that he, as Leader of the Council could go to the meeting armed with the relevant information.
Clear that haematology was a key to this issue, he referred to a report from the Strategic Health Authority lead on cancer issues recommending the centralisation of haematology for the whole trust at Bishop Auckland General Hospital. This would, according to the report, be the right clinical decision, but would also have a major positive impact on the future viability of Bishop Auckland General Hospital. The Council needed to press for this and he therefore proposed the following amendment delete all after Bishop Auckland General Hospital and inserts “this Council urges the Acute Trust to accept in full the recommendations of the Strategic Health Authority’s Lead Director on Cancer issues. Further this Council calls for the operation of Bishop Auckland General Hospital since 2002, and in particular the present position, to be referred to the County Durham Health Scrutiny Committee for investigation and ask Sedgefield Borough Council and Teesdale District Council to support this referral to the Health Scrutiny Committee”. This would direct this issue to the appropriate local mechanism for investigating the Health Service. Then perhaps the County Council could do something to help the people of this District.
Councillor Mrs Brown expressed concern should Ward 3 close. She endorsed the action proposed by the Leader of the Council.
Councillor Laurie supported the amendment and made reference to the Darzi report and the need for specialist service at Bishop Auckland. Haematology would have been referred from Darlington to Bishop Auckland as proposed had it not been for the outcry from the people of Darlington at the loss of the service. Bishop Auckland General Hospital should provide a specialist service as this would ensure the hospital remained viable. The recommendations of the Trust should be carried out and haematology transferred to Bishop Auckland as the specialist centre for that service. Access to other services could be compromised if a specialist unit was not provided at the Hospital.
Councillor Kay agreed that the Darzi report should be implemented and a specialist unit provided at Bishop Auckland General Hospital. He urged
9 Members to provide the Leader of the Council with any additional information which may help the case when he met with Mr Saxby.
Councillor Jago supported the motion. He was concerned regarding bed shortages should a Ward Close.
Councillor Ferguson accepted the amendment as providing further clarification as to the action which could be taken. Councillor Taylor had listened to the debate and clearly this was not a political issue. All Councillors were in support of the Ward remaining open.
Councillor Mrs Todd agreed that the report recommending the establishment of a specialist unit at Bishop Auckland General Hospital should be implemented.
Councillor Zair confirmed that he had planned to provide the Leader of the Council with a copy of the leaked report once all the Liberal Democrat Members had had sight of it.
Councillor Grogan supported the amendment.
The Chair put the amendment to the meeting and on a vote being taken he declared it carried. He then put the substantive motion to the meeting and declared it carried.
RESOLVED that the Council oppose any ward closures at Bishop Auckland General Hospital. This Council urges the Acute Trust to accept in full the recommendations of the Strategic Health Authority’s Lead Director on Cancer issues. Further this Council calls for the operation of Bishop Auckland General Hospital since 2002, and in particular the present position, to be referred to the County Durham Health Scrutiny Committee for investigation and ask Sedgefield Borough Council and Teesdale District Council to support this referral to the Health Scrutiny Committee”.
358. NOTICE OF MOTION
The Leader of the Council stated that for the motion to be considered as printed it would be necessary to suspend standing order 14.4.
Councillor Ferguson moved the suspension and that the Liberal Democrat Group of Wear Valley District Council proposes that the Council re-examine the housing allocation Rule in order to avoid anomalies. Also to consider the circumstances in which the decision was made to re-equip Council Houses to a higher standard before re-letting. Councillor Zair seconded the motion.
10 Councillor Kay sought clarification of the motion.
Councillors V Shuttleworth and Des Wilson left the meeting.
Councillor Ferguson stated that the reason behind the motion was the high profile letting in Bishop Auckland. He understood that should an application for Council housing be submitted making reference to an illness/disability of a family member, proof of such was not sought. His Members wished to see better quality fittings provided in Council houses, but the matter should be discussed in Committee. A policy change should be reported to Committee for consideration and determination.
Councillor Kay felt that politics should not be brought into the debate. The provision of better quality fittings at no extra cost to the Council should be welcomed and officers should be able to manage that function. He wished to see the best service for customers. Were the Liberal Democrats implying that officers were bending the rules? If so the matter would be investigated.
Councillor Jago felt that by providing higher quality fittings other residents would ask why they did not received the same standard.
Councillor Kay stated that tenants would benefit from the acquisition of higher quality fittings. The Liberal Democrats should not make allegations without providing evidence.
Councillor Ferguson stated the letting in Bishop Auckland had been high profile. There had been applicants seeking properties in Henknowle with more points than the applicant who had been allocated the vacant property. Councillor Zair agreed, people had expressed concern in this respect and at the higher standard of fittings placed in the property prior to its re-let.
The Leader of the Council stated that Councillor Kay had asked if the Liberal Democrats were making an allegation that officers had acted improperly in respect of the letting of the property. That question had not been answered. The allocation had been carried out properly and legally. He raised concern regarding the second part of the motion. The Council’s officers had been able to acquire better quality fittings at no extra cost. The way the Council dealt with void properties had been identified as good practice. Where the Liberal Democrat Members suggesting that the Council should not seek to provide better quality fittings for Council houses but should pay the same price for poorer quality ones. The Council wanted to see Dales and Valley Homes receive 2 stars for the housing service.
The Strategic Director for Community confirmed that all house letting were in line with the agreed allocation policy. Such was open to scrutiny. All allocations were fair and above board.
Councillor Taylor stated that when the Liberal Democrats had met the Strategic Director and his staff they had been led to believe that a report had been produced and considered by the Management Team on this matter.
11 They had been later informed that the document was missing. Councillor Mrs Todd felt that the Housing Services Committee should have been informed that higher quality fittings were to be provided.
Councillor Kingston stated that the Council supported the Decent Homes Standards. Policy Committees should not be involved in the day to day management of the housing stock. Day to day management was within Officers remit. Policy Committees should not be bogged down with operational issues.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Strategic Director of Housing Services confirmed that Members could not be involved in the allocation of properties in their Ward. Allocation was a function delegated to officers.
In response to Councillor Ferguson, the Strategic Director confirmed that he had met with Liberal Democrat Members to provide a verbal update and to explain the allocation policy. There had not been a further report on whether to fit higher quality fittings, officers had taken action to made best use of resources by purchasing higher quality goods at no extra cost. Officers were acting within their remit. At the meeting with the Liberal Democrats he could not provide details concerning an individual’s application for housing.
The Chair put the motion to the meeting. On a vote being taken he declared it lost.
RESOLVED that the debate be noted.
CHAIR
12 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
19th JANUARY 2007
PRESENT Councillor Murphy Councillors Bailey, Mrs Douthwaite, Gale, Grogan, Harrison, Hayton, Mrs Jones, Mrs Lee, Mowbray, Mrs Pinkney, Sinclair, Stonehouse, Strongman, Mrs Todd, Townsend and David Wilson
APOLOGIES Councillors Anderson, Mrs Brown, Mrs Burn, Ferguson, Foote Wood, Harker, Jago, Kay, Kingston, Laurie, Nevins, Perkins, Mrs Seabury, Taylor, Des Wilson and Zair
ADVISERS I Phillips, Chief Executive; R M Hope, Strategic Director for Environment and Regeneration; M Laing, Strategic Director for the Community; G Ridley, Strategic Director for Resource Management; Mrs A Barker, Assistant Director for Admin and Legal; T Carver, Head of Public Protection; L Serewicz, Policy and Partnerships Manager; Ms S Spence, Head of Committee and Democratic Services; Mrs J Lawton, Committee Administrator
The Chair advised Members that 10 minutes was to be allocated at this stage to reading supplementary information that was circulated.
359. SPECIAL LICENSING COMMITTEE: 11th JANUARY 2007
Consideration was given to the minutes of the above meeting which were moved by Councillor Mrs Douthwaite and seconded by Councillor David Wilson.
RESOLVED that the Minutes be received and the recommendations therein be adopted.
360. LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER – STRONG AND PROSPEROUS COMMUNITIES – CONSIDERATION OF A BID FOR UNITARY OR PATHFINDER STATUS
The Chief Executive refreshed Members on the Local Government White Paper published in October 2006, the main thrust of which was about developing Local Authorities in the heart of the communities. He reminded Members of the possibilities for restructure, namely moving to one or more Unitary bodies, or enhancing existing practices through a Pathfinder approach. He explained that Durham County Council preferred the single
13 Unitary option and had submitted a bid. Districts had considered various options and were recommending a Pathfinder to Unitary bid, thus combining both options.
The Leader of the Council then gave Members a presentation on the Pathfinder to Unitary Approach of the Durham Districts. Following the presentation he responded to Members questions comments.
In response to Councillor Sinclair, the Leader of the Council explained that, after thorough research into all the possible options, the new approach would be the most effective. He also clarified for Councillor Mrs Todd that a consultation/evaluation period would take place, at the end of which, the Districts would have a better idea of how to proceed.
Councillor Grogan commented that he believed the Districts option to be the most sensible approach to the matter, this was echoed by Councillor Mrs Todd who was pleased that the public would be involved.
The Leader of the Council believed that the Pathfinder to Unitary approach was best for the residents of Wear Valley and County Durham.
He moved that the Council endorse the Durham Districts proposal to submit a “Pathfinder to Unitary” bid and that the Chief Executive be authorised, in association with the Leader of the Council, to agree the final wording of the bid document, thus enabling the Leader to “sign off” the submission on behalf of the Council. Councillor Mowbray seconded the motion.
RESOLVED 1. that the Council endorses the Durham Districts proposal to submit a “Pathfinder to Unitary” bid;
2. that the Chief Executive be authorised, in association with the Leader of the Council, to agree the final wording of the bid document to enable the Leader to “sign off” the submission on behalf of the Council.
14 HOUSING SERVICES COMMITTEE
13TH DECEMBER 2006
PRESENT Councillor Gale (Chair) Councillors Bailey, Mrs Burn, Harrison, McKellar, Mrs Seabury, Stonehouse, Strongman and Mrs Todd.
ALSO PRESENT Miss E Stobbs and Mrs B Ornsby, Customer Panel.
APOLOGIES Councillors Mrs Douthwaite, Ferguson, Kay, Mrs Pinkney and Sinclair.
