County Planning Committee
Date Tuesday 1 July 2014 Time 2.00 pm Venue Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham
Business
Part A
1. Apologies for Absence 2. Substitute Members 3. Declarations of Interest 4. Applications to be determined a) DM/14/00100/LB and DM/14/00101/FPA - Hamsterley Hall and land to the north of the Hall, Hamsterley Mill, Rowlands Gill, NE39 1NJ (Pages 1 - 96) Restoration of Hamsterley Hall as a single dwelling, incorporating works to the bothy, construction of a garage and reinstatement of conservatory, as well as enabling development comprising 35 new dwellings with garages and a new site access from the B6310, with associated landscaping and infrastructure works.
b) CE/13/01667/FPA - Sheraton and Neville House, Darlington Road, Durham, DH1 4SY (Pages 97 - 134) Conversion and extension of Neville House and demolition and replacement of Sheraton House to form student accommodation development comprising of a total of 418 no. beds and associated works and landscaping.
c) DM/14/00845/FPA - Land North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Co. Durham (Pages 135 - 162) Erection of 167 dwellings, associated infrastructure and landscaping.
d) DM/14/01195/OUT - North East Industrial Estate, Stephenson Road, Peterlee, Durham (Pages 163 - 188) Residential development of 390 dwellings (Outline, all matters reserved except access).
e) DM/14/00362/FPA - North Pier, Seaham Harbour, Seaham (Pages 189 - 200) Proposed repair and restoration of Seaham North Pier including the replacement of the concrete deck, repair and repointing of masonry walls, repair and replacement of concrete coping stones, works to repair three previously breached sections, and temporary access to the Pier off the A182.
f) DM/14/00464/WAS - Heights Quarry, Eastgate, Durham (Pages 201 - 214) Change of use from quarry to recycling of road planings and road base.
g) DM/14/00465/WAS - Hulands Quarry, nr Bowes, Durham (Pages 215 - 226) Change of use from quarry to recycling of road planings and road base.
5. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration 6. Any resolution relating to the exclusion of the public during the discussion of items containing exempt information
Part B Items during which it is considered the meeting will not be open to the public (consideration of exempt or confidential information)
7. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration
Colette Longbottom Head of Legal and Democratic Services
County Hall Durham 23 June 2014
To: The Members of the County Planning Committee
Councillor K Davidson (Chairman) Councillor B Moir (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors J Allen, B Armstrong, D Boyes, M Dixon, D Hall, G Holland, A Laing, R Lumsdon, C Marshall, H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield, P Taylor and R Young
Contact: Ian Croft Tel : 03000 269702
Agenda Item 4a Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
DM/14/00100/LB and DM/14/00101/FPA APPLICATION NO:
Restoration of Hamsterley Hall as a single dwelling, incorporating works to the bothy, construction of a garage and reinstatement of conservatory, as well as FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : enabling development comprising 35 new dwellings with garages and a new site access from the B6310, with associated landscaping and infrastructure works
David Wilson Homes and Mr Steven Spry NAME OF APPLICANT :
Hamsterley Hall and land to the north of the Hall, ADDRESS : Hamsterley Mill, Rowlands Gill, NE39 1NJ
Leadgate and Medomsley ELECTORAL DIVISION :
Andrew Inch, Team Leader – Strategic Team CASE OFFICER : [email protected] , 03000 261155
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
Background
1. In December 2010 the County Planning Committee refused planning permission for the erection of 60 dwellings as an enabling scheme to bring about the restoration of Hamsterley Hall as a single dwelling. The scheme was subsequently dismissed on appeal in June 2012, following a public inquiry.
2. Whilst the Inspector found that scheme would secure the restoration and future of the heritage asset which is a key public benefit, and that it would also secure associated heritage assets within the estate, and would deliver some other community benefits, she was not satisfied that the proposed housing would not cause material harm to the setting of Hamsterley Hall and associated listed buildings, or harm to the landscape character of the area in which they stand.
3. Furthermore, the Inspector was not satisfied that the amount of enabling development proposed was the minimum necessary to secure the future of Hamsterley Hall. The Inspector further considered that issues of sustainability may be tempered in enabling cases where a scheme is considered to be otherwise acceptable. In performing the balancing exercise required it was concluded that the benefits of the Hall’s restoration did not outweigh the identified disbenefits.
Page 1 4. The applications which are subject of this report therefore comprise of a revised scheme for a reduced number of dwellings with a consequent reduction in the scope of the works to Hamsterley Hall itself and its wider estate.
Site
5. The application site essentially comprises of two parts of the wider Hamsterley Hall Estate, which lies to the south of Hamsterley Mill. The first part of the application site being the Hall itself, which is a Grade II* Listed Building, originally dating from the 17th century. The second part of the application site relates to an area of open agricultural land situated to the north of the Hall, and to the south of Hamsterley Mill.
6. The Hall is approached past the Old Lodge, through Grade II Listed gates off the B6310 Hamsterley Mill to Burnopfield road just to the north of the Hamsterley Mill housing estate and west of Parklands. The estate track, also a public byway, extends past pasture fields to the west and woodland to the east for about ¾ mile where it forks just after the Handley Cross Bridge, itself a Grade II Listed structure, named by the former owner Robert Surtees, an 18 th century novelist. The byway continues with paths leading into the surrounding woodland extending down to the Pont Burn, where the Hall drive then forks away, up to the formal gardens at the front of the Hall. This comprises of a balustrade front lawn, with cupola, pinnacle, gate piers, gate and a cistern all individually Listed as Grade II.
7. To the south of the Hall are stone stables and modern workshop buildings and paddock. The stable and workshops were granted planning permission (CMA/1/83) for their conversion into residential dwellings in 2013, and these works are nearing completion, although they are not yet occupied. Extensive ancient woodland borders the 22 acre surrounding parkland, comprising, streams, rough grass, pasture and mature trees. An abandoned walled garden is located to the north east surrounded by woodland, although this does not form part of the proposals. The gardens around the Hall retain elements of the main phases of their development, including the 18th century woodland, parkland setting, formal garden and re-routeing of the Hall drive.
8. As early as the 14th century a manor house is thought to have occupied the site. The following centuries brought change to the built form. Hamsterley Hall itself has been in continuous use as a dwelling since the 17th century. In the 18 th century the Hall was remodelled with the addition of a new south front. Henry Swinburn, a travel writer, extended it in 1765. Into the 20th century Lord Gort added his ‘architectural embellishments’ to the building and ‘follys or historic architectural fragments’ collected within the formal front gardens that came from, for instance, the Houses of Parliament which changed the house into a museum piece. At this time the estate became known locally as ‘the Gort Estate’. The accumulation of its history and architecture present a significant building and unique house in parkland setting which today is of significant intrinsic interest.
9. During the 1950s and 60s the Hamsterley Mill housing estate was developed on part of the country estate. Although (partly) occupied until 2006 as a family residence, by the 1960s the house was in a state of disrepair, particularly the service wings and bothy. The former owners purchased the property from the Lord Gort Estate in the late 1970s and occupied the principal rooms. A limited number of repair works were undertaken during this ownership, whilst stables, outbuildings and workshops were constructed for use in association with a joinery business.
10. The Hall itself is in a significant state of disrepair, with a large part of the Hall having been the subject of a controlled demolition in 2013 following a significant collapse. As such, having previously reflected the substantial alterations and extensions Page 2 undertaken in the 18 th and 19th centuries, the westernmost range has now been lost. Also forming part of the site is a partially collapsed Bothy building which was attached to the section of the Hall that was recently demolished. The Hall is a rare example of Georgian Gothic architecture, and has been on English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk Register since 2010.
11. Partly due to the deterioration of the building and the significant restoration costs the then owners put the property on the market in 2005. The present owners purchased a large proportion of the remaining estate in 2007.
12. Since the time of the previous application and subsequent appeal, the condition of the Hall has continued to deteriorate. Whilst steps have been taken to stabilise the structure using an internal scaffold system, the rearmost part of the building suffered a major collapse, and was the subject of controlled demolition to ensure that any further collapse did not undermine the attached bothy or central section of the Hall. The Hall is currently uninhabitable.
13. The second part of the application site is located to the north of Hamsterley Hall itself, separated by an area of ancient woodland and through which Hamsterley Burn flows, and comprises of an area of open land of around 4.45 ha in use for grazing purposes. The site itself is situated to the south of the village of Hamsterley Mill itself, with properties in Parklands the nearest, albeit separated by the Derwent Walk, a former railway line, now used as a popular walking and cycling route (National Cycle Network Route 14) between Consett and Swalwell. To the east of the site are further areas of grazing land, with the main driveway to the Hall and the Old Lodge, a dwelling, beyond. The land rises gently from the east to west towards High Hamsterley Farm, located at the highpoint on Crabtree Hill, and adjacent the sites western boundary.
14. The site is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV), is adjacent to a designated wildlife corridor and a site of Special Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). Hamsterley Hall Historic Parkland lies adjacent to the site; however, the emerging County Durham Plan proposes that this designation be extended to include the application site. In addition, the emerging plan also proposes that the site and its surroundings be designated as Green Belt.
Proposals
15. The applications subject of this report comprise applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent. In December 2010, Listed Building Consent (1/2010/0145) was granted for a range of works to the internal and external fabric of the Hall to facilitate its repair and restoration. These works included, for example: stabilisation and structural remediation to include the roof structure, floor structures, internal and external walls (lintels and beams) to encompass crack stitching, grouting and pinning, and foundation work; restoration of external fabric, including basement and loft, including re-pointing, replacement/repair of brick and stonework and heads and cills, mullions and cills, finial balls, corbel mouldings, new/repaired sliding sash windows, cast iron rainwater goods; replacement roof; and, comprehensive restoration of internal fabric to include: painting specialist cornicing repair, window shutter boxes cords and weight overhaul, restoration of plaster work; window glass, repair/replacement of some doors and ceilings, wall panelling, skirting, repairs to fireplaces and flues, fanlights, ironmongery.
16. The consent has been lawfully commenced though the implementation of works to stabilise the building, and as such, the remainder of these works could be implemented at any time in the future. The application for Listed Building Consent Page 3 submitted this time, therefore seeks consent for a number of additional works or modified proposals. These include:
• Elevational proposals to the newly exposed west elevation of the main Hall following removal of the west wing; • Erection of a new free standing garage to the south Hall with associate new links walls cone ting it to the Halls west elevation; • Interior layout of the bothy; • Gort bay window to the south east corner of the building to be removed and the pre-Gort arrangement re-instated; • Gort first floor window at the eastern end of the south elevation to be removed and the pre-Gort arrangement to be reinstated; and, • Revised internal arrangements.
17. In addition to the works already benefiting from consent and those described above, planning permission is also sought in relation to the reinstatement of the conservatory to the southern elevation and the erection of a triple garage building to the southwest corner of the Hall abutting it by way of a linked garden wall. The implementation of these works would bring about the repair and restoration of the Hall and secure the core of the building to ultimately facilitate its re-use as a single dwelling by the applicants. The applicants submit that there are substantial costs associated with the implementation of these works, and which far exceed the value of the Hall once they have taken place. As such there exists a conservation deficit.
18. In order to meet the conservation deficit, planning permission is sought for the erection of 35 dwellings on land to the North of the Hall, the residual profit from which would be used to cross-subsidise the repair and restoration of the Hall. The well- established planning policy of restraint on new housing in open countryside is such that the proposed housing would represent a departure from planning policy, and as such, the proposals are considered to be a form of enabling development.
19. As set out earlier in this report, these are revised proposals form those previously refused planning permission and later dismissed on appeal. In particular, the number of dwellings has been reduced from 60 to 35, whilst the works to be funded have been reduced in scope to only those considered necessary to secure the core heritage asset, and therefore no longer includes the internal fit out of the Hall or works around the estate, such as the works to the entrance gates or those to Handley Cross Bridge that formed part of the earlier scheme. These works would now be funded entirely by the applicants separately.
20. The proposed enabling development is essentially on the same site as that where permission was previously refused; however, there are a number of changes, not only in terms of numbers of dwellings that separate the two schemes. In particular, the current scheme includes a reduced development site area of around 4.4ha (from 5ha), and on the basis of a reduced number of dwellings, a much reduced density of development from 12.2dph to 7.9dph. Accordingly, the dwellings are therefore positioned within larger plots of between 750 and 1000sqm, where previously, the largest plots were up to 500sqm. The layout of the site is similar insofar as the site is accessed from the B6310 and leads onto an estate driveway curving through the site and leading up to the south-western corner of the site, and leading to a series of small cul-de-sacs from where access to each plot would be provided. Where previously development was proposed on the eastern side of this access road when entering the site, development is now restricted to the western side until much further into the site, with undeveloped land forming substantial areas of open space. Consequently, the nearest dwellings from the Old Lodge are around 100m further away than they were previously. Page 4
21. Where previously, the layout was more suburban and open in character, the proposed dwellings themselves are set within heavily landscaped plots, with structure planting along rear plot boundaries, native hedgerow planting (Beech, Hazel and Ivy) between plots and non-native hedgerow planting (Blackthorn and ornamental species such as Pyracantha) to front boundaries, and designed to be reflective of the character of the Hamsterley Mill estate itself. There would be a range of six detached house types, bespoke to the proposed development, all having two storeys with 4 bedrooms. Double or triple garaging would be provided for each dwelling.
