Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: DM/14/03296/OUT Erection of 2no. apartment blocks, consisting of FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: 13no. apartments NAME OF APPLICANT: Mr D & Mrs W Stephenson, Mr D & Mrs W Robison Land north of Dog and Gun PH ADDRESS: Front Street Great Lumley ELECTORAL DIVISION: Lumley Nick Graham Planning Officer CASE OFFICER: Telephone: 03000 264960 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The site
1. The application site is located within the village of Great Lumley. The site is situated on the corner of Front Street and Medway with the former acting as a main thoroughfare through Great Lumley. The site, along with much of the remainder of Front Street, forms the heart of the village. Other uses of properties along Front Street include residential dwellings, a church, a community centre, shops and social clubs.
2. Formerly the site of the Dog and Gun Public House and Bethel Chapel, the site has been vacant for a number of years following their demolition. Earlier proposals to redevelop the site have faulted and as a consequence the unsightly appearance of the site has been a major concern for local residents and the Parish Council. These concerns prompted a Divisional Member to put the site forward for inclusion in the Council's 'Blight Initiative' in 2011 and officers have engaged in lengthy negotiations to secure improvements to its appearance and ultimately its redevelopment. Progress has been hampered by an ongoing dispute regarding rights of access to the site and in an attempt to overcome this problem, the applicant was offered additional land by the Council's Assets Department to help facilitate the redevelopment of the site in recognition of the ongoing complaints regarding the site’s untidy appearance. After lengthy discussions agreement has been reached to sell the additional land subject to planning permission being obtained by the applicant.
3. Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of two apartment blocks, with eight and five apartments located in each of the blocks respectively. All matters have been reserved for subsequent approval but in order to give an indication of how the site would be redeveloped the application has been accompanied by indicative drawing NEBC/AD/BLOCK/01 demonstrating how the site may look. 4. The application is reported to the committee for determination by members as more than 10 dwellings are proposed and therefore it is a major application.
PLANNING HISTORY
5. 2/07/00542/FUL – Erection of 10no. apartments and associated parking (Full Planning Application) – Approved
6. 2/11/00098/EOT – Extension of time application of 07/00542/FUL for the erection of 10no. apartments and associated parking (Extension of Time Application) – Undetermined
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY:
7. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant.
8. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
9. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report below.
10. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal;
11. Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy – reinforces the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth to create jobs and prosperity, ensuring the planning system supports this aim – ‘significant weight’ is to be placed on this aim. Planning policies should seek to address potential barriers to investment, setting out clear economic vision and strategy which proactively encourages sustainable economic growth, identifies sites and inward investment, and identifies priority areas for economic regeneration. There is no specific advice on decision making.
12. Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes – Housing applications should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities. Policies should be put in place to resist the inappropriate development of residential of residential gardens where development would cause harm to the local area.
13. Part 7 – Requiring Good Design – the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.
NATIONAL PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE:
14. The Government has recently cancelled a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents and replaced them with National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The NPPG both supports the core government guidance set out in the NPPF, and represents detailed advice, both technical and procedural, having material weight in its own right. The advice is set out in a number of topic headings and is subject to change to reflect the up to date advice of Ministers and Government.
15. Rural Housing – It is important to recognise the particular issues facing rural areas in terms of housing supply and affordability, and the role of housing in supporting the broader sustainability of villages and smaller settlements. A thriving rural community in a living, working countryside depends, in part, on retaining local services and community facilities such as schools, local shops, cultural venues, public houses and places of worship. Rural housing is essential to ensure viable use of these local facilities.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY:
16. The following are the relevant ‘saved’ policies from the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan considered relevant, being given a degree of weight dependent on their compatibility with the advice set out in the NPPF.
17. Policy HP6 – Residential within Settlement Boundaries – identifies Great Lumley as a settlement where residential development will be allowed on non-allocated sites that are previously developed land and meet the criteria of Policy HP9.