ADVISERS A Northcote, Head of Neighbourhood Operations; P Chaffer, Chief Executive Dale and Valley Homes; C Walton, Tenancy Enforcement Manager; Mrs H Wilson, Committee Administrator and Ms T Paterson, Committee Administrator.
361. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 6th September 2006 were taken as read, confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
362. COMBINED TENANCY ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY AND POLICY DOCUMENT
Members considered the revision of the Tenancy Enforcement Strategy and Policy Document. They were reminded that following the indicative inspection in 2005, it had been recommended that the basket of policies and procedures initiated by the Tenancy Enforcement Team, which dealt with Anti-Social Behaviour, Racial Harassment, Hate Crime and Domestic Violence be combined into one over-arching document.
The Leader of the Council believed the combined strategy and policy document was comprehensive and easy to understand and suggested it be publicised to tenants to ensure they were aware that matters of this nature were taken seriously by the Authority.
RECOMMENDED that the revised Tenancy Enforcement Strategy and Policy Document be noted and that its implementation by the Tenancy Enforcement Team be agreed.
15 363. NORTH EAST REGIONAL HOUSING BOARD CONSULTATION EVENT
Members considered the key themes identified by the Durham Housing and Neighbourhoods Group for inclusion in the Regional Housing Strategy.
RECOMMENDED that the key themes be agreed and put forward as Wear Valley’s priorities in the Regional Housing Strategy.
364. LICENSING OF HOUSES IN MUTIPLE OCCUPATION
Members considered the implementation of mandatory licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation in response to the new powers given to local authorities in Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004.
In response to Councillor Mrs Todd, the Head of Neighbourhood Operations advised that the policy strengthened the Council Powers and gave firmer legal obligations.
The Head of Neighbourhood Operations advised the Leader of the Council that he would ascertain whether a database of Houses in Multiple Occupation had been compiled.
RECOMMENDED that the Houses in Multiple Occupation Policy, in line with the 2004 Housing Act, be implemented.
365. ALMO FUNDING PROFILE
Members considered proposals to review the ALMO expenditure plans for the delivery of the decent homes programme.
The Leader of the Council was disappointed the timescale had been extended beyond 2010 but was aware of the pressure to do so.
RECOMMENDED 1. that ALMO expenditure be reviewed;
2. that detailed work plans from Dale & Valley Homes illustrating proposed expenditure be received.
366. BEST VALUE INSPECTION OF DALE & VALLEY HOMES
Members considered the implications for the Council of the forthcoming Best Value inspection of the services of Dale & Valley Homes.
Members were advised that the circulated annex should replace that which had been attached at agenda item 7.
16 RECOMMENDED 1. that the contents of the self assessment be noted.
2. that a full Best Value Inspection of Dale & Valley Homes services be undertaken with the support, advice and assistance of the Committee.
367. DALE AND VALLEY HOMES MONITORING REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2006
Members considered a monitoring report on the performance of Dale and Valley Homes across a range of indicators, for the first half of 2005/06.
The Leader of the Council commended the improvements made, in comparison to services four years ago. He requested that reports on progress of under performing indicators be brought back to committee and that reference be made to the top quartile indicators, this he believed would provide an accurate interpretation for both members and the public.
RECOMMENDED that the report be noted in respect of service improvements and action being taken to address under-performance.
RESOLVED that under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.
368. CROFT STREET DEPOT, CROOK
Members gave consideration to the future use of the Croft Street Depot, Crook.
In response to Councillors Mrs Seabury and Mrs Todd, the Head of Neighbourhood Operations explained the review was in relation to a value for money review for the housing repairs service and was only the start of a process. Any proposals for future use would be taken into consideration in conjunction with any other for the town at the relevant time, and would therefore be considered by the relevant committee.
RECOMMENDED that the Strategic Directors consider the future use of Croft Street Depot, Crook
17 369. REVENUE EXPENDITURE
Members considered a report to capitalise revenue expenditure.
The Leader of the Council agreed that with increased pressure being put on spending this was an opportunity to release pressure from Central Funds, after cuts had made it necessary to review service provision.
RECOMMENDED 1. that the outstanding Homeline lease payments be capitalised and this expenditure added to the Housing Capital Programme;
2. that the budgets from the schemes identified in Paragraph 7 of the report be transferred.
The meeting concluded at 6.40pm
CHAIR
18 REGENERATION COMMITTEE
10th JANUARY 2007
PRESENT Councillor Mowbray (Deputy Chair) Councillors Bailey, Dobinson, Grogan, Hayton, Laurie, Nevins, Perkins, Stonehouse and Zair.
APOLOGIES Councillors Mrs Brown, Mrs Seabury, Townsend.
ADVISERS RM Hope, Strategic Director for Environment and Regeneration; Mrs L Spence, Democratic Services Manager; Mrs J Lawton and Miss T Paterson, Committee Administrators.
370. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 1st November 2006 were taken as read, confirmed as a true record and signed by the Deputy Chair.
371. EASTGATE REDEVELOPMENT
Members were appraised on the revised masterplan for Eastgate Renewable Energy Village. The Strategic Director for Environment and Regeneration explained that the masterplan had been modified following public consultation exercises, including comments received from the private sector.
In referring to the masterplan he highlighted that the number of proposed dwellings in the Village had reduced with a more organic layout being proposed, which was more in keeping with existing villages in the Dales. He also explained to Members that the revised masterplan would, if approved, form the basis of a planning application, the submission of which was anticipated for Autumn 2007. A 3D model of the new plan was displayed during the meeting and the Strategic Director invited Members to view it.
Councillor Perkins referred to concerns received as a result of the public consultation exercises regarding the level of education-related uses that had been proposed. He was pleased to note that the revised plan identified education as an integral feature in the development. He also felt that the Koi carp fish ponds were a valuable feature.
Councillor Mews praised the revised masterplan. However, he questioned whether the resulting increase in traffic to the Eastgate area had been taken into account? To mitigate that, he suggested that a Park and Ride system be implemented, operating from further down the Dales, to reduce traffic flows to the development. In response, the Strategic Director
19 confirmed that a Traffic Impact Assessment would be carried out and that within that a Park and Ride system would almost certainly be considered. He stressed that the assessment would be thorough and would be used to influence any proposal coming forward and to ameliorate any problems which were predicted.
In response to Councillor Laurie, he explained although housing was a key element of the proposals it was also one of the most contentious. The number of proposed dwellings had been reduced bringing the planned development more in line with planning policies and the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy. The residential development was a required element of the master plan as it helped to create the sense of place and village community and it would provide an investment which would generate income to facilitate other activities on site.
The Strategic Director went on to comment that several activities proposed on the site appeared not to compliment each other. However the range of diverse activities suggested had been based on market testing and genuine expressions of interest.
Councillor Hayton found the new masterplan very promising, particularly the exciting prospect of linking the Weardale Railway to the Darlington line in years to come.
RESOLVED 1. that the revised masterplan be endorsed;
2. that further reports on progress of the redevelopment be received in due course.
372. BISHOP AUCKLAND URBAN RENAISSANCE UPDATE
Members received an update on proposals in relation to the Bishop Auckland urban renaissance. The Strategic Director detailed the report, explaining in detail the various phases entailed in the re development. In particular, he stressed the importance of appointing a project manager to oversee the project. He also offered his opinion that this was an extremely exciting project for the area which could lead to Bishop Auckland becoming the strategic centre for South West Durham.
Those comments were echoed by the Leader of the Council who reiterated that Bishop Auckland was a tremendous asset for Wear Valley. It was therefore crucial that every effort be made to maximise its benefits. He also stressed the importance of appointing a project manager, as did Councillor Laurie.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Strategic Director confirmed that the project manager would be employed by Wear Valley District Council and would oversee all phases of the development.
20 He advised Councillors Grogan and Perkins that there was a shortfall of public sector investment in the project to the tune of approximately £1.26 million. The District and County Council’s had committed funding to the project over the next three years, however that commitment would need to be endorsed year on year. In 2006/07 Wear Valley had committed £100,000 from the capital programme with an indication that a further contribution of £400,000 would be forthcoming over the next three years. A similar commitment would be required from the County Council.
RECOMMENDED 1. that the approach outlined be endorsed;
2. that the Strategic Director for Environment and Regeneration be authorised to recruit a project manager to implement the programme of activity on approval of the ONE NorthEast funding for Phase 0;
3. that the request to suspend standing orders Section 6 in relation to “Invitation to Tender” to allow the preliminary design work to be carried out in partnership with Durham County Council, be endorsed;
4. that Members receive further progress reports in due course.
373. SECTION 106 AGREEMENT – APPLICATION REFERENCE 3/1996/564 – 139 DWELLINGS FOR MCLEAN HOMES N.E. LTD – LAND AT ETHERLEY DENE FARM, BISHOP AUCKLAND
The Deputy Chair advised that the above agenda item was to be deferred to the next available Development Control Committee.
RESOLVED that the above item be deferred to the next available Development Control Committee.
374. HOLLOWDENE GARTH, CROOK, TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 1986 VARIATION ORDER 2006
The Deputy Chair advised that the above agenda item was to be deferred to the next available Development Control Committee.
RESOLVED that the above item be deferred to the next available Development Control Committee.
21 375. PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 3: HOUSING
Members were updated on the revisions to Planning Policy Statement 3 : Housing. The Strategic Director advised that the purpose of the changes to planning and housing policy were to support further increased housing demanded nationally, as well as bringing brownfield land back into use. There was a need nationwide to provide more affordable homes in both rural and urban areas. He advised that PPS3 : Housing was now embodied in guidance and gave local authorities more control over housing, but it would still be a requirement within Local Development Frameworks to study the housing market and identify areas in need of affordable housing.
Councillor Grogan queried what action would need to be taken if there were no brownfield sites in an area? In response, the Strategic Director advised that the requirement for affordable housing in such an area would be assessed and should a need be established, policies in either the existing Local Plan or the new Local Development Framework would be available to address that.
The Strategic Director clarified for Councillor Laurie that any policy framework decisions would be made at Regeneration Committee. He also advised that there were so many extant planning permissions that the Regional Spatial Strategy, if adopted as currently proposed, could restrict future development in the District. As a result, the Council’s local authorities ability to influence development would be reduced.
In response to Councillor Perkins, who asked whether settlement boundaries would be expanded in the Local Development Framework, the Strategic Director advised that each site would be assessed in terms of the impact it would have on the landscape and surrounding settlements. A judgement would have to be made as to how the Council wished to see developments taking place. Decisions were yet to be made in respect of that core strategy. The already agreed Statement of Community Involvement would guide the consultation to be taken.