22. A substantial area of tree planting would take place between the development area and the ancient woodland which separates the site from the Hall itself. The landscaping belt would be between 10 and 25m wide and would consist of structural planting including forest scale specimen trees comprising a mix of Maple, Sycamore, Silver Birch, Beech, English Oak and Scots Pine trees. This mix of planting would generally be repeated around most of the site boundaries and between plots.
23. The site access would also provide access to the existing car park associated with the Derwent Walk, with the existing access being closed off.
24. The application is accompanied by a range of supporting information, including: Ancient Woodland Assessment; Arboricultural Assessment; Arboricultural Method Statement; Archaeological Building Recording; Archaeological desk-based Assessment; Conservation Plan; Design and Access Statement; Emergency Archaeological Watching Brief; Financial Development Appraisal; Funding Statement; Geophysical Survey and Archaeological Evaluation; Habitat and Protected Species Risk Assessment; Great Crested Newt Survey Report; Hamsterley Hall and Enabling Development document; Hamsterley Hall: History, Architecture and Landscape; Inspection Report; Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal; Landscape Strategy; Planning Statement; Sustainability Statement; Statement of Community Involvement Summary Statement; Transport Statement; Valuation Report; and, Woodland Management Plan.
25. The application is also accompanied by a draft section 106 legal agreement which contains a number of planning obligations, including:
• Restoration works to the Hall and Bothy; • Completion of the emergency stabilisation works to be completed within 5 months of the grant of planning permission; • Completion of the Hall Works and Bothy works within 3 years of commencement of development on the housing land; • Timing/phasing of the new build to prevent occupation of the 10 th dwelling until the restoration work to the Hall has taken place and to prevent occupation of the 21 st dwelling until the restoration work to the Bothy has been carried out; • Parent company guarantee to secure repair works in default; • Public access to the Hall at the national Red Cross Charity weekend each autumn and for bona fide scholarly organisations, interest groups and skilled craftsmen on up to 10 occasions every year; • Training and recruitment strategy including school/college/university site visits, school workshops, apprenticeships and work experience placements; • Two interpretation boards providing information on the Hall and estate and surrounding landscape, Derwent Walk and biodiversity which would be located
Page 5 next to Handley Cross Bridge adjacent to the byway and at the entrance to the Derwent Walk adjacent to the car park; • The provision of a ‘Gateway Feature Scheme’ consisting of two signs and road markings to reflect the speed limit and to encourage cars to slow down and drive carefully; • The provision of two bus lay-bys with shelters; • A link footpath between the Parklands and the Derwent Walk • New access to the Derwent Walk car park with closure of the existing access; • Woodland management of ancient woodland; and, • An open space contribution of £10,500.
26. The section 106 agreement includes provisions to ensure deliverability of all the above elements and with fall back sanctions if they are not delivered.
27. The application is being reported to the County Planning Committee on the basis that the site area exceeds 4 hectares.
PLANNING HISTORY
28. As set out above, the most recent planning history for the site relates to the refusal of planning permission (1/2010/0143) in December 2010 for the restoration of the Hall including an enabling development of 60 dwellings. This scheme was subsequently dismissed on appeal. At the time of planning permission being refused, Listed Building Consent (1/2010/0145) for the works to bring about the repair and restoration of the Hall were granted.
29. Since that time, planning permission has been granted for the conversion of stable and workshop buildings, adjacent to the Hall, into three dwellings. Works to implement this permission have almost been completed; however, the buildings have not been brought into use as dwellings.
30. Applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the erection of replacement entrance gates at the site access on B310 adjacent the Old Lodge are currently being considered by the Council.
31. In the 1980s, there were a number of relatively minor applications for works around the site; whilst in 1977 permission was granted for a Change of Use of the Hall from a single dwelling house to a hotel and restaurant.
32. Hamsterley Hall was upgraded from a Grade II Listed Building to Grade II* in 1979.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY :
33. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should 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.
34. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions
Page 6 positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:
35. Part 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy . The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon future.
36. Part 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.
37. Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
38. Part 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes . To boost significantly the supply of housing, applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities.
39. 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.
40. Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Developments should be safe and accessible; Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space and community facilities. An integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.
41. Part 9 – Protecting green belt land . The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Green Belt land serves 5 purposes; to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
42. Part 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
Page 7 43. Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment . The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.
44. Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Local Planning authorities should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. Specifically in relation to enabling development, local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)
45. 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 contains guidance on a number of issues including conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
46. The English Heritage document Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places, offers specific guidance on the assessment of enabling development proposals. In particular, it contains a specific policy that establishes various criteria against which to assess such proposals. These are: (a) It will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting; (b) It avoids detrimental fragmentation of management of the place; (c) It will secure the long-term future of the place and its continued use for a sympathetic purpose; (d) It is necessary to resolve the problems arising from the inherent needs of the place rather than the circumstances of the present owner or the purchase price paid; (e) Sufficient subsidy is not available from any other source; (f) It is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the place and that its form minimizes harm to other public interests; and (g) The public benefit of securing the future of the significant place through the enabling development decisively outweighs the disbenefits of breaching other public policies. 47. If it is decided that a scheme of enabling development meets all these criteria, English Heritage believes that planning permission should only be granted if: (a) The impact of the development is precisely defined at the outset; (b) The achievement of the heritage objective is securely and enforceably linked to it;
Page 8 (c) The place concerned is repaired to an agreed standard, or the funds to do so are made available, as early as possible in the course of the enabling development, ideally at the outset and certainly before completion or occupation; and (d) The planning authority closely monitors implementation, if necessary acting promptly to ensure that obligations are fulfilled.
www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/enabling-development-and-the-conservation-of-significant-places/
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
Derwentside District Local Plan (1997) (DLP)
48. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles. Aims to ensure that all developments incorporate a high standard of design are energy efficient, protect landscape, natural and historic features, protect and manage ecology, protect valuable open land, provide adequate landscaping, incorporate crime prevention measures and improve personal safety, protect amenity and provide adequate drainage.
49. Policy EN1 - Development in the Countryside - will only be permitted where it benefits the rural economy or helps maintain or enhance landscape character. Proposals should be sensitively related to existing settlement patterns and to historic, landscape, wildlife and geological resources.
50. Policy EN2 - Preventing urban sprawl - advises that development outside existing built up areas will not be permitted if it results in: the merging or coalescence of neighbouring settlements; or ribbon development; or an encroachment into the surrounding countryside.
51. Policy EN3 - Extensions to Buildings in Rural Areas - Extensions to single buildings and those contained within small groups of buildings in the countryside, will only be permitted if: (a) the proposal reflects the character and style of the original building; and the scale of the extension does not adversely affect the appearance of the original building; and c) the proposal does not result in the loss of a feature which contributes to the character of the original building or locality.
52. Policy EN6 - Development within Areas of High Landscape Value - Development will only be permitted provided that it pays particular attention to the landscape qualities of the area in the siting and design of buildings and the context of any landscaping proposals.
53. Policy EN7 - Protection of Historic Parkland - Historic parklands will be protected from development which would harm their character.
54. Policy EN10 - Protection of Ancient Woodlands - Development which would have a detrimental effect on ancient woodland will not be permitted.
55. Policy EN11 - Trees and Development - states that throughout the district existing trees should be retained where possible.
56. Policy EN17 - Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings - Consent will only be given to an alteration or extension to a listed building or to the erection of a new building adjacent to a listed building where: (a) the special character of the building or its setting, including internal features and elements within the curtilage of the building, will be retained; and (b) the design and scale of the proposal and the materials to be used are complementary to the existing building. Page 9
57. Policy EN19 - Protection of Sites and Settings of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Features - there will be a presumption of the retention in situ of nationally important remains. Remains of more local significance will be protected from damage. An archaeological assessment may be requested prior to determining an application. Recording of known remains will be required where these would be affected.
58. Policy EN22 - Protection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance - Development will only be permitted which would not lead to the loss of or cause significant harm to sites of nature conservation importance
59. Policy EN23 - Wildlife Corridors - When considering development proposals, regard will be had to the need to maintain the nature conservation value and integrity of the wildlife corridors of strategic importance. Wherever possible, development proposals which would impinge on a wildlife corridor should include compensatory measures to enhance or restore the nature conservation interest of the area.
60. Policy EN26 - Control of Development Causing Pollution - permission will only be granted for development which is not likely to have an adverse impact on the environment having regard to likely levels of air, noise, soil or water pollution.
61. Policy HO19 - Extensions and Alterations to Existing Dwellings – Planning permission will only be granted for the extension or alteration of a dwelling if the proposal: (a) reflects the character of the original dwelling and its surroundings; (b) respects the scale of the original dwelling; (c) incorporates pitched roofs wherever possible; (d) specifies materials to match those of the existing dwelling; (e) does not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and/or amenity to neighbouring occupiers; and (f) does not result in the loss of off-street car parking space such that the level of provision is unacceptable.
62. Policy HO22 – Recreational public open space within housing sites. New housing developments should include public open space and play areas, in appropriate locations. Approval may be subject to condition or planning obligation to ensure that the area(s) will be set out and then maintained; or the developer agrees to make a financial payment in lieu of provision, where provision cannot be made on site.
63. Policy RE4 – Protection of Public Footpaths. Development directly affecting public right of way, or other recreational route, will only be permitted if an acceptable route is provided.
64. Policy TR2 – Development and Highways Safety. Requires developments to make satisfactory and safe provision for access to the site, road and public transport network and parking provision in compliance with car parking standards.
65. Policy TR3 – Cycling. When considering proposals for new developments, the Council will ensure that the needs of cyclists are taken into account.
EMERGING POLICY:
66. 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
Page 10 policies in the NPPF. The following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
67. Policy 1 – Sustainable Development. When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. All development proposals, from design through to implementation will be considered against various criteria to assess their sustainability including: support the local economy; provide for skills development; locate development with the aim of reducing the need to travel; ensure development takes into account climate change; promote well designed and accessible place; conserve and enhance the quality, diversity and distinctiveness of County Durham’s towns, villages and landscapes; conserve and enhance designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings; protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; maximize opportunities for renewable and low carbon energy generation.
68. Policy 2 – Spatial Approach. Development will be delivered across the County in accordance with the Spatial Approach, with the main towns, small towns and larger villages being the main focus of housing development. In rural areas, development that meets the need of the local community (for instance affordable housing and economic diversification) will be permitted providing the countryside is protected from wider development pressures and widespread new building.
69. Policy 3 – Quantity of new development. In order to meet needs and aspirations, at least 31,400 new homes are required.
70. Policy 4 – Distribution of development. To reflect the spatial approach the Plan allocates sufficient sites to provide for housing.
71. Policy 13 – Other Executive Housing Proposals. Development proposals for executive housing will be permitted where the site is allocated for housing by Policy 30 or meets the criteria set out in Policy 15. In other cases, it will be permitted where the site is a previously developed site, the site is no longer required for its existing lawful use; and it will not prejudice the delivery of the Lambton Estate site allocation.
72. Policy 14 – Green Belt. Within the Green Belt, the construction of new buildings will be regarded as inappropriate and will not be permitted, subject to various exceptions.
73. Policy 15 – Development on Unallocated Sites . Permits development on unallocated sites provided they are appropriate in scale, design and location to the character and function of the settlement, and amongst other things, would not involve development in the countryside that does not meet the criteria defined in Policy 35.
74. Policy 31 – Addressing Housing Need . Provision of 15% affordable housing in North West Durham. In applying the requirement, the cost of developing the site and the impact of this on the viability of any proposed scheme will be considered.
75. Policy 35 – Development in the Countryside . Planning permission for development in the countryside will only be granted where they accord with other relevant policies in the Plan and where one or more of the exceptions apply which include for agriculture or forestry purposes; where the development would enhance County Durham’s environmental or tourism assets including biodiversity, landscape, heritage and where proposals will increase enjoyment of the countryside by enhancing appropriate access for walkers, cyclists, horse riders and other users; or proposals for change of use of a heritage asset or other redundant or dis-used building.
Page 11 76. Policy 39 – Landscape Character. Proposals for new development will only be permitted where they would not cause significant harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscapes or to important features or views, unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh its impact.