18. Policy HP9 – Residential Design Criteria (General) – requires new development to; relate well to the surrounding area in character, setting, density and effect on amenity of adjacent property, to provide an attractive, efficient and safe residential environment, to provide adequate privacy and amenity, safe road access and retain existing landscape features.
19. Policy RL5 – Provision in New Developments – subject to dwelling sizes and types proposed, and the level of local provision, there is a requirement for at least 125m² children’s play space and 250m² informal open space to be provided within the site for every 1 hectare of land developed or redeveloped for residential purposes, adjusted pro-rata for smaller sites.
20. Policy T15 – Access and Safety provisions in design – Development should have safe access to a classified road, should not create high levels of traffic exceeding capacity, have good links to public transport, make provision for cyclists and service vehicles and have effective access for emergency vehicles RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:
The County Durham Plan
21. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision- takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. Further, the Planning Practice Guidance explains that in limited circumstances permission can be justifiably refused on prematurity grounds: when considering substantial developments that may prejudice the plan-making process and when the plan is at an advanced stage of preparation (i.e. it has been submitted). The Plan gathers weight at is progresses through the Examination in Public. This exercise is underway, and the Plan is beginning to gain some material weight. To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
22. Policy 1 – Sustainable Development – sets out a presumption in favour of such through 18 subsections including directing economic growth to existing centres, protecting agricultural land, promoting inclusive and healthy communities, achieving well designed accessible places, making the most effective use of land, and conserving the quality diversity and distinctiveness of the County including the conservation and enhancement of designated and non-designated heritage assets.
23. Policy 2 – Spatial Approach – Sustainable development will be directed to a hierarchy of settlements with allowance made for development to allow smaller communities to become more sustainable.
24. Policy 15 – Development on Unallocated Sites – allows development on such where it is appropriate in design and location to the function of the settlement, does not lose the last community facility, is compatible with adjacent land uses and does not involve development in the countryside that does not meet the criteria set out in Policy 35.
25. Policy 16 – Sustainable Design in the Built Environment – sets out 17 elements required for development to be permitted, including the need for development to positively contribute to an area’s character, identity, townscape and landscape features and to promote diversity and choice through the delivery of a balanced mix of compatible buildings.
26. Policy 18 – Local Amenity – states that permission will only be granted for proposals providing it can be shown that a significant adverse impact on amenity would not occur including, for example, loss of light and privacy, visual intrusion, overlooking, noise and odour. In addition to this, permission will not be granted for sensitive land uses where suitable mitigation measures cannot be put in place to rectify the adverse impact on amenity.
27. Policy 20 – Green Infrastructure – Development will be expected to conserve, and where required improve and extend, the County’s green infrastructure network, and will only be permitted where they meet the standards of open space provision set out in the Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA).
The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/durham/text/00cont.htm. CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES:
28. The Highways Officer comments that the Council's 2014 Parking Guidance now only requires one visitor space per three properties, and not one per two units as previously required. Nevertheless, the submitted plan shows only 13 spaces for 13 properties, not the 17 spaces required.
29. The Officer appreciates that this is an outline application, and that it will almost certainly be possible to provide the additional four parking spaces required within the site. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the scheme shown on plan NEBC/AD/BLOCK/01 is unacceptable and the proposal must be objected to for the following reason -
30. Adequate provision cannot be made on the site for the parking of vehicles in a satisfactory manner. The proposed development would be likely to encourage the parking of vehicles on the public highway, which would interrupt the free flow of traffic and prejudice the safety of road users at this location.
31. Following submission of a revised layout plan demonstrating that four additional parking spaces can be provided within the curtilage of the site, the Highways Officer provided additional comments, noting that the amended plan shows the four additional parking spaces required. Whilst concerns remain regarding the layout, it is considered that this is an outline application with all matters reserved, and therefore the principle of residential development on this site cannot be objected to.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:
32. The Spatial Policy Officer commented that the requirements of Policy 15 of the County Durham Plan regarding development on unallocated sites appears to be met, and there is no objection to residential development on the site in principle in line with Paragraph 17 of the NPPF and Policy 1 of the County Durham Plan.