He advised Councillor Grogan of the timelines involved in implementing a permission once approved.
376. BEECHBURN BECK ACCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1
The Strategic Director briefed Members on the intended work at Beechburn Beck, detailing the estimated cost of the project, tenders received and the need for the acquisition of land.
The Leader of the Council, seconded by Councillor Hayton, moved the report.
22 RESOLVED 1. that the Strategic Director’s acceptance of the Offer of Grant from Groundwork West Durham and Darlington, as detailed in the report, be noted; 2. that the instruction to proceed with the acquisition of Mr Forsters land, at the cost detailed in the report, be noted; 3. that the acceptance of the tender from Brambledown, as detailed in the report, be noted; 4. that, on receipt of the funding, £5000 be transferred from the project account to an appropriate maintenance account.
377. REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST – CONCERNS AND ACTIONS RESULTING FROM THE EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC PANEL REPORT
The Strategic Director highlighted the concerns raised by County Durham authorities, detailed at pages 82 to 83 of the report, in relation to the recommendations of Examination in Public report on the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). Following discussions held with the County Durham MP’s in November, a response had been collated for them to present to the Government on behalf of the County Durham Association of Local Authorities. The response detailed what the Association expected from the RSS on behalf of the residents of County Durham.
In response to Councillor Laurie, who believed that the allocations and emphasis on economic drivers contained within the draft RSS were unrealistic, the Strategic Director advised that the Panel had been made up of a selection of experts from within that field.
The Leader of the Council supported the pro-active approach taken to redress the inequalities between the identified City Regions and County Durham contained within the draft RSS. He welcomed the support of the local MP’s and hoped that they were successful in delivering the concerns to Government Office. Seconded by Councillor Laurie, he moved the report.
RESOLVED that the report be endorsed as the content of MP’s Submission to Government Office on behalf of the County Durham Association of Local Authorities.
378. LOW WILLINGTON OFFICE DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Members were appraised of the current position of the Low Willington Office development. The Strategic Director explained that, upon retendering, the value of the contract had increased as the price of steel and materials etc had risen.
23 The Strategic Director advised Councillor Grogan that, in order to have matched the contribution made by the County Council, the District Council must contribute a further £80,000. This would mean both were equal partners in the venture and each would receive an equal share of any returns.
He clarified that the tender process had been carried out by the County Council and their procedure had not required a bond from the developer. In future the County Council had been asked to incorporate such a requirement in their procedure to protect the Council from additional costs resulting from bankruptcy of the developer.
He further advised Councillor Grogan that the initial application for funding had been predicated on a needs analysis. Funding would not have been forthcoming from ERDF or the Single Programme if a need had not been established for the types of units under development.
The Leader of the Council reiterated the need to ensure that, in future contracts, a bond was required from the developer. The fact that that had not occurred in this case was regrettable, however the project must be completed and he moved the report, with the additional recommendation that future discussions take place with the County Council regarding the procedures to be followed on joint projects.
RESOLVED 1. that the request to increase the Council’s contribution to the scheme utilising the resources identified at paragraph 9 of the report, be agreed;
2. changes to the NRF programme be sought;
3. in future, discussions take place with the County Council regarding the procedures to be followed on joint projects.
RESOLVED that under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined under the paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006
379. RE-GRADING REQUEST
Members considered a request for re-grading from a Technical Officer within the Forward Plans Team. The Strategic Director explained his reasons for being unable to support the request at the present time..
24 In moving the report, Councillor Grogan stated that he felt it was inappropriate for such decisions to be taken by a Committee, as Members were unfamiliar with the requirements of individual posts.
In seconding the motion, the Leader of the Council advised Councillor Grogan that the Council was in the process of implementing a job evaluation scheme which would remove the need for Members to make such decisions. The scheme should be in place for the coming municipal year.
RESOLVED that the re-grading request be refused.
The meeting concluded at 7-30pm.
DEPUTY CHAIR
25 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
17TH JANUARY 2007
PRESENT Councillor Kingston (Chair) Councillors Dobinson, Ferguson, Grogan, Harrison Hayton, Kingston, Nevins, Perkins, Mrs. Pinkney, J. Shuttleworth, Stonehouse, Strongman and Zair.
ADVISERS M Laing, Strategic Director for the Community; Mrs J Cooper, Community Fitness Manager; Miss S Spence, Head of Committee and Democratic Service; Ms T Paterson, Committee Administrator.
380. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 8th November 2006 were taken as read, confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
381. PURCHASE OF STREET CLEANSING/WASHING VEHICLES
Members considered the purchase of two additional street cleansing/washing vehicles, with a view to improving the standards of cleanliness of streets within Wear Valley.
In response to questions from Councillors Perkins and Ferguson regarding the removal of graffiti and chewing gum, the Strategic Director confirmed that whilst the machines would have some impact, additional specialist machines would be required to remove chewing gum and that a report in this respect would be submitted tot a future meeting.
Councillor Zair moved the report commenting that the purchase of these vehicles to enhance the service was money well spent, especially in light of the increase in tourism to the District.
The Leader of the Council welcomed the report and commented that the desire to improve the cleanliness of the District was always welcome.
RESOLVED that the purchase of two Hako City Master 1200 Street Sweepers with street washer attachment from Hako Machines Ltd be approved.
26 382. COMMUNITIES FOR HEALTH
Members gave consideration to the formal acceptance of grant aid from the Department of Health to support Wear Valley District Council and its partners in meeting the needs of the local community in improving health and reducing health inequalities in the area.
The Leader of the Council was pleased to see the initiative in place. There was a need to make best use of this non-recurring funding in order to build capacity in the community.
In response to a question from Councillor Grogan, the Community Fitness Manager confirmed that this grant aid was to develop capacity within local health partnerships and in particular to strengthen the role of community groups and the voluntary sector in forming sustainable health initiatives.
The Strategic Director for the Community believed the White Paper supported a movement away from local authority provision and placed it in the hands of the community, examples already in place such as Wolsingham Pool and SLAM at Spectrum, Willington showed that community involvement could have a significant impact on continued provision of leisure facilities.
RECOMMENDED 1. that the offer from the Department of Health for £100,000 grant aid to improve health and reduce inequalities be accepted.
2. that Officers work in partnership with the Primary Care Trust and the voluntary sector to deliver the Communities for Health programme.
383. CAPITAL PROGRAMME ADDITIONS
Members gave consideration to the inclusion of proposed expenditure plans within the Community Services capital programme for 2006/07, specifically in relation to proposed projects using Section 106 monies.
The Chair advised members that the item detailed in the report relating to Crook/Glenholme would not be deferred pending further consultation.
The Strategic Director for the Community clarified for Councillor Ferguson that projects could only be considered within the definition of the section 106 agreements, which developers could make quite specific.
Councillor Perkins felt that money coming into the Authority should be spread across the whole district and not restricted to an area by the developers.
27 Councillor J Shuttleworth felt that 106 funding should be targeted on the Ward where the development had taken place. Further that any interest accrued since the Council received the monies should also be allocated to the Ward. The Strategic Director agreed to take that point up with the Strategic Director of Resource Management.
The Leader of the Council understood that section 106 was to be phased out and alternative rules would be applied. The Council should proceed to use the 106 monies as soon as practicable.
RECOMMENDED 1. that a maximum of £57,000 be spent on resurfacing the multi surface play area at Tow Law and this scheme to be included within the 2006/07 Community Services capital programme. This is to be funded from Section 106 held for Tow Law.
2. that any residual Section 106 monies held for Tow Law be used for maintenance of the multi surface play area.
3. that a sum of £15,000 be included within the 2006/07 Community Services capital programme to fund the provision of gym equipment into Tow Law and the ownership of the equipment to be given over to Tow Law Town Council.
4. that Groundwork Trust be commissioned to provide picnic tables and seats at Middlewood Green at an estimated cost of between £6.000 - £7,000. This expenditure to be funded from section 106 monies held for West Auckland and this scheme to be added to the 2006/07 Community Services capital programme.
5. that 20% of Section 106 monies held for West Auckland be set aside to fund on going maintenance of the proposed scheme.
6. that the proposals for Crook/Glenhome stand deferred for further consultation.
CHAIR
28 SPECIAL CENTRAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
15TH DECEMER 2006
PRESENT Councillor Mrs Pinkney (Deputy Chair) Councillors Mrs Burn, Harrison, Mowbray, Stonehouse, Taylor and Mrs Todd
APOLOGIES Councillors Mrs Brown and Hayton.
ADVISERS G. Ridley, Strategic Director of Resource Management and Mrs H Wilson, Committee Administrator.
384. DISABILITY EQUALITY SCHEME
In considering the Disability Equality Scheme Members were advised of the new way of tackling disability discrimination by introducing new policies that actively promote opportunities and so prevent discrimination taking place.
The Leader of the Council requested that minor amendments be made within the annexes of the report regarding the following: - Pages 5, 16 and 30 where alternative formats were mentioned appropriate languages or font size should be incorporated; Page 17 within the first paragraph the word provided should be replaced with the word offered; Page 22 any reference to Borough’s should be replaced by District.
These amendments were AGREED.
The Strategic Director advised Members that previously members of staff had been offered the opportunity to undertake sign language classes and that he may be in a position to make classes available for Members in the future. Members supported that course of action.
RECOMMENDED that the Disability Equality Scheme as detailed in the annexes, as now amended be approved.
385. FLEXIBLE RETIRMENT
Members considered the introduction of a Flexible Retirement Policy for the Authority.
The Strategic Director advised Cllr Mrs Pinkney that prior to any Flexible Retirement Arrangement being agreed it would be necessary to undertake discussions with Line Managers to ensure feasibility.
29 The Leader of the Council advised Members that the scheme would be discretionary particularly in view of service requirements.
Seconded by Councillor Taylor the Leader of the Council moved the report.
RESOLVED that the flexible retirement policy as set out in the Annex to the report be approved.
The meeting concluded at 10.35am
DEPUTY CHAIR
30 CENTRAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
24TH JANUARY 2007
PRESENT Councillor Hayton (Chair) Councillors, Mrs Brown, Mrs Burn, Grogan, Harrison, Kingston, Mrs Pinkney, Stonehouse, Taylor and Mrs Todd.