77. Policy 44 – Historic Environment. Development will be required to conserve the fabric, character, setting and cultural significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets and seek opportunities to enhance structures and areas of significance. Development that would lead to substantial harm to or less than substantial harm would need to comply with the criteria provided within this policy.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
78. English Heritage – Advise that as a grade II* listed building Hamsterley Hall is among the top 8% of all listed buildings in England. Its primary significance as a grade II* listed building derives from its association with three families of national and international renown, each of whom shaped the buildings and its surroundings. It is in a very poor state of repair but importantly is not beyond saving if action is taken in the short term. They are satisfied that enabling development is a realistic option to that end, possibly the only option.
79. In terms of whether the proposed enabling development would harm the setting of the Hall, English Heritage advise that, whilst the remnants of a historic park and garden surround Hamsterley Hall, the Hall itself does not dominate its grounds in the typical 18th century manner. Instead, its placement in the landscape emphasises its seclusion overlooking the steep valley of the Pont Burn. This isolation adds significantly to the building’s charm and reflects its relatively domestic scale. The key factor in maintaining this sense of seclusion against the visual impact of the housing is the tree belt to the north of the Hall and the proposal to increase screening in this area is welcomed, and subject to planting and management conditions, they are satisfied that sufficient measures are in place to maintain the secluded aspect of the Hall’s setting. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with paragraph 132 of the NPPF, which states that great weight should be given to conserving a listed building, including its setting where this contributes to the building’s significance.
80. English Heritage note that in light of the Inspector's decision, the amount of development has been reduced and the profits arising from it more tightly focussed on the repair of the Hall, and they accept that this is a realistic change, more acceptable to the wider planning concerns of the application. As a result, the full refurbishment of the Hall would not be achieved immediately and some doubt must remain over its future; however, more importantly, it would be stabilised and its market value would increase meaning that the risk of its loss is vastly reduced. They advise that carrying out of the repair works would be sufficient to remove the Hall from the Heritage at Risk register.
81. In relation to the amount of development proposed, English Heritage highlight the independent analysis of the financial case that was jointly commissioned by English Heritage and Durham County Council. The conclusion reached was that the amount of new housing would realise a profit just short of the amount needed to repair the Hall as planned but that this shortfall was within acceptable variations of development economics and likely to be covered by any uplift in sales or cost savings. Consequently, they advise that the amount of new housing is realistic and most significantly not in excess of requirements.
Page 12
82. In addition to the assessment of key aspects of enabling development in terms of the setting of the Hall and the amount of development proposed, English Heritage have also provided a critique of the scheme against the policy tests set out in the English Heritage guidance.
83. In concluding on the proposed enabling development, they advise that it is unusual for enabling development to fund just repair rather than a completed scheme of refurbishment, and it is important to consider that enabling development should be a ‘one off’ occurrence and that incremental approaches where additional development is asked for to cover unforeseen costs, is not acceptable. However, the reason behind the reduced scale of development and therefore a reduced sum to spend on the Hall reflects the Planning Inspector's decision on the previous planning application. This has produced a pragmatic approach where the public benefit of enabling development is the reversion of decades of neglect to a point where a grade II* building is stabilised, its main features of historic interest repaired and final conversion to a house can proceed, because it is financially possible and worthwhile to do so. English Heritage therefore advise that this still constitutes a substantial local and national public benefit and is far preferable to allowing the current situation to persist where the threat of catastrophic collapse and the substantial repair costs will only increase. They are therefore supportive of the proposals due to the significant public benefit that would arise from securing the future of Hamsterley Hall.
84. In relation to the works requiring listed building consent they advise that the application amends and adds to a previously approved application which aims to bring Hamsterley Hall back in to use as a single dwelling. The most significant change proposed is considered to be the loss of one historic phase from the exterior of the main elevation of the Hall, namely, the Tudor windows installed by the 7th Viscount Gort in the 1930s. However, the loss is felt to be justified because of the poor condition of the fabric in question, that better more significant evidence of this phase would remain and some visual improvement to the elevation would result. Consequently the application is considered to accord with paragraphs 128 and 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework. English Heritage also advise that a case for enabling development must be supported by acceptable works to a listed building, tied to a grant of listed building consent.
85. Highway Authority -. Advises that the Inspector considered the location of the site to be ‘inherently unsustainable’ in transport terms and there is the recognition that an executive type development in a rural location is likely to be more reliant on the private car. Notwithstanding this, there is some scope for sustainable travel within the application with bus stops on the B6310 / A694 and the Derwent Walk cycle route sitting alongside the site access. The B6310 is a local rural distributor road and its classification and speed limit is appropriate for the type and movements of traffic associated with the development, with the site access having an acceptable sight visibility onto main road.
86. Whilst there has been one personal injury accident on the B6310 in the vicinity of the proposed access over the past 5 years, which resulted from loss of control of the vehicle late at night, this single incident would not support a need for a reduced speed limit. Enhancement of the limit through improved signing and a gateway feature would be effective at this location, and would be secured through the section 106 agreement. Proposed bus stops and a footway link along the south side of the B6310 between the site access and the footway link leading to Parklands are desirable, and would be secured though the section 106 agreement
Page 13 87. In addition to the above, it is recommended that the footway identified for public transport access should be a widened shared pedestrian / cycle facility, and that the access improvements to the small car park provided alongside the Derwent Walk are welcomed. Consequently, no objections are raised to the proposals.
88. Natural England - Advise that the application site lies in close proximity to the Strother Hills Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and that subject to the proposed development being carried out in accordance with the submitted details, it would not lead to damage or destruction of the interest features for which the site has been notified, and raise no objection in this regard. Standing Advice is offered in relation to impacts on protected species and the authority is advised that it should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site. Natural England also advise that the development is in an area which would benefit from green infrastructure provision, as the site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site or Local Nature Reserve, and the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand that impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application.
89. Environment Agency – Advises that they have no objection. They recommend that planning conditions are attached to any planning permission in relation to limiting the surface water run-off generated by the site to 9.6l/s and to require a scheme to be agreed to protect a 5m wide buffer zone around the Hamsterley Burn.
90. Coal Authority – Advises that the application site lies within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in determining the planning application. The Coal Authority originally objected to this planning application on the grounds that a Coal Risk Assessment Report, or equivalent, had not been submitted. However, a Phase 1: Desk Top Study Report and a Phase 2: Ground Investigation Report, which were informed by an appropriate range of sources of information including a Coal Mining Report and BGS geological mapping, together with ground investigation including a series of trial pits and boreholes drilled to establish ground conditions. The Coal Authority is satisfied with the report’s conclusion that no future mitigation measures are recommended and has therefore raised no objection to the proposed development.
91. Northumbrian Water Limited – Advise that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the impact on their ability to treat foul flows, and as such, a condition is recommended in relation to agreeing a scheme of foul water drainage.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
92. Design and Historic Environment Section – Advises that Hamsterley Hall, is a Grade II* structure that should be considered as having exceptional heritage value. Due to its physical condition, it currently sits on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register and in order to ensure that it does not suffer further catastrophic structural failure, and further general dilapidation it requires significant conservation work. The works subject of the application for Listed Building Consent are generally considered acceptable in terms of impact on the historic buildings fabric, significance and its setting against a background of the urgent requirement to restore this highly significant, eclectic and interesting building and bring it back into sustainable use.
93. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed physical works to Hamsterley Hall that require planning permission, are all considered to be appropriate. In terms of the works to be funded by the enabling development, they advise that it is only those works which are needed to provide structural stability, weather protection, retention Page 14 of the most significant existing historic fabric and interest and the minimum to secure the shell of the principal building that would be secured.
94. In terms of the layout and design of the proposed housing, they advise that the houses are each deliberately set within their own screened and generous platform/site with substantial green/soft site boundary treatment between each unit giving robust screening within the site which, when added to the spaciousness of the density, has allowed for green banked level changes between plots that do not require heavy engineered solutions. This approach provides for a high quality character and appropriately soft and parkland related appearance worthy of its ‘exceptional’ circumstances. The design of the house types are all influenced by a modern interpretation of the design elements of both the Old Lodge itself and also the wide variety of house types already found around the immediate location. This approach is considered appropriate.
95. The proposed dwellings are considered respectful to the setting of the Old Lodge, being considerably further away than the refused scheme and with the road being ‘sunk’ by use of camber and alignment to be largely hidden from the Old Lodge together with the ‘network’ of superimposed green boundary and tree group screening proposed. The level of harm when weighed against the gain of securing the Grade II*Hall is considered appropriately proportional.
96. Landscape Section – Detailed advice has been provided in terms of the impacts of the development on the parkland and the wider Derwent Valley. In terms of the impacts from the parkland core and gardens in the immediate vicinity of the Hall the proposed housing would be visible through the woodlands particularly in winter, however, given the nature of the topography it would be possible to screen built development in the backdrop of views of the Hall by establishing a visually dense belt of planting to augment the northern edge of the woodland. With those measures in place the effect in this localised but particularly sensitive landscape would be of a medium-high magnitude diminishing progressively to a low or negligible magnitude over around 10 years.
97. The layout would have a notably lower impact on views from the drive than the previous proposal as housing has been set back considerably. This would retain more depth in the view and so reduce the foreshortening noted by the Inspector, as well as allowing the houses to be more effectively screened. With those measures in place the effect on the character of the landscape as viewed from the drive would be of a medium magnitude diminishing progressively to a low or negligible magnitude in around 10 years.
98. In the north-west of the park the landscape character would change from a pastoral to a ‘sub-urban’ character and would have some effect on perceptions of the wider park and estate, and would erode the relationship of High Hamsterley Farm with the wider estate to a substantial degree. The effects of the proposals on the landscape of the parkland in the round as being of up to a high magnitude on completion falling to a medium magnitude beyond around 10 years. The assessment of residual effect as medium reflects the high and permanent, but localised and visually contained, effects in the north-west of the park. The significance of the overall effect on the park would be moderate.
99. The landscape of the wider Derwent Valley is considered to be an attractive landscape of high value which is reflected in its designation as an AHLV, but it is also a settled landscape in which built development is a characteristic feature. The proposals would be visible in a variety of views within the valley, but would be progressively screened by structural landscaping until its appearance became that of Page 15 woodland or a wooded roof-scape similar to that of Hamsterley Mill. The effect of the introduction of additional built form on the character of the wider landscape in these views as varying from a low to moderate magnitude progressing over time to negligible or low.
100. From lower ground in the valley and closer to the site it would be often screened by topography, vegetation and buildings. There would be some visibility in views from the immediate vicinity including short sections of the B6310 east of and passing the site, short sections of the adjacent railway walk and some sections of nearby footpaths. The scale of change in the character of the landscape in these views would be typically medium falling to low with the development of structural landscaping. The significance of the overall effect on the Derwent Valley is assessed as being slight to moderate.
101. Spatial Policy - Advise that at the heart of this proposal is whether the benefits outweigh the disbenefits of departing from policy guidance. The principal benefit is the restoration of the grade II* listed heritage asset. The scheme also proposes a range of additional benefits including a large area of open space, new bus stops on the B6310 near to the entrance of the site, with improved footpath linkages and a new car park to serve the Derwent Walk. Increased structural planting within the site is also of benefit.
102. In order to justify an enabling scheme a range of key tests remain relevant as set down in the English Heritage document Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places. The Inspector noted in the appeal for the previous scheme that the tests and guidance were regarded as material matters for considering the validity of the enabling argument, despite the NPPF taking precedence in terms of considering benefits and disbenefits. Within the balancing exercise for the dismissed scheme the Inspector was not satisfied that the tests set down in the Enabling Document were met. There was insufficient evidence to prove that there would be no material harm to the setting of the heritage asset, or other associated heritage assets. The Inspector was not satisfied that the amount of enabling development was the minimum necessary to secure the future of the Hall; or related to this that the form of the development therefore minimised harm to other public interests, particularly landscape character and the setting of listed buildings; in terms of other policies there would be harm to the character and appearance of an area that is valued locally, as recognised in its designation as an AHLV, contrary to ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies EN1, EN2 and EN6. Crucially the Inspector was of the view that the benefits of restoring the Hall did not outweigh all of these disbenefits when taken together.
103. In terms of the emerging County Durham Plan it is acknowledged that consideration is needed as to the weight to be given to relevant policies, and the extent of the schemes conflict with a number of Policies including: Policy 13 of the Plan, which sets down the criteria for considering proposals for ‘executive housing’ schemes; Policies 15 and 35, which seek to direct residential development to more contained sites that are well related to existing settlements; and, Policy 39 in terms of considering impacts on landscape character. The Plan also proposes a new area of Green Belt in North West Durham which would cover the application site.