33. The Officer acknowledges that the application is in outline form. However, the design information which has been supplied raises issues in terms of density, height and form, between the proposal and its surroundings.
34. It is noted that the applicant states that the site area is 0.1ha which would mean a density of 130 dwellings per hectare. The site area actually appears to be a little larger – 0.138ha – but this still means a density of 94 dwellings per hectare. The Spatial Policy Officer states that this is very high in any circumstances, and is at variance with the surroundings, in which most dwellings are semi-detached houses at low densities.
35. The layout of the site does not seem to be highly permeable. To some extent, this is probably inevitable, given the constraints of a small infill site. Highways Officers will need to give their opinion on the access arrangements.
36. The Officer notes that the design seems to show no green infrastructure within the site and states that it would be inappropriate to request functional open space within the site, but it is reasonable a) to expect a certain amount of landscaping or street trees within the site and b) to request developer contributions for the improvement of existing open spaces within the village.
37. The Spatial Policy Officer advises that there is no objection to the principle of residential development on this site. However, this particular development has some issues which may require further consideration. It is at a very high density, which is at variance with the surroundings and could have implications for the quality and quantity of the living accommodation provided; there seems to be no landscaping within the scheme; and insufficient parking spaces have been provided
38. The Environmental, Health and Consumer Protection Officer commented that there is no requirement for a contaminated land condition.
PUBLIC RESPONSES:
39. Neighbours have been consulted, a site notice was posted on Front Street, and a press notice was published in The Northern Echo. One objection has been received outlining the following grounds for objection:
Concern regarding land and buildings within the curtilage of the site but attached via a party wall to the adjacent business. Noise during construction may put off customers from visiting.
40. Great Lumley Parish Council commented with concerns regarding car parking and specifically that cars will park at the Community Centre opposite the site.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT:
41. The applicant has declined to submit a statement in support of the application.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=094A2B536906573355306C1DFC060E88?action=firstPage
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
42. Having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of development, layout and design, impact upon its surroundings, landscape and ecology, and highway safety and the loss of playing fields.
Principle of the Development
43. The site is located within Great Lumley village centre, in the settlement boundary as designated in the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan Proposals Map. In locations such as this, small housing schemes are supported in principle. In particular, Paragraph 48 of the NPPF explains that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF goes on to state that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
44. Additionally, in line with Paragraph 17 of the NPPF, the proposal would positively reuse land that has been previously developed, and as it is not considered to be of high environmental value, this supports the principle of residential development being established on this site. Therefore the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy HP6 of the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan. Impact upon the Surrounding Area and Site Density
45. The site occupies a prominent location within the village centre, on the Front Street. As previously mentioned, the site is a blight site and is therefore derelict in nature. Such a proposal would undeniably improve the visual amenity of Great Lumley village centre, and would increase the amenity value of the area substantially. As the application is outline, design and layout of the proposal are reserved matters.
46. The Spatial Policy Officer has noted concerns with respect to the very high density of the proposals, and the proposed type of housing. Although it is noted that the indicative plans show that the proposal does not fit in with the surrounding house types of two-storey semi-detached houses at low densities, it is not considered that such a reason warrants refusal of the application, particularly as the proposal meets the criteria of Policies HP6 and HP9 of the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan by providing housing within the settlement of Great Lumley, as well as improving the streetscene by virtue of the development of a blight site.
Highway Safety and Parking
47. Concerns were raised with respect to the number of car parking spaces being proposed on site, and the proposal was objected to by the Highways Officer. Originally, 13 car parking spaces were proposed, not meeting the criteria of the County Durham 2014 Parking Guidance, which requires one visitor car parking space per three properties, thus four additional spaces were required. The applicant submitted a revised site layout plan, which demonstrated that four additional spaces can be accommodated within the site. The Highways Officer submitted additional comments confirming the proposed parking to be acceptable, and as the application is outline, the parking layout can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be detrimental to highway safety, and complies with Policy T15 of the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan and the NPPF.