APOLOGY Councillor Mowbray
ADVISERS G Ridley, Strategic Director for Resource Management; Mrs A Barker, Assistant Director for Legal and Administration; M Laing, Strategic Director for the Community; S Reid, Assistant Director for I.T and Finance; Mrs S Dawson, Head of Economic Regeneration; Mrs C Duggan, Performance Improvement Manager; Mrs J Lawton and Ms T Paterson, Committee Administrators.
386. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15th November 2006 were taken as read, confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
387. LAND ADJACENT TO 1 COSGROVE AVENUE, BISHOP AUCKLAND
Consideration was given to a request from Mr and Mrs D Longstaff of 1 Cosgrove Avenue, Bishop Auckland to purchase an area of land for garden purposes and the erection of a garage. The Assistant Director for Legal and Administration detailed the report.
Mrs Longstaff, applicant, then addressed the meeting. She informed Members that some time ago she had considered building an extension on the property. Prior to submitting a planning application, she had called on the advice of a Council officer, who advised that such an application would be recommended for refusal, as it would not be in keeping with other properties in the street. Mrs Longstaff felt that building on the land adjacent to her property would solve that problem, as well as being more beneficial to local residents, as that area of land was misused by dogs, and regularly had broken glass etc on it. In relation to the objection received from the resident at 54 Brooklands, Mrs Longstaff advised that there was already a six foot wall separating the properties. She also advised that, in the surrounding area, there were several plots of land which had been bought by residents, who in turn had done exactly what she had proposed. Mrs Longstaff therefore could not see how such purchases or rejections had been determined.
At this point, Councillor Kingston joined the meeting.
31 The Assistant Director for Legal and Administration distributed a series of photographs of the property and the adjoining land, for Members perusal.
In response to Councillor Taylor, the Assistant Director for Legal and Administration advised that, although the Highways Department at Durham County Council had not been approached separately on the matter, any objections received would be detailed in the report.
Councillor Mrs Todd queried whether it would be possible for Mrs Longstaff to purchase part of the adjoining land, rather than the whole plot, as a compromise. The Leader of the Council, in supporting that proposal, suggested that rather than refuse the application, it would be better to defer, in order for the alternative to be investigated.
In response to concerns raised by Councillor Harrison, the Assistant Director for Legal and Administration advised that site inspections are to be carried out on properties in the vicinity of Cosgrove Avenue, to ascertain what planning permissions have been granted and why.
Councillor Grogan joined the meeting at this point.
The Leader of the Council, seconded by Councillor Todd, moved that the sale of land be deferred.
RESOLVED that the request from Mr and Mrs D Longstaff to purchase land at 1 Cosgrove Avenue, Bishop Auckland, be deferred.
388. APPLICATION FOR A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COMMUNITY FUND FROM CHURCH HILL ALLOTMENT ASSOCIATION
Consideration was given to a request from Church Hill Allotment Association for a contribution from the Community Fund.
The Strategic Director for Resource Management commented that the amount requested was modest when compared to what the Association were proposing to achieve.
Councillor Mrs Brown, in agreement with the Leader of the Council, commented that what was proposed would have numerous benefits for the community and was therefore an excellent idea.
Councillor Pinkney suggested that the donation be reduced from £2500 to £500, as other such associations may seek similar contributions.
Councillor Mrs Todd remarked that the sum requested was modest and felt that the future benefits were worth the money. Councillor Kingston also pointed out that there were proven health benefits from home grown food, not to mention encouraging people to be active outdoors. Councillor Mrs Pinkney supported the donation, but stipulated that any future requests
32 should be given the same consideration. She also proposed that the contribution be handed over, only when the Allotment Association could prove they had secured other requested funding.
The Leader of the Council, seconded by Councillor Mrs Brown, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the request from Church Hill Allotment Association for a contribution from the Community Fund be granted, upon receipt of proof of other funding.
389. REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING
The Director detailed revenue expenditure of the authority from 1st April to 31st December 2006 as compared against the budget. He stated that both the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account were expected to outturn at less than original budget with any surplus being used to support the 2007/08 budget.
The Leader of the Council, seconded by Councillor Mrs Pinkney, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the Revenue Budget Monitoring, as detailed in the report, be noted.
390. CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING
Members were appraised on the capital expenditure of the authority for the first nine months of 2006/07, as compared to the budget.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Assistant Director for IT and Finance advised that schemes which were to be deferred until the following financial year were the development of the South West Crook industrial estate, the Twin Bins scheme and the Bishop Auckland Urban Renaissance.
Councillor Mrs Pinkney, seconded by The Leader of the Council, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the Capital Budget Monitoring, as detailed in the report, be noted.
391. RACE EQUALITY SCHEME
Members were appraised on the monitoring carried out in relation to race equality and the development of an impact assessment action plan. The Strategic Director for Resource Management advised Members that the scheme was now in place, the work programme had been identified, and
33 once the Equality and Diversity Officer has been appointed, the 3 year scheme can commence.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Strategic Director advised that a local authority was not obliged to employ a certain proportion of staff from ethnic minorities. However, he did point out that there were Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) attached to this issue, therefore an authority could be perceived as underachieving in this area if recruitment from ethnic minorities was at a minimum. He explained that an authority would not be penalised for this, merely flagged as a low performer in that area.
Councillor Taylor commented that he felt when the recommendations on recruitment were made they were more aimed at urban authorities, as there is more scope for recruiting from within ethnic minorities in cities, for example.
The Strategic Director for the Community highlighted that changes were happening already, for example, the authority’s policy on Muslim Burials was already in the process of being altered.
In moving the report, the Leader of the Council referred to Annex F and suggested that instead of terms such as “a lot” and “a little”, more precise and specific terms be used.
Councillor Grogan seconded the motion.
RESOLVED that the Race Equality Scheme, as detailed in the report, be noted.
392. RISK REGISTER UPDATE
Members were updated on the progress in managing the risks of the Resource Management Department, including those relating to partnerships. The Strategic Director for Resource Management advised that there were three areas to the risk register – departmental risks, partnership risks and corporate risks. A copy of the Corporate Risk register was distributed to Members.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Strategic Director clarified the formula used to ascertain the likelihood of risks occurring.
The Leader of the Council, seconded by Councillor Harrison, moved the report.
RECOMMENDED that the Risk Register updates, as detailed in the report, be noted.
34 393. JOB DESIGNATION CHANGES
Members approval was sought to change job designations within the IT Section.
Councillor Mrs Brown, seconded by the Leader of the Council, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the change in job designations within the IT Section, as detailed in the report, be approved.
394. RATE RELIEF FOR RURAL FACILITIES
Members considered the annual review of the list of rural settlements and noted the following criteria for qualifying settlements:-
(i) Settlements which appear to have a population of 3,000 or less.
(ii) Settlements wholly or partly within a designated rural area as determined by the Secretary of State of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Councillor Kingston questioned how the perimeters of areas such as Oakenshaw were defined. The Strategic Director for Resource Management explained that ward boundaries applied.
He also verified for Councillor Kingston that although a settlement may not have so much as a shop, such as Pagebank, a rural rate relief would still be applied as a person may operate a business from their home, thus still qualifying for the concession.
Councillor Harrison queried whether ratepayers in Bishop Auckland Town would be charged more than ratepayers from surrounding areas such as Etherley Dene, Etherley Moor, pointing out that these areas ran into each other. The Strategic Director stressed that each area on the list had been sectioned off as a settlement in its own right, however he did acknowledge the point raised.
The Leader of the Council, seconded by Councillor Mrs Todd, moved the report.
RECOMMENDED that the list of rural settlements, as detailed in the report, be approved.
395. FORMER TENANTS ARREARS
Consideration was given to the proposed write off of Former Tenants’ Arrears, as detailed in the report.
35 The Strategic Director for Resource Management clarified for Councillor Grogan, that the report had not been received by Dale and Valley Homes prior to this meeting, as the dates of the arrears were prior to ALMO being formed.
Seconded by Councillor Mrs Pinkney, the Leader of the Council moved the report.
RESOLVED that the Former Tenants Appears, as detailed in the report, be written off.
Meeting concluded 5:05 p.m.
CHAIR
36 POLICY AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
31st JANUARY 2007
PRESENT Councillor Kay (Deputy Chair) Councillors Ferguson, Gale, Grogan, Hayton, Kingston, Townsend and Zair.
APOLOGIES Councillors Bailey, Mrs Brown, Perkins and Stonehouse.
ADVISERS I Phillips, Chief Executive; J Docherty, Chief Officer Corporate Development; Mrs E Baker, Community Safety Manager; L Serewicz, Policy and Partnerships Manager; Miss E Butler, Policy and Research Officer; Ms S Spence, Head of Committee and Democratic Services; Mrs J Lawton, Committee Administrator.
396. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22nd November 2006 were agreed as true records and signed by the Chair.
397. RISK REGISTER UPDATE
Members were appraised on the progress made in managing the risks of the Corporate Development Unit and updated on the arrangements made for managing partnerships risks. The Chief Officer Corporate Development reported that the Corporate Development Unit had identified its major risks and was taking appropriate action to manage them. He also advised that work was being undertaken to more effectively manage risks associated with partnership arrangements that the Council were involved in.
In response to Councillor Townsend, the Chief Officer Corporate Development clarified that rather than actually manage the LSP (Local Strategic Partnership), the Council was there to offer them management support.
Seconded by Councillor Townsend, Councillor Gale moved the report.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
398. SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PLAN 2006/07
The Policy and Partnerships Manager detailed the report and advised
37 Members that Corporate Development was on target with regards delivering its objectives.
Councillor Townsend moved the report, seconded by Councillor Gale.
RESOLVED that the Management Support Unit’s Draft Service Plan 2006/07 be approved by the P&SD Committee.
399. DATA QUALITY ARRANGEMENTS FEEDBACK 2005/06
The Chief Officer Corporate Development detailed the report, advising that the document was a summary produced by the Audit Commission. He explained that there was a need for Wear Valley District Council to improve its arrangements to manage data quality, and evidence that this had occurred would be recognised in the next such report.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Chief Officer Corporate Development explained that the Council achieved value for money, as training programmes were a necessity for all staff producing data, subsequently the work should be getting completed correctly first time, reducing the need for work to be corrected and duplicated. All staff were encouraged to have a clear focus on any targets.