104. Archaeology Section – Supports the aims and objectives of the proposed enabling development to provide the financial capital to conserve and restore this highly significant historic building dating from the 18 th century. It is a building of exceptional heritage value which requires immediate conservation management works in order to ensure that it does not suffer further catastrophic structural damage such as that which occurred in 2013. A condition for monitoring the removal of the external and Page 16 internal features and fittings should be placed on the listed building application if consent is given.
105. The proposed enabling development of 35 houses is much reduced from the previous refused application, and the amended layout removes any direct impact on the setting of the listed structures of the Old Lodge, gates, piers and walls at the entrance to the estate drive. Any impact on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Hall is mitigated by the screening effect of the extant Hamsterley Hall Wood and proposed new planting along the southern boundary of the enabling development. The scale of any harm or loss to the designated and non-designated features both within the park and the Hall and its associated features can be viewed as less than substantial. The public benefit which will be gained through the conservation and repair to the Hall is considered to outweigh any minimal/perceived harm to its setting or that of the Old Lodge, wall and gate.
106. The land where the enabling development is proposed has been the subject of archaeological assessments. The geophysical survey identified a number of probable archaeological anomalies as well as evidence of previous ridge and furrow ploughing regimes. Subsequent trial trenches confirmed the presence of significant archaeological features within the proposed enabling development area. A rectangular enclosure and additional linear features have been recorded in the western and northwestern parts of the site, near the vicinity of Plots 24, 27-35 and Plots 16 to 18. In addition, a curvilinear feature containing burnt daub was found in the south-central part of the site in the approximate vicinity of Plots 9, 13 and 14.
107. None of these recorded features suggest that a nationally or regionally significant archaeological resource has been identified within the development area. The nature of the archaeological resource is such that the impact to it by the development can reasonably be mitigated through the imposition of a suitably worded archaeological condition should planning permission be granted. The condition would enable a programme of archaeological works involving a strip, map and record technique to be agreed prior to development commencing. Final analysis and publication of the results would then be covered by a second condition. It is customary to require the final reporting and analysis to be completed prior to occupation of the development.
108. Ecology Section – Advise that on the basis of the submitted ecological surveys and risk assessments that, subject to the imposition of specified mitigation and obtaining relevant European Protected Species Licenses from Natural England, where appropriate, that nature conservation interests would be protected, particularly in relation to Great Crested Newts. Whilst the latest survey information has not yet been provided in relation to bats at the Hall, it must be recognized that a license has previously been obtained for the work to the Hall, and it is considered reasonable to assume that Natural England will therefore grant an amendment to the license given that circumstances remain the same.
109. Assets Section – Advise that they are satisfied that sufficient justification and evidence has been provided to justify key elements such as projected sales revenues and base build costs. Where there are minor discrepancies, for example in relation to the lower level of developer profit, but increased contingency levels, these are balanced out against other assumptions which are significantly below industry standards and our own evidence. Therefore, the financial appraisal appears to be robust and supports the enabling development case in connection with the hall refurbishment.
Page 17
110. Structural Engineer – advises that the details in the submitted Structural Inspection report are considered satisfactory, and on the basis of an earlier visual inspection of the building, it is important that the recommendations in the report are carried out quickly to avoid further loss.
111. Public Rights of Way Officer – Advise that Public Byway 65 Consett passes to the east of the proposed housing site and the applicant intends to provide vehicular access from the development to the byway by means of a surfaced road. There are no major concerns concerning this as it is understood that the link road and byway will not serve as the main vehicle access to the development. It is considered that the temporary closure of any recorded public rights of way would not be necessary to facilitate construction or restoration works.
112. Countryside Section – Advises that a short section of the Derwent Walk’s fence forms a mutual boundary with the new development. Any repair or replacement that the developer’s consider necessary should be included in their programme of works as no funding is available from the County Council. Providing an information board at the entrance to the Derwent Walk would be a very positive benefit for users of the route. It would be appreciated if the development of proposals to provide a footway and bus stop, with associated street lighting, could include any highway safety benefits for users of the Derwent Walk (pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders) whilst crossing the B6310. The Walk has 350,000 users / annum.
113. Economic Development – advised that there is an opportunity to explore employment and skills training that will assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability. They would like to negotiate and agree any targeted employment and skills opportunities to be delivered through this project and for this to be included in the S106 Agreement.
114. Education Authority - Advised that primary school pupils from the development could attend Shotley Bridge, Ebchester CE or Burnopfield, whilst secondary school pupils could attend either the North Durham or Consett Academies. In all cases, there are sufficient places available to accommodate the likely numbers of pupils generated from the development. Free transport would not be provided for primary age children as the schools are within waling distances of 2 miles (for those aged 8 and under) and 3 miles (for those aged over 8). Free transport would be provided to Consett Academy.
115. Business Durham – Advise that their principle focus is the development of the economy of Durham and are minded to support this application. There is a need for more executive housing in the County to provide greater options for senior executives to stay in the area. The development proposed appears to meet these needs and would help address current shortfalls of such housing. There is emerging research evidence that would suggest that similar developments of executive housing not only provide dwellings for senior executives but are also associated with new businesses being started by the residents. Durham currently has one of the lowest business start-up rates in the country, and as such any initiative that helps to encourage the start-up of businesses in the County should be encouraged. Therefore, in addition to direct jobs that would be created during the construction phase, Business Durham is prepared to support this application for executive housing.
116. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) – advise that the site is a ‘greenfield’ development and that a contaminated land condition is not required. Page 18
117. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection – advice is provided on a number of issues: In relation to noise , no concerns are raised in relation to noise from the adjacent ‘B’ road, and that building regulation standards of glazing and ventilation are acceptable. There is potential for noise disturbance to existing residents during the construction phase and conditions are recommended to control construction noise. In relation to light they advise that there would not be an issue with light affecting existing properties. The new street lighting may affect the new residential properties and it is advised that a condition is attached to any approval for a lighting assessment and lighting spillage plan. Several planning conditions are requested relating to a construction management plan, noise emissions during the construction phase, burning of combustible material on site, operation of plant, vehicles and equipment, restriction on the hours of construction and external lighting.
118. Spatial Policy (Green Infrastructure) – Advise that the site lies within the area to be designated as Green Belt in the forthcoming County Durham Plan and within the Area of High Landscape Value identified in the Derwentside Local Plan. The settlement is a “hamlet” in the 2012 Settlement Study, and has few facilities or services and is an unsustainable location for large amounts of development. The electoral division has a very large supply of semi-natural open space and amenity open space but slight shortages in other types – allotments, sports space, parks and gardens. The need for allotments may be compensated for by the large gardens. Development incorporates a large amount of ornamental space which appears to be more than sufficient for the needs of the new residents, but recommends that the open space be designed to provide a park-like environment and (although severance factors intervene) should be made accessible to residents of Hamsterley Mill. Care should be taken to ensure the interconnectedness of footpaths within the development, and pedestrian access to the adjacent or nearby rights of way and footpaths should be provided. Measures will be put in place to limit run-off from the development. Species should be incorporated within the site, which are compatible with those found in the adjacent wildlife sites, so that it is buffered and extended by new habitats within the development.
119. Sustainability Section – Advise that whilst the measures outlined in the submitted Sustainability Statement is appropriate and helps to improve the general performance of the development in sustainability terms, they consider that in general terms the site remains an inherently unsustainable location.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
120. The application has been publicised by way of individual letters to every property in Hamsterley Mill, a number in the surrounding area, as well as notification to all those members of the public who made representations in respect of the earlier scheme. In addition, the application was publicised by way of site notices in the surrounding area and a press notice. There have been 117 letters of objections and 263 letters of support.
121. Turning firstly, to the letters of objection, the main concerns can be summarised around a number of key issues, and these are set out below:
Changes since the previous scheme
• All the objections to the former application still apply, as the proposal is no different from / similar to the previous application for 60 houses on the same site. • Much more of the proposed housing is now situated on rising ground increasing its visibility. Page 19 • The houses are double the size and consequently twice the price. • The site area is only one acre less / 10% smaller than previous. • Reduction in the number of houses has not significantly reduced the footprint of the development site. • To inflict concerned bodies with an insignificantly changed application amounts to an abuse of process • Apart from a slight reduction in dwellings, nothing has changed since the 2012 Appeal. • The new proposal does nothing to reduce the potential damage that will be caused to this tranquil area. • The new proposal does not meet the Inspector’s compromise suggestion. • Housing should be on smaller, dispersed sites. • It still conflicts with all the same planning policies and guidelines. • The appeal decision and reasons for refusal have been disregarded. • The planning grounds for the previous refusal should still stand • This application should be judged against the report and comments made by the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the previous application.
Hamsterley Hall and Enabling Development Policy
Restoration of the Hall
• Hamsterley Hall is of no real historic importance and is of little architectural merit. It has lost many of its original features and its value as a significant historic building must be in question. Is it really worth preserving? • As a result of the west wing collapsing, it should now be declared a ruin. • A property which was deemed valueless by English Heritage in 2006 is now apparently of national importance. • If refurbishment of the hall is so important why has it not been selected and the work carried out by some acknowledged body? • If the only way to save the hall is by causing upset to the rest of the community then the loss of the hall is a risk most people will be willing to take. • We are in agreement that the Hall should be restored; however this should not be at the expense of the local government, its people or to the detriment of an area of outstanding beauty. • Conserving the Hall in some forms is a ‘good thing’ but at what cost to the surrounding area? • The planning application fees would have been better spent on the Hall. • The building of a new garage would be detrimental to the historic appearance of the Hall and its surroundings.
Benefits versus Disbenefits
• The disbenefits of the enabling proposal far outweigh any benefit to the community and the departure from national planning policy • Securing the Hall is to be welcomed; the benefits of this scheme are outweighed by the disbenefits. • Only the individual applicant benefits from a massive subsidy for his own private home at the cost and inconvenience of the established community. • Can the council justify such a complete turnaround to policy when the benefits are so low, even none, in existence to the community?
Public Access
Page 20 • Any public interest would be restricted to a charitable event, once a year, and by appointment. • The limited public access is not enough ‘significant public benefit’ to justify enabling development. • The Hall is of high importance - it should be in public hands and not just opened to the public once a year.
Profit / Personal Gain
• The only real benefit of the hall’s restoration is to Mr Spry and David Wilson Homes. The Council has an obligation to ensure the historic Derwent Valley and Hamsterley Mill are not defiled in the process. • The hall is to be developed for private use so it is hard to understand why the area should accept this new estate. • The motivation of purchasing the Hall was for profit at the expense of a beautiful valley. • The application has nothing to do with rescuing national heritage. • The interests of many people who live and enjoy our countryside outweigh the financial interest of one. • If the proposed development goes ahead then it would be a case of one family gaining a lot at the expense of a lot of people being inconvenienced and to the compromise of the Derwent Valley to allow his private benefits at the public’s loss.
Owners should fund the Hall’s Restoration
• Mr Spry knew the condition of the building before purchase and ought to have budgeted for this at the time of purchase. • Renovation should be funded by the Spry family (or sold to someone who can) in the same way as all other residents have and will in the future with respect to their own properties. • The Spry's have a continuing financial interest, independent of the funds enabling the restoration of the hall. • The Hall will remain forever an extreme maintenance burden.
Enabling Development
• Enabling development is a public subsidy of last resort – it is not an excuse to throw away common sense. • ‘Enabling development’ is always the last resort of a developer with a weak case to present. • There is no requirement that ‘enabling development’ must be approved for the saving of Hamsterley Hall at any cost. • Enabling development is recognised as inefficient. • No exceptions can be justified for building on the Green Belt. • The amount of enabling development is hugely excessive, is not the minimum and cannot be justified • The development is a money making venture. • The refurbishment is a pretext to secure planning permission for lucrative building project. • The enabling development should only cover the costs of making the building water-tight, windproof and secure. The owner should split the work into urgent and less urgent projects. • ‘Enablement’ to restore Hamsterley Hall is not a sufficient reason to breach the Green Belt. Page 21 • If enabling development were used on other sites, Durham County Council would still accrue the amount of substantial economic benefits. • Dispute the scale of enabling development. Saville’s say the Hall would be worth lower than the claimed conservation deficit, indicating a need for only approximately 23/24 houses. • The route of the enabling development is an easy option for the owner but is the worst possible option for the local community. • The minimum quantum of 35 units is no doubt dictated by the economic interests of David Wilson Homes rather than the needs of the enabling process. • Restoration of Hamsterley Hall as the key to this development is simply a tactic to gain access to this land for building purposes. • I have no objections to the restoration of Hamsterley Hall providing that the money comes directly from the owners of the property. I do object to the enabling development to finance the restoration.