Neighbouring amenity
48. Policy HP9 of the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan requires residential development to respect the amenity of adjoining properties. The closest properties are located to the north and east on Medway and High Barnes respectively, immediately adjacent to the site within 10 metres of the site boundary. To the west of the site is Great Lumley Methodist Church, and to the eastern side of Medway is a small Co-Operative supermarket. To the southern side of Front Street is Great Lumley Community Centre and its associated car park. Additionally, the site’s curtilage wraps around a salon business, from which derelict buildings share a party wall. The indicative plan submitted indicates these would be removed as part of the development. Details of the relationship between the existing buildings and the proposed buildings would need to be assessed at the reserved matters stage however it would appear that the site could be satisfactorily developed while complying with the Council’s privacy distances and satisfactorily maintaining neighbouring amenity.
Landscaping and Green Infrastructure
49. The Spatial Policy Officer has raised several points regarding the potential for green infrastructure, however as this is a constrained site there is little opportunity on-site to incorporate green infrastructure. The proposal as submitted only provides for limited open space and makes no provision for children's play space. It therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policy RL5 of the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan and Policy 20 of the emerging County Durham Local Plan which seek to conserve and preferably improve and extend the green infrastructure as part of any such development, and where this is not feasible, through off-site provision by way of developer contributions. In this instance this would amount to a sum of £13,000 which represents £1,000 per dwelling. However, the applicant is unwilling to pay the off-site contribution.
50. This requirement needs to be balanced against the fact that the unsightly and untidy appearance of the site has been a source of complaint for a number of years and the application is the culmination of a number of years of negotiation by officers, through the 'Blight Initiative', in an attempt to secure its redevelopment. It should also be noted that the indicative proposal accompanying the application does show that there is some scope for landscaping within the site and this will be pursued at the reserved matters stage if members are minded to grant permission, in order to ensure that the site is developed in a manner which would ultimately improve the appearance of the site and the wider street scene of Front Street and Great Lumley village centre.
51. In the circumstances, it is considered that, despite the comments of the Spatial Policy Officer, such a contribution should not be requested in this instance in the interests of securing its redevelopment at the earliest opportunity.
Other considerations
52. An objector has asked for clarification regarding the existing buildings connected to the business which is wrapped around by the site’s curtilage. As the proposal is outline a detailed plan would not be submitted until the reserved matters stage. Additionally, the objector has noted the potential impact that any construction work may have upon their business, however it is accepted that this is the nature of any such development and is therefore not a material planning consideration.
CONCLUSION
53. Previously the site of a former pub and chapel, the re-use of the site as residential development within Great Lumley village centre is considered to be an acceptable and appropriate use of the site. Given the village centre location, it is not considered that the proposal would be significantly detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity. Although it is noted that the landscaping measures proposed do not conform with Policy RL5 of the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan and Policy 20 of the upcoming County Durham Plan, and the density of the site is higher than desirable, on balance, the benefits and improvements to this blight site by virtue of such a proposal going ahead would outweigh negative policy concerns. The proposal conforms with Policies HP6, HP9 and T15 of the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan, and the NPPF, and is therefore recommended for approval by members.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions;
1. Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local planning authority before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Approval of the details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans.
Date Received Plan No. Title 06/11/2014 Location Plan
Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at the decision to approve the application has actively engaged with the applicant to secure a positive outcome in accordance with the Chester-le-Street District Local Plan and the NPPF.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Practice Guidance Notes Chester-le-Street District Local Plan (saved policies 2009) County Durham Plan, Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan (2013) Statutory, internal and public consultation responses SITE
Properties
Land To The North Of The Dog and Gun, Front Street, Great Lumley
Planning Services Application Number DM/14/03296/OUT This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date 29th January 2015 Scale