Seconded by Councillor Hayton, Councillor Townsend moved the report.
RESOLVED that the content of the report be noted.
400. STRENGTHENING POWERS TO TACKLE ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – CONSULTATION PAPER HOME OFFICE NOVEMBER 2006
Consideration was given to a consultation paper, released by the Home Office in November 2006, regarding strengthening powers in order to tackle anti social behaviour. The Community Safety Manager detailed the two new orders which Government were proposing and stated that she believed they should be welcomed.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Community Safety Manager explained that the new orders link with Dale and Valley Homes, as eviction could be used as a Penalty towards a resident of a Council owned property.
Councillor Kingston expressed concerns as to how ASBO policy was implemented as he felt that the court system could play a more effective part in assisting local authorities and the police, especially with regards enforcing sanctions should an ASBO be breached. He believed that this then had implications on the community as an ASBO, among certain circles, was seen as little more than a trophy, an accomplishment. This, in turn, would lead the wider community to be sceptical of the effectiveness of an ASBO.
38
The Communtiy Safety Manager responded by detailing that when ASBO’s were first introduced in 2003, that was the case, however she believed that they can be extremely effective. She advised that Wear Valley District Council’s Anti Social Behaviour Officer holds training days for Magistrates, informing and educating about ASBO’s, therefore they would be better informed.
Councillor Kay surmised that Wear Valley District Council had taken a strong line regarding Anti Social Behaviour Orders and believed that there were a lot of cases where such an order had proved effective. He commented that the additional powers, as detailed in the report, should be welcomed, in order to strengthen what was already in place.
Councillor Kingston, seconded by Councillor Hayton, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the contents of the report be endorsed.
39 LICENSING COMMITTEE
14 DECEMBER 2006
PRESENT Councillor Mrs Douthwaite (Chair) Councillors Mrs Burn, Harker, Mrs Lee, Sinclair, Taylor, Mrs Todd and David Wilson
APOLOGIES Councillors Mrs Bown, Grogan and Moody
ADVISERS C Rudman, Principal Public Protection Officer and Mrs L Spence, Democratic Services Manager
401. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 26th October 2006 were taken as read, confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
RESOLVED that under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined under the paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.
402. HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER LICENSING – APPLICATION FOR DRIVER’S LICENCE – MR JEFFREY WILLIAM BELL, 50 WALKER DRIVE, BISHOP AUCKLAND CO. DURHAM, DL14 6QW.
Councillor Mrs Lee declared a personal interest in respect of this item as she knew the applicant. She believed the interest was also prejudicial and left the meeting whilst the matter was considered.
The Chair welcomed Mr Bell to the meeting and in doing so she became aware that she too knew the applicant. She also believed her interest could be prejudicial and left the meeting whilst the matter was considered.
Councillor David Wilson took the Chair.
The Democratic Services Manager detailed the procedure to be followed and ascertained that Mr Bell was aware of his right to be represented at the meeting and that he was happy to proceed without representation.
The Principal Public Protection Officer detailed the report, highlighted the reasons why the application had been brought before the Committee for consideration. He drew attention to the guidelines relating to the relevance of convictions.
40
Mr Bell presented his case and detailed the convictions listed. He then responded to Members’ questions.
Those not connected with the decision making (Mr Bell and the Principal Public Protection Officer) were asked to retire while a decision was made. The Democratic Services Manager remained to take notes and record the decision.
During deliberations Members referred to the Council’s adopted guidelines relating to the relevance of convictions and noted Mr Bell’s explanation of the events surrounding the conviction. Their primary concern was for the safety of the public.
Members believed that the conviction was an isolated incident. They also noted that Mr Bell had been free of convictions for a time exceeding three years as required by the guidelines. Councillor Sinclair, seconded by Councillor Harker, moved that the application be granted but that a strict warning be given as to Mr Bell’s future conduct.
All parties were invited to rejoin the meeting.
Mr Bell was advised that the Committee had considered the Principal Public Protection Officer’s report together with the evidence submitted by him (Mr Bell). They had considered all of this evidence in light of the Council’s adopted guidance relating to the relevance of convictions. He was advised that the Committee had: -
RESOLVED that Mr Bell’s application for grant of a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers licence be approved but that he also be issued with a strict warning about his future conduct.
Councillors Mrs Douthwaite and Mrs Lee returned to the meeting. Councillor Mrs Douthwaite back in the Chair.
403. HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER LICENSING – APPLICATION FOR DRIVER’S LICENCE – MR PAUL BROWN, 35 PRINCES STREET, BISHOP AUCKLAND, CO. DURHAM. DL14 7BA
The Chair welcomed Mr Brown to the meeting.
The Democratic Services Manager detailed the procedure to be followed and ascertained that Mr Brown was aware of his right to be represented at the meeting and that he was happy to proceed without representation.
The Principal Public Protection Officer detailed the report, highlighted the reasons why the application had been brought before the Committee for consideration.
41 Mr Brown presented his case and detailed the conviction listed. He then responded to Members’ questions.
Those not connected with the decision making (Mr Bown and the Principal Public Protection Officer) were asked to retire while a decision was made. The Democratic Services Manager remained to take notes and record the decision.
During deliberations Members referred to the Council’s adopted guidelines relating to the relevance of convictions and noted Mr Brown’s explanation of the events surrounding the convictions and the details of his current employment. On a point of clarification Mr Brown, and all excluded parties, were recalled to the meeting. Mr Brown responded to Members’ questions relating to his current employment and confirmed that he had been cleared by
All parties not connected with the decision making then retired and Members concluded their deliberations.
Members believed that the convictions, the nature of each being different, were isolated incidents and as such should not necessarily debar an applicant. Councillor Mrs Lee, seconded by Councillor Sinclair, moved that the application be granted.
All parties were invited to rejoin the meeting.
Mr Ellis was advised that the Committee had considered the Commercial Manager’s report together with the evidence submitted by him (Mr Ellis). They had considered all of this evidence in light of the Council’s adopted guidance relating to the relevance of convictions. He was advised that the Committee had: -
RESOLVED that Mr Ellis’s application for grant of a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers licence be approved.
CHAIR
42 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
7th DECEMBER 2006
PRESENT Councillor Laurie (Chair) Councillors Mrs Burn, Mrs Douthwaite, Grogan, Jago, Moody, Mowbray, Perkins, Mrs Seabury, Stonehouse, Taylor, Townsend and Des Wilson.
APOLOGIES Councillors Gale, Harker, Kay, Kingston, Mrs Lee and Zair.
ALSO PRESENT Councillor Hayton attended as Ward Member.
ADVISERS D. Townsend, Head of Development and Building Control; P. Lewis, Principal Planning Officer; Mrs C Prest, Head of Legal Services; Mrs L Spence, Democratic Services Manager; Mrs H Wilson and Mrs J Lawton, Committee Administrators.
404. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 9th November 2006 were taken as read, confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.
As members of the public had indicated that they wished to speak it was AGREED that the following items be considered at this stage in the meeting.
405. 3/2006/0087 – ERECTION OF WINDFARM COMPRISING 4 NO. WIND TURBINES MEASURING 102 METRES TO THE BLADE TIP AND FORMATION OF ON SITE ACCESS TRACKS AND ACCESS ONTO THE B6299 AT BROOM HILL FARM, WOLSINGHAM ROAD, STANLEY, CROOK FOR EDF ENERGY
The Principal Planning Officer detailed the report making reference to the supplementary report that had been circulated to members prior to the meeting.
Mr Ross spoke on behalf of the residents of Stanley and Sunniside. He believed that a precedent had been set by the previous refusal made on the grounds of cumulative impact. He urged Members to be consistent with their decisions.
43 He stated that from information and evidence provided within the Haynes/Mackenzie report, doubt had been introduced into key areas and it had been acknowledged that some individuals were more sensitive to low frequency noise below current thresholds. He raised the question of how many individuals within the 300 households in the vicinity of the proposal would have that sensitivity?
Mr Ross then advised members that the report also stated transmission and perception of noise were dependent on many different things, such as, frequency, wavelength, temperature, wind direction, landscape, the angle of dwellings in relation to the turbine, building materials, size of individual rooms and even where an individual may sit or sleep in a room.
The type and design of turbines and machinery should be taken into consideration and Mr Ross questioned whether the developer would be testing for wind sheer noise or frequency modulation as described in the report? He acknowledged that all the elements and how they combined had not been fully researched and that the Haynes Mackenzie report also acknowledged this.
Regarding frequency modulation Mr Ross reported that Haynes/Mackenzie had acknowledged that it was real, however, there was a poor understanding of how it occurred and there had been different theories from different researchers.
Currently six existing turbine sites were experiencing problems, all of which were passed under ETSU guidance. The residents of Stanley and Sunniside did not want this to become the seventh site.
Should the application be refused by the Council there may be a fine and a subsequent enquiry however, Mr Ross believed that could be balanced against the potential cost in compensation to claims over 25 years from any number of the 300 households. The Council had an obligation not to reduce or remove local residents’ amenity, not an obligation to developers or Government targets.
Many of the officer’s comments within the report seem to be based his interpretation of the information and not on fact. Indeed many of the developers’ statements and comments were simply opinion. Mr Ross urged Members to base their decisions on their interpretation of the information. However, he did not feel there was sufficient information to allow them to make an informed decision.
At this stage in the meeting Councillor Stonehouse declared a personal interest as he was acquainted with Mr Ross via his connections with the Primary Care Trust. The interest was not prejudicial and remained and took part in the meeting.
44 Mr Scorer spoke on behalf the applicant. Broom Hill had been identified as a potential wind farm site following a review of key factors including wind speed, land use, planning policy, aviation, ecology and visual amenity. The site selection had also been supported by the fact that the Wear Valley District Local Plan and Regional Spatial and Energy Strategies also identified the Broom Hill area for wind development.
Local consultants had carried out a very thorough environmental assessment forming the basis of the planning application. The views of the local community had been sought through well-attended public exhibitions, individual meetings and personal correspondence. The points raised by the community had then been considered as to how best they could be addressed in conjunction with the proposals while still meeting obligations to support the Government’s push for renewable energy aimed at tackling the effects of climate change.