Funding
• It is the duty of the person who owns the hall to pay for repairs. • Why did Mr Spry buy the Hall if he did not have the funds necessary for its restoration? • It is unfortunate for the residents of Hamsterley Mill that the individual who bought the site has insufficient personal funds to undertake the work without destroying the historical and beautiful parkland around it. • Funding has been refused as this is a private dwelling and not a heritage asset. • Mr Spry should reapply for Heritage Lottery Funding with proposals and increase the level of public access • The general community view would be that the Hall should be made safe until funds are available. • If the building is that significant, English Heritage and the National Trust should assist with funding. • The Hall would be best in the care of the National Trust.
Other Works within the Grounds
• The development of the ancillary buildings last year could have formed part of the enabling development to fund the restoration of the Hall • I am concerned amount the amount of building work Mr Spry has undertaken recently which has been approved by the Council. This is setting a dangerous precedent which leads Mr Spry into thinking he can build whatever he likes within the historic setting of the Hall.
Alternatives
• An alternative could be that the Hall is conserved as a safe ruin. • The estate could be built on a more suitable site and still raise the required profits for the conservation of the hall. • Surely other sites could be looked at? This has not been carried out.
Securing the Benefits
• No draft legal agreements or heads of terms have been submitted as part of the application to ensure the benefits are properly secured.
Financial Appraisal
Page 22 • A number of the stated refurbishment costs are still exorbitant. • The new FDA accounts are not acceptable on the grounds that they are not internally verifiable. • The new FDA does not demonstrate that the Conservation Deficit is minimal. • Concerns that the figures are a false conclusion that 35 expensive homes is the minimum necessary to cover the conservation deficit. • The costs as presented need to be carefully considered. • I disagree with many of Mr Spry’s calculated figures. • The figures do not add up to enable the developer to restore the hall.
Highway Safety
Increased Vehicular Movements
• Traffic volumes on the B6310 and A694 have increased over the preceding decade. • Major concerns over the increased traffic along the B6310, a dangerous stretch of road, which will create a dangerous traffic problems to the detriment of highway safety • At least 120 additional cars using the dangerous road between Hamsterley Mill and Burnopfield. • An increase of at least 467 extra daily vehicle movements on the B6310. • As the proposed development is to encompass houses with three garages, it would greatly impact upon traffic levels. • There are more than 30 vehicle movements per hour in rush hour, which the survey suggests. • Increased congestion on the B6310 and A694. • It would be more difficult to join the B6310 from ‘The Parklands’ estate. • Irresponsible drivers and excessive speed already common. • There is a campaign to try and control the speed of traffic and the amount of traffic using the B6310. • Totally opposed to this development for several reasons not least of which are the safety factors relating to the Burnopfield Road. • Danger to life on the B6310, especially close to the bridge where the road is too narrow for cars to pass. • Public car parking will be insufficient.
Walking / Cycling
• The B6310 is not safe for walkers or cyclists • No footpaths, cycleways, street lights or crossings, in speed zones of 40 and 60 mph. • Crossing the B6310 is a nightmare at the moment. • The crossing on the Derwent Walk / National Cycle Way is difficult and would become more hazardous due to the close proximity to the proposed site entrance. • It is only a matter of time before a pedestrian is killed. • Ground conditions are not conducive for regular pedestrian access • A new footpath would be dangerous in icy weather. • The footpath improvement is neither wanted nor is needed. • The site is not within safe walking or cycling distance of local facilities. • The cycling distances noted in the supporting information do not account for lengthy, steep incline and dangerous roads. No responsible parent would encourage their child to travel these on a regular basis.
Page 23 • Please consider the users of walking and cycling routes in this area. • For too long the Authority has not considered the infrastructure when giving approval for new estates
State of Road
• The B6310 is a busy, poorly designed road that is narrow, winding, has sharp bends and restricted visibility • The B6310 is only suitable for light traffic. • Any more traffic would be dangerous and would result in further traffic hazards. • The road surface can be frozen and covered in wet leaves at certain times. Conditions will become treacherous in the snow and caution is required when icy. • The new development does not fit the criteria recommended by the Durham Highways official, Mr Stewart in 2010. The easterly view is obstructed by bends and a crest in the road. The proposed east bound lay by will be an accident black spot.
Site Access
• The site access location is already difficult to cross and lies in a dangerous position on a bend, with reduced visibility. • The proposed access is highly unsuitable. • The proposed access is on the national speed limit boundary and on a corner site giving reduced views. • The access introduces a significant risk of accidents and is going to result in the loss of life. • Traffic exiting and entering the proposed estate would create a safety hazard. • Fundamental issues of accessibility. I would like to see a conditional contribution from the developer to fund a road widening scheme and safe pedestrian route
Bus Provision
• Poor bus service - only two buses an hour on the B6310 • Bus service is not good enough for the requirements of those occupying the new housing. • No provision of extra public transport in the application. The distances to existing bus-stops are well in excess of that required by DCC guidelines. • The proposed new bus stops and footpath improvements on the B6310 are not specified on the application details or plans. • Adding a new bus stop on the B6310 is not a local benefit. • The ground conditions and distances are not conducive to pedestrian access to bus stops. • The road is too narrow to even allow buses along. • Additional lay-bys would be an additional safety hazard. • A bus layby would create a total black spot for persons crossing on the Derwent Valley Country Park. • Proposed lay-bys for buses will cause further traffic delays and will further impede the free flow of traffic. • The position of the proposed east bound lay by will be an accident black spot.
Bridge
• The Pontburn Bridge struggles to cope with the current traffic levels • It is very narrow and only suitable for one vehicle at a time.
Page 24 • There have been several accidents on this road, especially near the bridge. • The proposals would have a major impact on road safety and Pontburn Bridge. • Moderate rainfall causes severe puddling on the bridge.
Construction Phase
• Construction traffic will represent an unacceptable safety hazard, with the route being very unsuitable – this could take place over two years
Visual / Landscape
• The Derwent Valley is a treasure for the whole of the north east. • It is an area of great beauty, both close to, and viewed from a distance. • People come from all over the country to explore the area • The Derwent Walk Country Park is a tourist attraction throughout the UK and Europe. • The proposal site is classified as parkland, as an Area of High Landscape Value and is intended to be Green Belt in the County Plan. • The hall and its adjoining meadows all form part of the same historical landscape and deserve the same level of protection. • It is necessary to protect the character and appearance for future generations. • The National Trust place high value on the landscape of the Derwent Valley with recent substantial investment nearby. We should also ensure the integrity of landscape. • The proposed development is totally out of keeping with Hamsterley Mill. • Strongly object to the development of a housing estate in historic parkland. • Inappropriate development on a greenfield site within open countryside. • Intrusive and detrimental impact on the character, historic interest, peacefulness, tranquillity and visual amenity of a special and particularly beautiful part of the Derwent Valley, an Area of High Landscape Value, a country park, the surrounding countryside and the settling of listed buildings. • The landscape and highway works will destroy the setting of listed structures, Parkland setting and the nature of the Derwent Valley as an Area of High Landscape Value. • The Hall and its environment are one of the few remaining buildings and parks of this type within the former Derwentside Area. We support the view of restricted essential development only in the Pont Burn and Derwent Valleys. • An area of attractive parkland will become yet another housing estate, degrading further the quality of the Derwent Valley, which has been struggling • The landscape and the setting would be irreparably damaged by housing in this location. • Permanent destruction of ancient pastoral land • Although it would be good to see the Hall restored, surely there is a better way than building houses on the parkland. • The pleasures of walking and cycling will be ruined with the noises, smells and sight of the planned housing estate. • Huge impact on the quiet community and resident’s enjoyment of the surrounding countryside. • As a former doctor I am fully aware of the restorative qualities offered by the quiet and tranquil seclusion of this part of the Vale of Derwent. • Development would permanently deprive future generations from enjoyment of this special place • Huge negative impact on the feel of Burnopfield.
Page 25 • The proposals will not benefit the rural community or enhance landscape character • The landscape is more important that the Hall itself. Even as a ruin, the Hall would retain is visual and historical impact, whereas the landscape, once ruined, will be gone forever. • Deter people from wanting to use the Derwent Walk recreational route. • Concern at the disregard of the Parkland landscape and the historic associations intrinsic in the setting of the Country House in England. • RS Surtees would be appalled far more by the destruction of the valley than by the decline of his house. • Seriously diminish the picturesque setting of Surtee’s original estate vision. • The development would be visible from the B6310, especially during winter months. • The developers have moved the proposed housing further up the hill, increasing visibility from Burnopfield. • The housing will be more prominent / damaging because of its elevated position • It will cause a visual alteration of the landscape, making it more urban. • Visual impact for people on the Derwent Walk would be difficult to hide. • The movement away from the Gate House has a more detrimental effect on the area. • The houses will overshadow the Old Lodge, Gates and Handley Cross bridge. Landscaping mitigation will take at least 30 years to mature. • The property developers have no understanding or respect for the history of landscape. The intrusion of a brick, tarmac, concrete housing estate within this landscape would be miss-placed and destructive to the Hall’s setting. • The emerging County Durham Plan affords the highest level of Green Belt protection for this location. • Councillors who were strangers to the area were effusive in their assessment of the beauty of the Derwent Valley. The valley is our heritage. • The proposed development will detract from the exclusivity and dilute the character of the Hamsterley Mill estate. • Divorce the house from its setting • Detract from the ambiance of the farm house setting. • The appreciation of the beauty of the landscape is more and more being valued and every effort being made to protect its environment. There are numerous new initiatives in the pipeline such as the proposal that the whole of the Derwent Valley should become a Green Belt. • The fact that Hamsterley Hall is on the endangered list is not in itself an argument for destroying a significant swathe of Green Belt. • The beautiful landscape and wildlife currently at the site should be left alone. • Light pollution will destroy the magic of the darkness of the valley. • Refusal is urged in order to preserve a heritage and natural habitat that has existed for generations.
Ecology
• The site has a number of allocations which include the Derwent Valley / Pont Burn wildlife corridor, ancient woodland, area of high landscape value, historic parkland, and a site of nature conservation importance. • Great disturbance to and detrimental impact on local wildlife and their habitats, including protected species, especially red kites, Great Crested Newts, bats, owls, deer and badgers, as well as the ancient woodland, including during the construction phase.
Page 26 • Loss of important wildlife habitat, removal of trees and hedgerows, as well as trampling of woodland • The impact of this development will have an impact on a far larger area than the application site. • Construction disruption would impact upon the last remaining group of red squirrels in the Pont Burn Valley. • There is a public record showing 5 separate species of bats living in the vicinity with which the proposal would be in direct conflict. • The Common Buzzard and Red Kite are Schedule One listed species. It is a serious offence to disturb them while they are attempting to nest. Birds will not simply go elsewhere. • The woodland is an important for breeding birds. Further noise of vehicles, as well as intrusion from new owners and their pets could lead to local extinctions. • The applicants have systematically applied bad management techniques in their treatment of the woodland. • Impact on water quality and effect on Dippers, Wagtails and Kingfishers. • Effect from contaminated run-off where brown trout are breeding could be catastrophic. • The developer states that the development will “enhance ecology” which is absolutely ridiculous. • Wildlife may be driven away with the increased human habitation. • The wildlife, trees and beautiful countryside should be left alone.
Unsustainable Location
• Unsustainable location and should be refused • No day to day facilities such as shops, schools, doctors within easy walking distance. • The site is not located near to a local service centre providing employment, housing, services and other facilities. • It seems wrong to permit building in an area where travelling by private transport is essential for daily living. • Heavy reliance on private vehicles, increasing their usage which is not sustainable • The houses have triple garages which would represent up to 105 car trips per day. • New development should not result in extra travel for essential services. • No bus routes • The adequate bus service on the A694 would entail quite a walk from the proposed development. • The bus stops are included in an attempt to partially mitigate a lack of sustainability. • The Inspector concluded that the previous scheme was unsustainable • The lack of sustainability has not changed. • There is no case for development on a site which is unsustainable. • Hamsterley Mill, a settlement of approximately 200 houses would not have been allowed to be built under present planning policies in respect of sustainability. • An estimated 74 children will occupy the new development; there are no facilities for children. Inevitably these bored children will have an impact on crime and disorder. • Local schools are over-subscribed. • What provision is to be made to address the lack of sustainability of the proposals as was previously raised as an issue by the Council?
Page 27 • Parking facilities for shops and businesses in Rowlands Gill, Burnopfield and Hamsterley are insufficient for existing use. Further visits will result in congested streets and illegal parking.
New Houses
• Detrimental impact on residential amenity. • 35 is still far too many • Executive homes are not needed in this area. • Executive housing has been identified for location in the A1(M) Corridor. • Costs are far in excess of the local population. • Houses on Hamsterley Mill Estate are taking a long time to be sold. • The executive housing development will not create a mixed community. • No affordable, which is needed for people born in rural areas who wish to work and live there. • No special needs housing. • This area of natural beauty already holds the correct level of housing. • There is no shortage of housing sites in County Durham or the surrounding area. • Wrong location and no planning merits for housing in this location • Greenfield land is not considered sustainable for new residential development • The house types will look like a standard housing estate in the middle of a rural parkland • The council should consider a greenfield site where the immediate surroundings would not become congested. • The site for new housing is one of the last places in the County you would want to build houses. • Loss of open countryside. • No analysis of alternative and more remote sites, avoiding all harm to listed buildings. • Typical specification, unimaginative development, no sense of place or contribution to setting of the Hall. • What does the future hold? An established housing estate now will easily extend to accommodate further financial needs.
Lack of Community Benefits
• Insufficient public access if restored, as the Hall will remain private. • It would be highly surprising if unlimited access to the hall for local schools ever materialised. • Hamsterley Hall has never been open to the public. • Lottery funding has been refused as public access is to be very limited. • The Heritage Lottery Fund could have been a source of finance if the applicant had been prepared to offer more in the way of access to the general public. This shows the lack of public benefit. • The benefits do not outweigh the disbenefits to the local community, its impressive countryside and wildlife. • There would be almost no benefits for local residents and people who use the Derwent Valley. • The benefit of the proposals to the community is negative. • The irreversible destruction of the Lower Derwent Valley seems too high a price to pay for the restoration of a hall, which few will see. • Locked gates prevent walkers from using the footpath near the bridge. • The public footpath that goes up past the hall now has a locked gate.
Page 28 • Mr Spry appears to want to keep the public out by fencing in land and situating guard dogs at the site.
Surface Water and Foul Water Drainage
• Existing surface water and sewerage problems on the Parklands estate • There is a major problem with flooding in the Derwent Valley, including this area and the B6310, and run off will be increased. • The Hamsterley Mill Estate system has proved to be at the limit of its capacity. • Run-off from housing estates can be a contributing factor to local flooding. • A new housing estate would have a considerable amount of hard surfaces from which water will run off and not be absorbed. Additional water would be forced onto the B6310, resulting in further run off into the gardens and houses backing up that road. Loss of open countryside would make this worse. • The idea that surface water from 35 house drives and roadways would be channelled into the Pont Burn is unacceptable. • Major problems would result from drainage. • The additional proposed dwellings will not improve the situation for the original Hamsterley Mill estate residents. • Surface water and sewage disposal is unclear / inadequate. • Increased sewage contributing to the likely extension of the pumping station.
Other Issues
• The current owners have failed to maintain or secure the building. DCC have failed to enforce the owner to safeguard the property. The applicants have taken the easy route of trying to build a housing estate on almost the same area of land. • Fragmentation of the heritage site. • The proposed development would increase the size of the settlement by 15%. • Impact on the Green Belt. • The enabling development should take place on brownfield sites within Derwentside or across County Durham. • The council will set a dangerous precedent for further housing development • Impairment of country walks, light and noise pollution. • Possibly climate change should become an additional concern to Planners, when considering development on greenfield sites. • Proximity of estate to Derwent Walk is not compatible - since the decline of heavy industry, the valley relies on recreational facilities and tourism. • The Derwent Walk Country Park will suffer from litter problems. • Lack of notification. All users of the country park should be given the opportunity to comment on this proposal. • A recent application for a mobile phone mast was refused because it was deemed unsuitable for such as an area of outstanding beauty. • This matter has already cost the tax payer a huge amount of money when it went to appeal. • It is obvious that companies slant their reports to the advantage of appellants as they are being paid by them. • A picture of our house was included within a presentation without our permission. It is in bad taste that our house was used to ‘support’ the development and some of our long-term neighbours thought we were supporting the development. • Why has a dangerous building notice not been served and enforced? Why has no attempt to restrict such deterioration since 2006? • The pig wire fence is in keeping with the halls aesthetic.
Page 29 122. Pat Glass MP has objected to the application and is supportive of the grounds upon which the Derwent Valley Protection Society has objected to the scheme. In particular, concerns are expressed in relation to the impact on the open countryside, the effect on the significance of heritage assets, the distance to services, that the revenue from the enabling development is insufficient to fully restore the building and whether enabling development is therefore appropriate, together with concerns around the safety of the use of the B6310 as the means of site access.
123. Derwent Valley Protection Society (DVPS) has submitted a series of letters in objection to the planning application. Their first letter dated 10 th March 2014 is summarised as follows:
Background
• The present application should not have been accepted by DCC for registration • No significant changes in planning policy since the previous refusal • Application is substantially the same as that refused • No long term estate strategy for the Hall • Current application could be the first in a series of housing developments • No Section 106 Agreement to confirm future management and use
Changes to the Application / Inspector’s Report
• Inspectors’ Report is relevant as current policy as it was prepared in the context of the NPPF • The previous Committee Report failed to deal with the setting of the Listed Buildings other than the Hall • Inspector identified key deficiencies in the approach to housing on the appeal site when measured against law and policy: ° Revised scheme takes about 90% of the parkland area of the previous application – significant development in open countryside and AHLA ° The access road is essentially the same – the Inspector advised that it could not be screened ° Housing will detract from distant view of the Hall in relation to High Hamsterley Farm ° Notable landscape change when viewed from Burnopfield – it will be visible despite screening. The Inspector noted that even after 10 years of new tree growth there would be intrusion. The current application may be more detrimental because of the elevated position ° Visible alteration in the hours of darkness – same impact as previous ° Still glimpsed views of the houses from the Derwent Walk – the Inspector concluded that this would exacerbate the detrimental impact on perceptions of the Derwent Valley ° Landscape is has a high sensitivity to change ° Inspector was not satisfied that particular attention had been paid to the landscape qualities of the AHLV ° Use of substantially the same site - dwellings are larger and have more garages ° Inspector concluded that there were significant breaches of other policies – these policies still apply ° Emerging County Durham Plan must carry weight – it recognises the need to protect the valuable landscape of the Derwent Valley and proposes that the site should become Green Belt and be designated as ‘Historic Parkland’ – this accords with the Inspector’s findings ° No meaningful difference – same site and covering almost the same area
Page 30 • Inspector’s reasons for rejection remain valid to refuse the current application due to the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside
Effect on the Setting of Listed Buildings
• Previous scheme was found on appeal to fail criterion (a) of English Heritage’s Guidance as it would materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting • Effect of the current application is at least severe (with part being on higher land) • Proposed development would harm the setting of the Hall, the gates and The Old Lodge • Housing on the highest part of the site will dominate the existing listed structures, the parkland entry and Hamsterley Hall approach • Significant impact on the Hall and erosion of setting • It is not clear what status the Council’s archaeologist has to make an assessment about whether the public benefit from the Hall’s restoration outweighs any minimal/perceived harm to the setting of the listed buildings • Housing development will be a scar on the hillside clearly visible from the Hall approach, from long vistas into the Derwent Valley and as a back drop to the Old Lodge, gates and bridge • Openness of the parkland setting will be destroyed • Green screening is alien to the landscape • Woodland has been extensively cleared by the applicants and views opened up • Indigenous planting will take at least 20 years to have an even a minor impact and evergreens would be alien to the landscape • Proposed scheme is worse than that viewed by the Inspector
Lack of Sustainability
• Sustainability issues were examined at the Appeal Hearing and nothing has changed in relation to the proximity to shops, school places, bus services, car utilisation and there are still no footpaths to Burnopfield • Increase car parking provision demonstrates the lack of sustainability • Whilst the Inspector acknowledged that enabling development schemes may be treated as having reduced weight attached to the undoubted normal standards of sustainability, it still remains a negative factor
Executive Housing
• No existing or emerging policy in favour of executive housing or any other housing in this location • Negative impact on the proposed planned locations for executive housing • Significant future costs for the Council from residents for improved services such as bus routes, footpaths, school places and transport provision due to the unsustainable location • No developer contributions for infrastructure and affordable housing provision
Public Benefits
• Given the existence of public footpaths, views into the site, of the listed buildings and treasured landscape can be enjoyed • The public are not able to enjoy ground level views of the Hall • Almost no public access to the Hall • Landscape setting of the site will be destroyed
Page 31 • The applicant is claiming that grants are not available. However, the Heritage Lottery Fund advised that they are able to fund applications from private owners provided they demonstrate a step change in terms of public access and engagement with heritage. They advise that if the applicant was to reapply they could discuss the proposals • Lack of funding from English Heritage reinforces the lack of priority afforded by them • English Heritage’s Enabling Development Policy (e) is not satisfied • The applicant’s choice leads to grant refusal • The area around Hamsterley is not identified as being appropriate for housing in the 170 sites examined by DCC in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment • Approval would set a precedent for other developers to purchase listed buildings • Allowing executive housing in this location would undermine the rate of delivery and adversely impact on the viability of other sustainable executive housing sites e.g. Lambton, Brancepeth and Houghall • The additional jobs, household expenditure, Council Tax receipts and New Homes Bonus payments are irrelevant as they would be created wherever new housing is developed • The New Homes Bonus should not influence any decision • No affordable housing – unlike the other more sustainable sites identified by DCC
Enabling Development
• Conflict with English Heritage’s Enabling Development Policy: ° Unacceptable impact on heritage – as confirmed in the appeal decision. Placing housing on higher ground will increase the impact ° Housing estate will fall into multiple ownership and parkland will be lost ° Devaluation of listed Hall and structures and urbanisation of landscape views ° No certainty that the applicants or others can maintain the property – further funding in the future could be sought given the high costs. The Hall’s future is not secured ° Applicants are experienced property developers and bought the Hall knowing its condition. It has fallen into further disrepair during the last 7 years of their ownership. This approach does not encourage them to repair or maintain the Hall. The collapsed part might have been saved if enforcement action had been implemented ° The applicants have not explored a range of alternative development options / uses ° Failure to show that the current scheme is the minimum necessary ° Few benefits from the Hall becoming a private residence to anyone other than the owners. Limited public access. The owners should be funding the works • The disbenefits are not outweighed by the benefits
Financial and Development Appraisal
• Inspector’s findings have not been taken forward - in terms of the same housing site and use of the Hall • No proposals have been put forward to develop other sites either in or not in the ownership of the applicants – the Inspector suggested breaking the number of dwellings down onto smaller sites • Significant decay and collapse over the last 8 years • The urgent works that have taken place were not sufficient Page 32 • Failure to maintain the Hall as required by legislation – why has no action been taken – this should be considered in the current Committee Report • As the Hall has not been appropriately maintained, restoration should take place immediately and be paid for by the owners and not included in the FDA. £475,000+VAT should be extracted from the FAD for the lack of maintenance including rebuilding the west wall • The owners have purchased additional land for £485,000 during the period of ownership and carried out extensive works on the land • The FDA is an adjustment of the two previous documents presented at the appeal but this is not clear – this is an unsound position • There is no market testing and many items need a lot of clarification for example there is no independent assessment, 11% inflation is added to unsubstantiated costs, there should be no profit to the owner of the Hall • The FDA is fatality flawed as it starts from the premises that only policies are agreed. This disregards current planning policy and the appeal decision
Applicant’s Planning Statement
• No analysis of alternative site or uses for the Hall is provided for the enabling development. The Inspector suggested fewer dwellings and breaking them down onto smaller sites • Alternative development strategies should be explored
Conclusion
• Replication of the previously refused application • No recognition of the applicant’s responsibility to maintain the Listed Building and lack of a long term plan • Failure to address the failings of the appeal • Restoration to a private residence is the most expensive option with almost no public access / benefit • Unsustainable location • Adverse impact on the Council’s executive housing and Green Belt policies • Application is on higher ground, with a greater visual impact, which prejudices the setting of the farm and Hamsterley Hall and obliterates the Historic Parkland • Concerns of local people and Pat Glass MP
124. DVPS submitted a further letter dated 26th March 2014 in response to comments provided by the applicant’s agent. These comments are summarised as follows:
Developer’s Profit and Financial Return
• Welcome appointment by DCC of an independent estates advisor • Failure to fulfil the critical requirements of English Heritage’s guidance in relation to grants • Condition of the Hall has deteriorated since purchase by the applicant, who is an experience property developer – it has been added to the ‘At Risk’ register and has recently had a significant collapse • As a result the extent of funding has increased, resulting in a need for more enabling development • A profit should not be included on the Hall works • Another use for the walled garden would increase the value – this should be taken into account as it could reduce the amount of housing
Page 33 Enabling Development
• It is not appropriate for someone who has applied for grant and does not comply with the grant provider’s conditions for public access and public engagement with the Hall to then say that no grant is available
Agency Change
• The Property Agency submission needs to be rigorously reviewed by the DCC consultant • No allowance in the valuation for increased property prices • No valuations for alternative sites, the consequences of mothballing the Hall until the market is more favourable for other uses, or alternative uses for the Hall
Significance of the NPPF
• Why have the owners not carried out the work for which they are responsible • There is no lack of funds as additional land has been purchased • The current enabling development is not the only option to secure the Hall’s future
Significance of the Appeal Inspector’s Report
• The Inspector’s report is a material planning consideration • This application should be decided in a like manner to ensure consistency, given there are no fundamental changes
DCC Archaeological Response and Economic Arguments
• Locating the housing on highest part of the Historic Parkland will have a significantly greater impact on the Heritage Assets • DCC’s Archaeological report should be withdrawn as it has not learnt from the appeal decision and makes judgements in areas outside their field of expertise • The site is not sustainable • The economic benefits adds nothing and would be more beneficial on more sustainable housing sites
Other Issues
• The Surtees Society has an acknowledged desire to see the Hall restored but are not offering any practical support • The inspector did not consider that the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits • Neither English Heritage nor the Heritage Lottery afford any priority to the conservation proposals because of the lack of public benefit or engagement with the heritage asset • Mr Spry’s ability to commit around £2,000,000 indicate the capacity to deal with the immediate restoration needs of the Hall • Alternative sites were not assessed at the Appeal Inquiry • No consideration has been given to alternative sites
125. Burnopfield Community Partnership object to the proposal on the basis that: there would be a detrimental impact on a particularly peaceful and beautiful part of the Derwent Valley and the landscape would be scarred; irreversible damage to the ecology / biodiversity of the Parkland; huge negative impact on the feel of Burnopfield, with no community benefits; 2 cars per dwellings would add to the Page 34 already busy road which is narrow and winding; and, Burnopfield Primary School is already over-subscribed and would be unable to cope with an increase in population.