The Government had stated that 10% of all electricity used in the UK should be provided from renewable sources, predominantly wind, by 2010. This scheme would deliver that target locally. The original layout had consisted of 8 turbines. However the majority of visitors completing exhibition feedback forms had indicated that fewer, larger turbines would be preferred to a greater number of smaller ones. Having taken these comments on board the site had been redesigned to consist of only 5 turbines. Following further consultation the most northern turbine had been eliminated further reducing the overall visual impact of the scheme. The remaining 4 turbines would however produce the same amount of renewable electricity as the 8 smaller ones originally considered. The community’s comments where practical had been taken on board while still optimising the energy use from the site.
The reason for the deferral at the last meeting had been due to the expected statement from the DTI on noise. This had now been issued to all local planning authorities, the Planning Inspector and also directly to his client. The statement was very clear in that the ETSU noise assessment methodology specified in the existing Government Planning Policy was still valid and must be used.
This was the method employed by the noise experts for this application, although, at the request of the Public Protection Officer more stringent noise limits than required in legislation, had been accepted to address the concerns of residents at Stanley Hall Farm. His clients proposals therefore exceed planning policy requirements for noise.
A key issue was whether the visual impact of the turbines was acceptable. In this case the site was not covered by any local or national planning designation and a Durham County Landscape officer as well as a Wear Valley officer had assessed the proposal, both concluding that a small wind farm could be accommodated within the landscape and would not create an unacceptable cumulative impact.
45 Following further consultations with Wear Valley, Durham County and the Wildlife Trust a restoration plan to reinstate the habitat of the area and the securing of Stanley Moss as a nature reserve had been provided. In addition through a section 106 agreement the restoration and management of the site through the windfarm life will be undertaken.
In summary the Broom Hill site has been the subject of a full environmental impact assessment and public consultation and the turbines have been carefully located to minimise local impacts and there have been no objections from any statutory authority.
Although a small wind farm, the 4 turbines at Broom Hill would produce 10mW of renewable energy, enough to supply the annual need of just under 6,500 homes, equivalent to around a quarter of the District`s population. He considered that the wind farm fully complied with local, regional and national guidelines relating to planning, noise, horses, energy and climate change policy. The Officer’s comprehensive report thoroughly considered all the issues and he commended it to the Committee. His balanced recommendation was that this wind farm be approved.
In response to Mr Ross’s comments regarding health effects the Principal Planning Officer advised that Haynes Mackenzie had concluded there was no evidence to support this.
Councillor Grogan raised concerns regarding the adequate protection from noise pollution for residents. The Haynes Mackenzie report left an element of doubt regarding the effects and he therefore believed it should be a consideration, he also made reference to an email from the Department of Trade and Industry that stated in some isolated cases problems relating to noise had occurred. Believing the Government had not done enough research into the effects of turbine noise he moved that that the report be refused on the grounds as the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape and on visual amenity. The proposals would create a zone of cumulative impact. The modest energy benefits obtained do not outweigh the harm caused. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley Local Plan
Councillor Townsend wished to revisit the references made to low frequency noise and its effects. He understood that if the application were to be refused by the Council and then on appeal, that the noise limits from the combined turbines may emerge at a higher level. These limits would then be enforceable by the authority. He referred to paragraphs 44, 80 and 83 of the report together with response to objections (ss). He noted that although 120 cases had experienced aerodynamic modulation many more hundreds of others had not. The application had been deferred at the previous meeting to await the outcome of the Haynes Mackenzie report. That had now been received and the indication appeared to be that there was no evidence to support any variation from the existing national guidelines.
46
The Principal Public Protection Officer confirmed that the noise limits conditioned were more stringent than the national requirements. It was possible that if the application was refused by the Council then allowed on appeal the Inspector may only impose noise limits which accorded with national guidelines. A working group had been established to consider findings in relation to aerodynamic modulation but had yet to report their findings. The comments contained in the report were based on ETSU which the authority had been instructed to use.
He further confirmed that if the noise exceeded the limits prescribed in the conditions enforcement action could be taken in line with planning legislation. Irrespective of that if noise nuisance were to be established enforcement could also be taken in line with public protection.
Councillor Perkins believed that insufficient, and incomplete information had been presented on which the Committee could base their decision. On those grounds he would find it difficult to come to a decision. He believed that the targets contained in the Regional Spacial Strategy (RSS), in respect of renewable energy within County Durham had already been exceeded.
The Principal Planning Officer advised that the target within the emerging RSS for 10% of energy used to be from renewable energy sources by 2010 and 20% by 2020. However those were minimum targets and it would not be contrary to policy if they were exceeded.
Councillor Stonehouse referred to paragraph 72 of the report which he believed was misleading; the application was not in the AONB. The report also referred to the issue of overbearing impact being tested in planning appeals and he asked if the outcome of any of those appeals was known?
In response the Principal Planning Officer advised that a number of appeals had considered visual impact. The recurring outcome had been that because a wind turbine was prominent in the landscape did not automatically mean it caused harm. Turbines were acceptable in limited numbers providing the guidance in ETSU was met. The area had been designated as suitable for a wind farm and that was a material consideration.
Councillor Stonehouse appreciated Councillor Grogan’s comments. It was an emotive issue and Councillor Grogan may retain doubts around the issue of noise. However the response from the DCLG indicated that ETSU still applied. The applicant had complied with those terms and indeed had accepted more stringent noise limits. In consider PPS 22, the emerging RSS and the existing Local Plan it appeared to him that the crux of the matter centred around visual and cumulative impact. He supported the landscape officer’s views that cumulative impact could not be applied. Visual impact was a question of judgement and in his judgement he did not
47 feel that the proposal would be intrusive. He could not support refusal of the proposal.
Councillor Hayton took exception to the designation of the area as a coalfield landscape. It had been many years since Tow Law, Sunniside and Crook had suffered that indignity. If the land had been available at the time he believed it would have formed part of the AONB. It was not acceptable to approve the proposal because it was in the “back yard” of County Durham. Stanley Moss and the last remaining nature area in the locale would be wiped out if the proposal proceeded. Energy from the site would be carried away by overhead energy cables, causing more visual harm to the landscape. He sought clarification in relation to the proposed Community Fund.
The Principal Planning Officer advised that the last assessment had identified the area as the West Durham Coalfield area, due to its historical use and settlement patterns. He advised that the Community Trust Fund would pay for environmental improvements and would provide long term benefits for Stanley Moss and the wider area.
Councillor Mrs Seabury noted that difficult decisions would have to be made in respect of energy targets, nonetheless each decision would be made on its merits. She believed the area identified as suitable for wind farms was nearing capacity and the cumulative impact would not be a problem.
In referring to the displayed photographs as evidence, Councillor Jago believed that the turbines would create a significant visual impact. It had already been proved that turbines were detrimental to bird life. On those grounds alone he was not satisfied with the proposal and would support refusal.
Councillor Grogan clarified that the emails from which he had quoted had not been sent directly to him. They had been addressed to Alistair Dowling and David Milliband. The industry appeared to be regulating itself in terms of noise. He believed that the Government was doing a u turn on the concept of wind farms as they were proving to be ineffective. The indication was that nuclear energy would be the way forward.
Councillor Stonehouse stated that the Committee was bound to take into account Government guidance. The application complied with all aspects of that and it was his view that if the proposal was refused at this stage it would be approved on appeal.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken declared it lost. It was therefore
48
RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking/legal agreement (Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act) regarding the funding for the establishment and restoration for Stanley Moss to form a nature reserve and to fund subsequent management works for the duration of the life of the windfarm.
Councillor Taylor questioned how, having declared an interest, Councillor Stonehouse had been able to vote on the matter?
The Head of Legal Services clarified that a Member could declare a personal interest and remain in the meeting, participate and vote. However if a prejudicial interest was declared then the Member should leave the meeting, take no further part and not vote. Councillor Stonehouse had declared a personal interest as he was acquainted with Mr Ross because of their joint membership of the Primary Care Trust. However that acquaintance did not extend to the realms of friendship therefore was not considered to be prejudicial.
Councillor Hayton left the meeting.
406. 3/2006/0826 – DEVELOPMENT OF 23 NO – 3 BEDROOM DWELLINGS, GARAGES AND PARKING SPACES AT LAND ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE OF MILTON STREET, CROOK FOR RAVENSWORTH HOMES LLP
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Mr Murphy objected to the proposal. He drew Members attention to the beginning of the report regarding the previous use of the site, which he believed, was two domestic garages, and the use of the land for a fairground which generally occurred yearly, sometimes twice yearly.
Regarding the fact that the site was now deemed as brownfield, Mr Murphy stated the report indicated that historically the site had formed part of the railway sidings in connection with the coal industry. However, he believed this to be untrue, as the sidings had never encroached upon that land but followed what is now the route of the B6298 road. After speaking to elderly residents from the area they had confirmed this. He could not understand how the area could be deemed as being brownfield when it had previously been greenfield. He urged Members to take those points into consideration when making their decision.
Councillor Mowbray had visited the site on many occasions in the past and believed the proposal to be inappropriate. Seconded by Councillor Townsend he moved the report.
49
In response to Councillor Grogan who had acknowledged the need for more affordable housing, but believed the proposed density to be to great, the Head of Development and Building Control advised that concerns had been raised with the developers regarding this and that less properties on the site would be preferred.
Councillor Mowbray pointed out that the Highways Department had expressed concerns regarding the scheme in respect of footpath arrangement around the turning head, the parking bays at the end of the turning head and the number of properties served off a private drive.
Acknowledging the need for the land to be developed, Councillor Perkins agreed that 23 properties was excessive.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.
407. 3/2006/0763 – ENCLOSURE OF OPEN LAND TO FORM GARDEN AT LAND TO THE REAR OF 57 NEWTON CAP BANK, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR MR. RILEY
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Mrs Seabury, seconded by Councillor Townsend moved the report.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the condition detailed in the report.
408. 3/2006/0631 – CHANGE OF USE TO EXTEND GARDEN AND ERECT GREENHOUSE AND STABLE/STORE (WOOD) AT MEADOW END COTTAGE, FARNLEY FARM, HUNWICK FOR MR. AND MRS. P. SUDDES
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Townsend, seconded by Councillor Perkins moved the report.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
50 RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
409. 3/2006/0899 – DOUBLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND CHANGE GARAGE TO STUDY INCLUDING EXTENSION OF PORCH AT 47 ABBOTS GREEN, WILLINGTON, CROOK FOR MR. PEARSON
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Townsend, seconded by Councillor Mrs Seabury moved the report.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report.