126. Friends of Red Kites have objected on the basis that there would be a negative impact on red kites and wildlife. In particular, the Red Kite population in the Derwent Valley is not increasing as expected, and that other projects at the same stage show that the numbers of breeding pairs are significantly lower. There is a Red Kite’s nest very close to the housing development, with two others fairly close at Lintzford Garden Centre. The erection of the houses would deplete the area available to forage and would increase the potential for disturbance.
127. Turning to letters of support for the proposals, it must first be recognised that of the 263 received, 8 are in the form of individual letters of representation, with the remainder being based upon a standard template. The template letter responses have been received from local addresses as well as from across the UK and Ireland. The letter sets out general support for the restoration for the Hall and that it should not be allowed to fall into disrepair and that any opportunity to ensure this does not happen should be grasped. It is further considered that the proposed scheme is best option to secure the Hall and that the new dwellings are appropriate to Hamsterley Mill complementing it in terms of architectural style ad setting. In addition, the occupiers of such properties are likely to be business people and professionals, who would make a real contribution to the community and the economy.
128. Of the 8 individual letters received, there is support for the restoration of the Hall as it is considered to be important to the history and heritage of the local area and that there is a duty to conserve such assets. The restoration of the Hall is the principal community benefit arising from the scheme. The housing proposed to bring about the Halls restoration is considered to be the only option available, and it is thought that the developers will ensure that the development is sensitive to the environment and the character of Hamsterley Mill.
129. Additional points made include, that the executive housing scheme will benefit the area; all but 3 or 4 of the houses in Hamsterley Mill have been built within living memory on Greenfield sites; objections to Mr Spry’s proposals are pure nimbyism; the council should support any and all restorations of buildings of historic and architectural importance; and, the developers should be congratulated for securing funding without seeking government grants.
130. The Surtees Society has written to support the proposals and to highlight that the Hall is rich with history and literary association, with the house having been the locus form which a body of work that changed scholarship and enthused thousands was set out. Its maintenance for future generations is of the first importance and should be borne in mind when considering the application.
131. Following the submission of a revised draft Section 106 Legal Agreement, a re- consultation exercise was undertaken involving all members of the public who had previously commented on the applications. One representation was received from a local resident and two representations were made by the Derwent Valley Protection Society.
132. The local resident objects to the wording in the agreement, considering that the works to the Hall should be completed prior to any housing being occupied. In addition, there are concerns in relation to the DDA compatibility of the path leading to Parklands, that the prosed footpath should be continued to link with the bus layby on the south side of the B310, that the car park for the Derwent Walk should be extended to include 8 spaces, that a footpath link should be provided from Parklands Page 35 and High Mill Road, whilst street lighting should be provided for each bus lay by and the crossing between Parklands and High Mill Road.
133. Derwent Valley Protection Society (DVPS) have set out the following concerns:
• Is Durham County Council satisfied that Barratt Developments PLC is the ultimate Parent Company? • The ‘Contractor’ is referred to in the Section 106’s Parent Company Guarantee but there is no definition as to the identity of the contractor • No reference to who monitors the works, receives the reports, carries out visits/inspections and monitors the costs/specification of the conservation or construction works • Various references to the developer’s ability to change specification are identified as needing the agreement of DCC. Such changes must be available to the public
Section 106 Scope and content
• Open access is required for DCC to monitor works • No requirement to Old Lodge all schedules, drawings, reports, specifications associated with the works to DCC or English Heritage • No allowance for partial practical completion or a final certification process when the works are deemed fully compete • No apparent reason for the 12 month delay after practical completion for the public access arrangements to be implemented • The level of contribution for works by DCC, such as highways, appear unusually low • Has the consequences of higher labour training costs been recognised as a reasonable additional level of subsidy sought by this development? • Why is the gateway feature scheme in the section 106 as it is a separate application and does not form part of the Enabling Development? • How will the land exchange in relation to the car park works be actioned? • Are land purchases required to deliver the bus stops and footpath works and who is paying for the works • No reference to the construction operation which will be very disruptive to the local community and involve extensive highway risks • No indication of how DCC will use the Open Space contribution of £10,500
Conservation Plan and Woodland Management Plan
• No consideration of alternative uses • Assessment of the Community Significance does not adequately deal with the balance of public accessibility in relation to the level of public subsidy • No explanation of how the future maintenance of the Hall will be financed • No discussion in the Conservation Report of the collapse and partial demolition of part of the fabric and the implications on its significance • 12 months to implement this plan seems excessively long. There is no monitoring or enforcement procedure open to DCC in conjunction with the various local Environmental groups and Natural England
134. Further comments have been provided from the DVPS and these comments are summarised as follows:
• Disbenefits of the proposed housing estate clearly outweigh the benefits of the Hall works
Page 36 • The application seeks a public subsidy of last resort but in a very similar form to that which has been previously refused by DCC and at Appeal • Relocation to the higher ground has increased the visual impact • Enabling development has not been sought on sites away from the setting of the Hall and other listed buildings and structure • No reason to accept a solution that is highly advantageous to the applicants who purchased the property seeking to achieve an enabling development • The applicants appear to have ample financial resources to safeguard the Hall • Why has enforcement action not been implemented to safeguard the Hall • The Hall has not enjoyed public access in the past and the current application will not improve the level of accessibility - the public are clearly not welcome • Additional application for a ‘grandiose’ entrance gate • The housing estate destroys the setting of the Hall and the adjacent listed buildings and structures in the Derwent Valley, obliterates the Hamsterley Hall Historic Parkland, adversely impacts on highway and pedestrian safety and is unsustainable • The owners are not prepared to carry out their statutory requirements to safeguard/maintain the Hall • Any Enabling Development for housing should follow the Appeal Inspectors Report that alternative and small scale dispersed residential developments should be progressed, not a housing estate on the most prominent historic Parkland setting • If a massive public subsidy is to be awarded, far more extensive public access to the grounds and Hall should be made • It has been drawn to our attention that the number of documents on the Planning Portal appear to have reduced and some not recorded • Several objections are not on the Portal • A high number of the support letters are a ‘standard’ format and from very diverse locations, the writers not appearing to be familiar with the area
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
135. Our proposals are the result of many months of work by our professional team, working with Durham County Council officers and English Heritage to address the issues raised by the government inspector in her decision letter in relation to our previous application. Following guidance from English Heritage we have carried out a detailed options appraisal to determine the most appropriate way to secure the future of Hamsterley Hall.
136. Hamsterley Hall is unique. There is not another one. The building is an extremely rare example of Georgian Gothic architecture and something we in Durham are incredibly fortunate to have. Described by Whittaker as “ One of the most endearing of all Gothic houses in County Durham is Hamsterley hall, in the Derwent Valley. Here the style is seen at its prettiest, happiest best ”.
137. Not only is the building architecturally important it is historically important too. We have received a letter of support from the Surtees Society which states:
“We wish to make our position clear. Hamsterley Hall is a building of national historical significance and international literary significance. The hall is where RS Surtees wrote some of the finest and most shrewdly observed novels in Victorian literature. Many of the rooms, views and events in his world famous novels come straight from this grand old Georgian building. In that sense it is irreplaceable. Therefore to allow it to fall further into ruin is not just to lose a building; it is to lose an
Page 37 irreplaceable part of the literary and social history of England between the reform bills.”
138. Sadly, the Hall has been deteriorating since the 1960s. Temporary works have taken place to stabilize and weather proof the hall in the short term. However, unfortunately the western wing suffered a catastrophic collapse and had to be demolished on health and safety grounds. The demolition process was agreed and carefully overseen by English Heritage and Durham County Council. There is now an URGENT need to secure the halls long term future and prevent a risk of further irreparable damage.
139. One of the problems with historic restoration is the cost. The works need to be carried out by skilled craftsmen and conservators under the careful guidance and scrutiny of ecologists, archaeologists, conservation officers and English Heritage. The process is time consuming and demanding requiring significant fees and detailed discussion and discharge of conditions.
140. This means that without financial help our nation’s rich heritage will be lost. The need for this help does not reflect the price paid for the asset as a 0 value is assumed in the calculations. Neither does it reflect an over the top restoration. It purely reflects the huge cost involved in historic restoration. Indeed in this case the works have been stripped back to the bare minimum core asset only.
141. English Heritage recognized this and realized that with ever decreasing budgets and grant funding drying up another source of cash had to be found. Hence the enabling development policy. This policy sits above normal planning constraints and allows for careful considered development in areas where it would not normally be appropriate. The funds from these developments then bridge the conservation deficit gap and along with the owners resources allow the heritage asset to be saved.
142. Our new proposals only seek help to fund basic works to the core historic asset of the hall itself. No fit out or works elsewhere in the estate. These will all be completed by the owner over time.
143. All avenues of grant funding and alternative sites and uses for the building have been thoroughly examined and what we are presenting today is minimum quantum of development necessary to secure the long term future of the core historic asset, according precisely with the Government Inspectors recommendations. This has been independently verified by English Heritage who acknowledge that we have met all of the criteria necessary for enabling development. Evidenced by their unequivocal support for our application.
144. There will inevitably be a lot of focus on the new build housing, but what we mustn’t lose sight of here is the fantastic building with a unique rich history which we are trying to save. The enabling development policy was brought out specifically to save houses such as Hamsterley hall. The other point to bear in mind is that without Hamsterley hall there would never have been a Hamsterley Mill – it was the brainchild of Lord Gort who sold off plots within the estate and used the proceeds to restore Bunratty Castle in Ireland. Perhaps now is the time for Hamsterley Hall to benefit in a similar way.
145. Equally we must look at the significant economic benefits the scheme will bring, new executive housing, employment within specialist restoration areas, general construction and the long term support of local businesses, amenities, schools and infrastructure the new families will provide.
Page 38 • 227 construction jobs • 137 jobs in the supply chain • local recruitment and training, including specialist heritage positions • £3 million a year of gross value added (GVA) during construction • £500,000 for DCC through the new homes bonus • An additional £90,000 a year in council tax receipts • An additional £380,000 a year spending by residents in shops and on local services
146. Furthermore, Barratt David Wilson Homes (BDW) is committed to delivering a local training and recruitment strategy which will create real opportunities for employment, training and local business. As such, they have submitted a Training Recruitment Strategy to the Council. The strategy includes an apprenticeship programme, site visit opportunities for schools/colleges and universities, careers presentations, school workshops, university research, work experience opportunities and short courses. The Homes and Communities Agency has advised to BDW’s that their training and recruitment strategy is the best that they have seen. Furthermore, BDW were marked the highest of any bidder in a recent Newcastle City Council tender exercise in relation to this item.
147. The Council’s Economic Development Team has advised that they are happy with the proposed strategy, whilst the Business Durham has advised that they are minded to support this application.
148. Enabling development is a legitimate planning tool and has been used extensively across the country to save important buildings such as Hamsterley. Local examples include: Axwell Hall, Eshott Hall and Hartford Hall. However NONE of these schemes allow any public access. Hamsterley will allow public access to schools and bona fide interest groups as well as participating in the Red Cross Charity open weekends.
149. Turning now to the new houses which are proposed. This is a completely new scheme which has been designed to reflect the character of Hamsterley Mill, comprising 35 larger, architect designed houses on larger plots, which pay greater respect to the listed Old Lodge and the entrance to the estate.