410. 3/2006/0729 – VARIATION OF CONDITION 12 FROM PLANNING PERMISSION 3/1998/0329 TO ALLOW 24 HOUR OPENING AT ASDA SUPERMARKET, SOUTH CHURCH ROAD, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR ASDA STORES LTD.
RESOLVED that the item be withdrawn.
411. TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REDUNDANCY OF THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY THE VIRGIN, HOWDEN LE WEAR AND ALTERATION OF THE PARISH BOUNDARY
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
RESOLVED that no objections be raised.
The meeting concluded at 7.20pm
CHAIR
51 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
4th JANUARY 2007
PRESENT Councillor Laurie (Chair) Councillors Anderson, Mrs Burn, Mrs Douthwaite, Grogan, Harker, Moody, Mowbray, Perkins, Mrs Seabury, Des Wilson and Zair.
APOLOGIES Councillors Jago, Kay, Mrs Lee, Stonehouse, Taylor and Townsend.
ADVISERS D Townsend, Head of Development and Building Control; Mrs A Barker, Assistant Director of Admin and Legal; Mrs L Spence, Democratic Services Manager; Mrs H Wilson and Mrs J Lawton, Committee Administrators.
As members of the public had indicated that they wished to speak (refer to circulated schedule) it was AGREED that the following items be discussed at this stage in the meeting.
412. 3/2006/0931 – 2 DETACHED HOUSES AFTER DEMOLITION OF GARAGES AT LAND ADJACENT TO 4 NEWLANDS AVENUE, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR MR. PATTERSON.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Mr Woodfine indicated that he had worked closely with the Council and believed that the visual appearance of the area would be improved by demolishing the garages and replacing it with dwellings.
Councillor Anderson supported the proposal; the garages were currently an eyesore. Seconded by the Chair, he moved the report.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
52
413. 3/2006/0958, 3/2006/0959, 3/2006/0960, 3/2006/0961 – BRADLEY BURN CARAVAN PARK, BRADLEY BURN, WOLSINGHAM, APPLICATION BY MR. JOHN STEPHENSON TO VARY CONDITION NUMBER 1 OF PLANNING PERMISSIONS CA53216, CA50242, CA4826 AND CA45625.
The meeting stood adjourned for five minutes while members read the supplementary report circulated at the meeting.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Mr Stephenson advised Members that the application to vary the planning condition controlling the operating times had been submitted in response to pressure from the caravan owners. Should the proposal be agreed the part time employees at the caravan park may have the opportunity to be made full time.
He was aware of the conditions suggested the reasons for them and that the site must remain as a holiday site. A record of names and addresses of all owners was available; no post was delivered to the site and the owners were not registered at doctors or schools in the area.
The local economy would be further supported and he encouraged Members to support the application.
Councillor Des Wilson seconded by Councillor Grogan moved the report.
Councillor Perkins supported the proposal which he believed would encourage further tourists to the area.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that subject to the conditions detailed in the report the application to vary condition 1 of planning permissions CA53216, CA50242, CA48026, CA415625 be approved.
The Chair was aware the request to ban fireworks on the site could not be enforced by condition. However she suggested that a copy of the representations made be forwarded to the applicant to allow him to consider it further. This was AGREED.
414. 3/2006/0881 – DEMOLITION OF LINDALE HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 14 NO. HOUSES WITH ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO WEST ROAD AT LAND NORTH OF LINDALE HOUSE, WEST ROAD, CROOK FOR RFP LAND AND PROPERTY LIMITED.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report and advised the Committee that the strip of open space which would be lost to
53 the development would be 3.5 metres wide and not 1.5 as reported. The amendment was noted.
Mr Hodkinson objected to the proposal. The development of the property was only 26 metres from his house and 16 metres from his boundary fence, which he felt was very close and would affect his privacy, especially if any of the trees were removed. He also believed that there would be a loss of light due to the close proximity of the houses.
Over the last two years he had endured noise pollution from the ongoing construction of the Miller Homes site which occurred from 7.30am until 6.00pm. Thefts had also occurred from people entering the site from the rear of Burnhope Close, together with the lighting of fires within the trees from products taken from the site, that in turn created a messy environment.
He urged Members to reject the application as sufficient development had been undertaken in that area. He also expressed concerns relating to the proposed access.
At this stage in the meeting Councillor Grogan declared a personal and prejudicial interest as Mr Hodkinson was known to him. He left the meeting while the matter was considered.
Mrs Tyrie also objected to the proposal. Although living near to the proposed site she was unhappy that she had received no consultation either from Wear Valley Council or the developers, particularly as it had stated on the Lindale website that consultation had been undertaken. She believed increased vehicular activity on the road would affect her privacy and would pose an increased hazard for children. When she had purchased her property she had been told that no further planning permission would be granted in the surrounding area. The road had not been registered with the Land Registry and queried who owned it?
In response the Head of Development and Building Control advised that the separation distances from properties in Burnhope Close exceeded the guidelines in the Wear Valley District Local Plan. Site notices had been posted in the relevant places. He apologised if the residents of Snowball Close had not been consulted; however the proposal would principally impact on residents of Burnhope Close. He also confirmed he had spoken to the engineer regarding the road and had been advised that it was an adopted road which explained why it was not detailed at the Land Registry office. He agreed there would be increase traffic, however this was deemed acceptable. As the proposed dwellings would be side on to Burnhope Close he did not believe that privacy would be affected. He also advised that a footpath was to be created which would make the road safer.
54 In response to Councillor Mowbray the Head of Development and Building Control explained the term “ a stand alone development “ was separated by trees and was not seen as being an integral part of the existing estate.
Whilst Councillor Mowbray retained some concerns regarding the access he could see no material planning reason to refuse the proposal. He sought and received an explanation of the term “stand alone site”. Seconded by Councillor Mrs Seabury he moved the report.
There being no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
415. 3/2006/0907 – VARIATION OF CONDITION 12 ON PLANNING PERMISSION 3/2006/0243 TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR LEFT TURN ONLY AT BISHOP AUCKLAND MART, SOUTH CHURCH ROAD, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR BELLWAY HOMES (NE) LIMITED.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
The Chair indicated that the original suggestion to impose a left turn only at the site had been hers. In hindsight she admitted that she had not fully considered all of the ramifications of that. She moved the report.
Councillor Perkins acknowledged that he too had originally supported the access to be a left turn only but upon reflection, and having considered the report, he now believed it was common sense to accept the variation of condition 12. He seconded the motion.
As there were no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was
RESOLVED that the application to vary condition 12 of planning permission 3/2006/0243 be approved subject to the condition and reason detailed in the report.
416. 3/2006/0882 – VARIATION OF CONDITION 21 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 3/1998/0329 TO ALLOW COMPARISON SALES TO INCREASE FROM NO MORE THAN 929 SQUARE METRES TO NO MORE THAN 1,392 SQUARE METRES OF THE NET FLOOR AREA AT ASDA SUPERMARKET, SOUTH CHURCH ROAD, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR ASDA STORES LIMITED
Councillor Anderson declared a personal and prejudicial interest due to his wife being employed by Asda Stores Ltd. He left the meeting while the matter was being discussed.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
55
Councillor Zair expressed his concern regarding the statement that the proposed variation to allow additional floorspace would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the Bishop Auckland Town Centre. He believed this was incorrect and there would definitely be adverse impact. He had also been informed that the current amount of floorspace allowed for comparison sales was being exceeded and requested that the matter be investigated.
As the Wear Valley Retail Study, which was being undertaken by England & Lyle, was only in its first stage and in draft form Councillor Zair queried why it should be taken into consideration.
He was of the opinion that the application was contrary to Policy S1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan, which stated that proposals for retail developments that would undermine the vitality and viability of Bishop Auckland and Crook town centres would be resisted. He, therefore, moved that the application be refused.
In response to Councillor Zair, the Head of Development and Building Control advised that although the retail study was only in draft form the relevant section to this proposal would not be subject to any changes.
Councillor Mrs Burn did not agree that the shops in the town centre would not suffer, indeed as a record shop had just closed down, she believed that it was only a matter of time before shops would be further affected. She seconded the motion.
Councillor Perkins agreed believing it was necessary to safeguard the businesses in the town centre.
In response to Councillor Mowbray, the Head of Development and Building Control advised that the condition restricting floorspace given over to comparison sales had been breached and the application was retrospective.
The Chair believed that if it could be proven that the proposal would not undermine the vitality and viability of Bishop Auckland town centre, as was apparent from the retail study, then to prevent further leakage to other towns it is necessary to allow more comparison shopping floorspace in Bishop Auckland.
On a final note Councillor Zair stated that the original 929sq metres had been agreed for a reason, which was to protect the town centre.
There being no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reason:-
56
The increase in floorspace used for comparison sales is materially detrimental to the vitality and viability of the Bishop Auckland Town Centre and thereby contrary to policy S1 (Town Centres) of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.
417. 3/2006/0949 – PROPOSED 6 NO. THREE STOREY TERRACED DWELLINGS (RESUBMISSION) AT FACTORY (BONDS) CAMPBELL STREET, TOW LAW, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR A.B.B. DEVELOPMENT LIMITED.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Grogan supported the proposal. However he believed that the condition requiring the dwellings to be built in stone with concrete roof tiles would price local buyers out of the market. The dwellings surrounding the proposal had also been constructed of brick.
The Head of Development and Building Control advised that the officer had considered the surrounding developments and had believed that stone dwellings would be the most appropriate. However if Members disagreed that condition could be reworded to allow the applicant to discuss that further.
Councillor Grogan moved the report with the variation to condition 1 to remove the reference to specific external material requirements. Councillor Gale seconded the motion.
There being no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the following variation to condition 1, and the further conditions detailed in the report.
Condition 1. No development shall take place until samples of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
418. 3/2006/0902 – DETACHED DWELLING WITH DOUBLE GARAGE AT LAND ADJACENT TO ACCESS TO WEST BLACKDENE, FRONT STREET, IRESHOPEBURN, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR MR MOKRYJ.
57 The meeting was adjourned for five minutes while Members read the supplementary report circulated at the meeting.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
In response to Councillor Grogan, the Head of Development and Building Control advised that the existing stone boundary wall would be realigned.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the following variation to condition 7, and the further conditions detailed in the report.
Condition 7. Before the development hereby approved is commenced a scheme of landscaping that shall include replacement tree planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing, by the local planning authority, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.
419. 3/2006/0816 – SUBSTITUTION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (3/2005/0279) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 41 NO. DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED WORK AT LAND ADJACENT TO OAKLEY FARM, DARLINGTON ROAD, WEST AUCKLAND FOR BROSELEY HOMES LIMITED.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Harker was pleased to note that all problems had been addressed. Seconded by Councillor Mrs Douthwaite, he moved the report.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
420. 3/2006/0992 – DETACHED DWELLING AT LAND ADJACENT TO 19 BROOKSIDE AVENUE, CROOK FOR MR.WOOD.
The meeting was adjourned for two minutes while Members read the supplementary report circulated at the meeting.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report and advised that reason three on page 69 of the report should be deleted.
Councillor Mowbray, seconded by Councillor Grogan moved the report.
58 There being no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
421. 3/2006/0934 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CARE HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BLOCK OF 16 NO. APARTMENTS AT SPRINGFIELD HOUSE, WEST END TERRACE, WILLINGTON FOR DUNELM CASTLE HOMES LTD.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report which was moved by Councillor Mowbray and seconded by Councillor Grogan.
There being no further comments the Chair put the motion to the meeting and upon a vote being taken it was:-
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
The meeting concluded at 7.20pm
CHAIR
59 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
1ST FEBRUARY 2007
PRESENT Councillor Laurie (Chair) Councillors Anderson, Mrs Burn, Mrs Douthwaite, Gale, Grogan, Harker, Kay, Kingston, Moody, Mowbray, Perkins, Mrs Seabury, Taylor, Townsend and Zair.
APOLOGIES Councillors Jago, Mrs Lee, and Stonehouse.
ADVISERS D. Townsend, Head of Development and Building Control; A. Coates, Legal Executive; Mrs L. Spence, Democratic Services Manager and Mrs H. Wilson, Committee Administrator.
As members of the public had indicated that they wished to speak (see attached schedule) it was AGREED to consider the following items at this stage in the meeting.
422. 3/2006/0786 – GARAGE PLUS BOUNDARY WALL AT LAND SOUTH OF 104 STAINDROP ROAD, WEST AUCKLAND, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR STEPHEN ROBINSON
Councillor Harker declared a personal and prejudicial interest being a close friend of the applicant. He left the room while the item was discussed.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Mr Robinson decided not to speak.
Councillor Mrs Douthwaite, seconded by Councillor Mowbray, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
423. 3/2006/0894 – ERECTION OF 32 APARTMENTS AND 10 HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS/LANDSCAPING AT LAND ADJACENT TO MORLAND STREET, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR THREE RIVERS HOUSING ASSOCIATION
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
1 Ms A Senior attended on behalf of Three Rivers Housing Association. She summarised for Members the houses that would be available for sale and rent. She also made reference to Ground Floor properties, which would be positively suitable for people with mobility problems.
Councillor Anderson had no objections to the development in principle, however, he had some concerns regarding traffic in Morland Street. He moved the report.
Seconding the report Councillor Townsend queried whether the developers were aware of the traffic congestion problems.
Councillor Kay reminded Members that the issue of traffic would be covered in the detailed application and that the proposal to be considered at present was the principle of the development.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
424. 3/2007/0020 – SURFACE MINE, COAL AND FIRECLAY SCHEME AT PARK WALL NORTH, NEAR TOW LAW FOR U.K. COAL MINING LTD
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Although not a Member of the Committee Councillor Hayton had sought permission to speak as Ward Member. He made the following points that had been brought to his attention by his constituents.
In relation to paragraph 5 of the report the time scale given by UK Coal’s Exhibition was 4 years and 9 months and the impression was that the restoration would be completed within that time. However, Councillor Hayton was led to believe that even if a Section 106 agreement was signed and the operation was not completed within 5 years, the company could apply to Central Government to have this set aside which would increase the timescale, scope and dimensions of the operation.
Paragraph 7 had stated the scheme was estimated to provide 61 people with employment, however, Councillor Hayton believed the majority of those positions would be filled from within the company. At the last site there had been very few extra jobs and it appeared unlikely this time; any available jobs would probably be low echelon employment.
Referring to paragraph 9 he was of the opinion that the community funding promised would not be available until coal from the site was being sold. Many local communities may want to bid for specific projects but if the funding was not used within a certain time scale then it would have to be returned.
Paragraph 16 outlined the expected increase in traffic movement from the site, however, a further application for a similar site to the North West of
2 Tow Law, with an estimated 50 lorries each day, would result in a total of 254 heavy lorry movements a day from both sites. This would be a significant increase on an already overburdened high street.
The promised environment in paragraph 21 did excite the mind until the spindly, insignificant growth of the hedges and vegetation from the previous site has been seen. Even if the promised woodland did come to fruition it would be many years in the future.
Councillor Hayton suggested that the noise levels as discussed in paragraphs 25 and 26 would be very difficult to predict. Fireclay required much heavier blasting, which would cause vibration as well as noise in an unpredictable subterranean area: structural damage to nearby properties could also be an aspect.
Finally the chances of getting industry and regeneration in this area could only be damaged by constant proposals to change the very geographical and topographic nature of its environment. The area had played a major part in providing the nations fuel and wealth resources in the past, local residents should now be allowed to enjoy the very beautiful and healthful environment. It was ironic that planning permission had just been granted for 4 huge windmills to help reduce the need for fossil fuels.
Councillor Grogan agreed although his main concern was the traffic issue. He also believed that it was necessary for the residents of the surrounding areas to be consulted. He therefore moved the report with the following additional objection.
That UK Coal converse with representatives of residents and community associations regarding any future developments of the proposals.
There being no further comments the chair put the motion to the meeting. It was unanimously :
RESOLVED that the objections as detailed in the report together with the additional objection be submitted to Durham County Council.
Councillor Hayton left the meeting.
425. 3/2006/0897 – ERECT GREENHOUSE AT 1 NEWFIELD FARM, STANHOPE, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR MR M AND MRS H GAYER
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Townsend seconded by Councillor Mowbray, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
3 426. 3/2006/1025 – VARIATION OF CONDITION NUMBER 7A OF PLANNING PERMISSION 3/2004/0933, CONVERSION OF AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO 3 LIVE/WORK UNITS – PARK HOUSE FARM, OAKENSHAW FOR MR R JAMES
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Townsend seconded by Councillor Kingston, moved the report.
RESOLVED that permission to vary condition 7a) of planning permission 3/2004/0933 be approved subject to the condition detailed in the report.
427. 3/2006/1012 – CHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO GARDEN AND ENCLOSURE OF LAND BY POST AND RAIL FENCE (1.2 METRE HIGH) AT LAND NORTH AND EAST OF VALLEY VIEW, THORNLEY VILLAGE, TOW LAW, BISHOP AUCKLAND, FOR DANIEL LISTER
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Gale seconded by Councillor Townsend, moved the report.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
428. 3/2006/0887 – NEW DWELLING (RESUBMISSION) AT 5/6 HEIGHTS OF ALMA, STANLEY, CROOK FOR MR NUTTER
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Grogan had visited the site and could see no reason for objection. He moved the report, which was seconded by Councillor Gale.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
429. 3/2006/0947 – SUBMISSION OF RESERVED MATTER DETAILS (LANDSCAPING) IN RELATION TO ERECTION OF NON-FOOD RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS ARRANGMENTS AT LAND OFF A688 AND TINDALE CRESCENT BY- PASS, TINDALE CRESCENT, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR THE CO- OPERATIVE GROUP
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Kay welcomed the report wholeheartedly. This was the final piece in the jigsaw. Seconded by Councillor Mowbray he moved the report.
Councillor Perkins welcomed the development.
4 RESOLVED that the reserved matter for landscaping be approved subject to the condition detailed in the report.
430. 3/2006/0932 – DEMOLISH BLOCK OF 3 GARAGES. ERECT NEW BUILDING TO CREATE 3 GARAGES WITH APARTMENT ABOVE AT BUILDINGS SOUTH OF NEWLANDS AVENUE BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR MR PATTERSON
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Anderson supported the proposals, as currently the site was an eyesore. Seconded by Councillor Mowbray, he moved the report.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
431. 3/2006/0967 – REMOVAL OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF NEW INDUSTRIAL SHED AT BUTTERFLY FARM, NORTH ROAD, TOW LAW FOR MR GIBSON
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Grogan welcomed the proposal and moved the report.
Seconding the report Councillor Gale hoped that eventually jobs would be created.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
432. SECTION 106 AGREEMENT, APPLICATION REFERENCE 3/1996/564 – 139 DWELLINGS FOR MCLEAN HOMES N.E. LTD LAND AT ETHERLEY DENE FARM, BISHOP AUCKLAND
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Perkins supported the proposal, which was seconded by Councillor Townsend.
In response to Members, the Head of Development and Building Control advised that initially it had been thought that sufficient grants would be secured to undertake improvement works, however, the additional costs had not been envisaged.
RECOMMENDED that the Assistant Director for Administration and Legal Services draft and complete a document rescinding the clause of the Section 106
5 Agreement which required the owner to transfer Etherley Dene to the Council.
433. APPEAL DECISION – 3/2006/0332 – APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING PLANNING APPROVALS FOR BLOCK 4 (3/2004/0903) AND BLOCK 5 (3/2004/0905) AT SITE OF FORMER LEYLAND HOUSE MOTOR REPAIRS, TINDALE CRESCENT, BISHOP AUCKLAND FOR CAMBRIDGE COURT DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Kay believed that the whole development had been inappropriate, however, at the time of consideration he had not been a Member of the Council.
Councillor Taylor moved acceptance of the report with reluctance.
RESOLVED that the Inspector’s decision be noted for future reference.
434. APPEAL DECISION – 3/2005/0295 – IMPLEMENT AND LAMBING SHED AT WEST PARK FARM, HELME PARK, BISHOP AUCKLAND, CO. DURHAM FOR MR J. PINKNEY
The Head of Development and Building Control detailed the report.
Councillor Kingston was baffled by the decision as the road was particularly fast and the visibility was very poor.
In response to Councillor Mrs Burn the Head of Development and Building Control advised that Planning Inspectors always visit the appeal sites.
RESOLVED that the Inspector’s decision be noted for future reference.
The meeting concluded at 18.55
CHAIR
6