150. Research has shown that the executive housing will bring investment and important economic benefits, including jobs, and will be of significant benefit to business development in and around the northern County Durham area.
151. Following public consultation the new proposals have attracted significant support with letters from all across the country, helped by our website: www.hamsterleyhall.info. Please take a look for further information on the important historical figures who have lived at Hamsterley and an insight in to the rich historic fabric we are trying to preserve. There is a link on the website to a full archaeological report which further reinforces the significance of the building and its Grade II* listed status.
152. If anyone is in any doubt as to the importance of Hamsterley Hall, PLEASE read these articles or speak to a member of the conservation team at Durham County Council or English Heritage.
153. The land proposed for the new housing is farmland. It is not parkland or rare meadow. There are no footpaths or rights of way across it. No public access to it and it is only seen in glimpsed views from one or two locations. The new housing will not impact in any way shape or form on the daily lives of anybody living in the local area.
Page 39 154. There are no objections from ANY statutory consultee, quite the opposite. The response from DCC archaeologist states:
“I support the aims and objectives of the proposed enabling development to provide financial capital to conserve and restore this highly significant historic building dating from the 18 th century. It is a building of exceptional heritage value which requires immediate conservation management works to ensure that it does not suffer further catastrophic structural damage The proposed enabling development of 35 houses is much reduced from the previous refused application. The amended layout removes any direct impact on the setting of the listed structures of the Old Lodge, gates, piers and walls at the entrance to the estate driveway. Any impact on the setting of the Gr. II* Hall is mitigated by the screening effect of the extant Hamsterley Hall Wood and proposed new planting along the southern boundary of the enabling development The public benefit which will be gained through the conservation and repair to the Hall (thus stopping any more of the building from falling down), in my opinion, outweighs any minimal/perceived harm to its setting or that of the Old Lodge, wall and gate. ”
155. We also have over 260 letters of support, submitted by both people living in the local area, as well as those from further afield, reflecting the importance of Hamsterley Hall both locally and nationally. Of the letters of support, a substantial number are from residents who live within a 5 mile radius of the site.
156. We have an opportunity to save this building, deliver high quality executive homes and bring significant social and economic benefits and investment to the area at a time of need with little or no dis-benefit, other than the loss of a small area of agricultural land.
157. I ask that having seen the building on your site visit and looked at our website members look favourably on our proposal which is the result of exhaustive work by our project team, English Heritage and Durham County Council officers.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
158. In assessing the scheme subject of the earlier appeal, the Inspector considered that the main issues were whether the benefits of the proposed enabling development outweighed the disbenefits, having particular regard to:
(a) The effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside; (b) The effect on the setting of listed buildings; (c) the suitability of the site having regard to the objectives of siting housing in sustainable locations so as to reduce the reliance on private vehicles; (d) Whether the amount and type of proposed enabling development is justified having regard to the needs of Hamsterley Hall; (e) Public benefits arising from the scheme.
159. It is considered that the above continue to represent the main issues and upon which the acceptability, or otherwise, of the enabling development proposals turn, and they therefore provide an appropriate framework for the assessment of that aspect of the revised scheme. In addition, a number of other matters including highway safety, residential amenity and ecological impact require further consideration.
160. First however it is necessary to consider the acceptability of the proposals relating to the Hall itself, i.e. the works that are being ‘enabled’ and other development being proposed.
Page 40
The works to the Hall
161. The applications subject of this report, also deal with alterations to Hall itself, which require both planning permission and listed building consent. These works include the reinstatement of the conservatory and the erection of a garage building with associated link wall. In addition the listed building consent application amends and adds to the previously approved consent which aims to return Hamsterley Hall to an occupiable single house. The most significant of these changes is the loss of one historic phase from the exterior of the main elevation of the Hall, namely the Tudor windows installed by the 7th Viscount Gort in the 1930s. English Heritage and the Design and Historic Environment Section consider that the loss is justified because of the poor condition of the fabric in question, that better more significant evidence of this phase would remain and some visual improvement to the elevation would result. The justification for the change is considered to be supported well by the applicant's professional reports which underpin the overall benefit to the building’s conservation.
162. The proposed conservatory reinstatement is considered to be an acceptable and appropriate addition to the Hall. The proposed garage and wall have been designed in sympathy with the Hall and would provide an enclosing feature to the western garden. The arrangement provides for and enhances the setting of the Hall through justifying its status and value. As English Heritage advise, a case for enabling development must be supported by acceptable works to a listed building, tied to a grant of listed building consent, and in this case, the works are considered acceptable, and accordingly, they are compliant with Local Plan Policies EN3, EN17 and HO19 and paragraphs 128 and 131 of the NPPF.
The effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside
163. The site lies in the open countryside where ordinarily, new open market housing would be in conflict with Policy EN1 of the DLP. In addition, paragraph 109 of the NPPF sets out that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. The application site is located within a landscape which is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) having been assessed as having value locally. There is significant concern from objectors that the proposed development would have significant and damaging effects on the character of the wider landscape of the Derwent Valley and the open character of the parkland and its association with Hamsterley Hall.
164. In dismissing the appeal for the earlier scheme, the Inspector expressed concern that the scheme had had insufficient regard to the landscape qualities of the area of the sites designation as an AHLV and concluded therefore, that moderate landscape harm would arise because of the extent of change at closer proximity to the proposed housing, and consequently that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
165. In submitting a revised the scheme, the applicants have sought to address the Inspectors concerns regarding landscape harm in a number of ways. Firstly, there is a much reduced quantum of development; secondly, the more suburban character of the layout of the earlier scheme has been replaced with a landscape-led approach, whereby the larger plots would be heavily screened by structural planting to rear boundaries together with hedgerows to side and front boundaries. The scheme therefore has a more enclosed character, reflective of the layout and character of Hamsterley Mill itself. However, it is also acknowledged, and as a number of objectors have identified, that housing is now proposed to a greater degree on the Page 41 highest part of the overall site, thereby potentially increasing its prominence in wider views.
166. In support of their revised proposals the applicants have submitted a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) which seeks to address the key areas of concern raised by the Inspector. The LVA identifies fifteen key viewpoints based on a Zone of Theoretical Visibility and in relation to those which the Inspector considered had not been addressed previously or had been assessed during summer months rather than winter, when the effects of development on the landscape could clearly be different. In assessing the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside in this area, it is considered appropriate to consider the effects in terms of the following key areas: the parkland associated with the estate, the Old Lodge and driveway to the Hall; the north-west of the park; and, the wider Derwent Valley.
The parkland associated with the estate
167. From the parkland core and gardens in the immediate vicinity of the Hall the proposed housing would be visible through the woodlands of the Hamsterley Burn Dene and particularly in winter. From elsewhere it would be screened by topography and vegetation. Visibility though the woodlands is likely to have increased in recent times with woodland management works including the removal of rhododendron. As noted by the Inspector, the visibility of housing here through the trees would be incongruous and harmful to the setting of the Hall. However, the Landscape Section advise that they consider that given the nature of the topography it would be possible to screen built development in the backdrop of views of the Hall by establishing a visually dense belt of planting, particularly at a low level, to augment the northern edge of the woodland. This would require a high shrub content including native evergreens and semi-evergreens and canopy trees that give only light shade. This would take within around 10 years to be fully effective. The Landscape Section considers that given the sensitivity of this view, planting in this area would be best implemented in advance of development, or at an early stage. To this end, the draft s106 agreement identifies that this area of landscaping would form part of advanced landscaping works to be undertaken within the first available planting season following the commencement of development.
168. With those measures in place the effect in this localised but particularly sensitive area are assessed as being of a medium-high magnitude diminishing progressively to a low or negligible magnitude over around 10 years. The proposals would also entail the restoration of the formal gardens around the hall which would have a positive impact of a medium magnitude.
The Old Lodge and driveway to the Hall
169. The land to the west side of the driveway includes the application site which has been used historically as agricultural pasture, and is clearly seen in views with The Old Lodge. This area does not form part of the formal gardens, although the driveway and an area around The Old Lodge are designated as Historic Parkland under DLP Policy EN7. However, as the Inspector noted, the application site is outwith the designated area there is no conflict with that policy. The emerging County Durham Plan does, however, propose that the area designated as historic parkland be extended to include the application site. Whilst this may be the case, limited weight can be given to the proposed designation at this time, as the emerging plan has not yet been the subject of an examination in public. Although the plan has been submitted, there is no date at the time of writing for such an examination to take place. Page 42
170. Whilst there is a clear cross-over in terms of assessing the impact on the character and appearance of the countryside in this location, with the impact of the development on the setting of adjacent listed buildings, the latter aspect is covered in more detail later in this report.
171. In order to assist the understanding of the extent of the effects on the landscape in this area, the LVA includes as viewpoint 3, a view from the estate road which leads form the B6310 to Hamsterley Hall, which is also a public byway. At this point there are glimpsed views of the far horizon to the west over the top of the intervening grazing land. It is with respect to this viewpoint and the earlier scheme with which the Inspector had particular concerns, noting that even after ten years of planting growth the development would still have been evident. The proposed development would, as set out above, occupy the higher parts of the landform, with a large area of open land left undeveloped between the proposed houses and the estate drive/byway. The nearest dwellings would be some 250m away at this point, in contrast to the earlier scheme where dwellings were around 115m nearer at this point.
172. Therefore, in this viewpoint, the previous scheme made a significant incursion into this open area, with at least 10 of the dwellings, associated garaging and a 6m wide access road being located in this area. As such, this increased distance and greater openness assists in preserving the setting of the historic estate driveway as well as the setting and interrelationship with the Listed Old Lodge at the driveway entrance.
173. The byway and estate drive are well used by walkers and other recreational users who would have largely uninterrupted views of the of the development at this point and this adds to the high sensitivity of the landscape to change in this location, particularly, in the shorter tem, ahead of mitigating planting softening the change to some extent over time. Equally, such planting would not seek to enclose the development along its western boundary as this would only serve to diminish the openness of the intervening land between the byway/Old Lodge and the proposed houses.
174. There would therefore be moderate effects on visual amenity in this location, but not to the extent that it would diminish the enjoyment of the byway as a recreational resource, and the revised layout is such that it is considered, and supported by the Landscape Section, that the Inspectors concerns about the sensitivity of this area to changes in the landscape has been addressed by moving development away from the foreground of the view and where it was closer to recreational users.
The north-west of the park
175. In the north-west of the park the effect on the character of the landscape would be transformative. The change of this area from a pastoral to a ‘sub-urban’ character would have some effect on perceptions of the wider park and estate, and would erode the relationship of High Hamsterley Farm with the wider estate to a substantial degree. The area is not seen in its entirety from public vantage points due to the screening effects of the high ground running through High Hamsterley.
176. The edges of the development would be visible in close views from the B6310 and the railway walk in the immediate vicinity of the site, and from the footpath west of High Hamsterley Farm. The development would be progressively screened or filtered to a substantial degree in views from the road and railway line as structural landscaping developed. There would be some residual middle –distance views of houses in the west through mature trees from the footpath.
Page 43 177. Viewpoint 2 is from public footpath 13 adjacent to High Hamsterley Farm, a single residential dwelling, and where the proposed residential development would bound it on its southern and eastern boundaries. The Inspector noted at paragraph 17 of her report that the impact of development from views from High Hamsterley Farm would be moderate/slight, and while the landform would have the result of screening some of the proposed housing, roof tops would remain evident and would be likely to be seen, particularly in winter months, even if planting were to be established successfully. At this point, the proposed houses would be no less than 20m from the common boundary, and with an area of structural panting of no less than 10m separating the housing from the site boundary. The viewpoint assessed in the LVA is however, adjacent to High Hamsterley Farm itself as opposed to the edge of its curtilage where it abuts the application site. As such, there is a greater degree of separation between the proposed housing and High Hamsterley Farm itself.
178. In respect of the relationship between the earlier scheme and that proposed, is such that along the southern boundary of High Hamsterley Farm, the distance between properties is similar, however, along the common eastern/western boundary, there is a much reduced distance, from 50m to 20m, reflective of development now being located in the sites north-western corner where it was previously retained meadow grassland. The closer proximity of the housing in this viewpoint, does not, however, result in a significant change to the impact, but it would be moderate as opposed to moderate/slight, with some degree of upper floors and rooftops remaining evident after the implementation of proposed landscaping as mitigation, however, only the latter element would likely remain visible in this viewpoint after a ten year period.
179. The proposed residential development, it is considered, would not diminish levels of enjoyment of the countryside of users of the recreation route, while the interrelationship of the housing and High Hamsterley Farm is such that views, in visual amenity rather than residential amenity terms, of the wider landscape, would not be obscured. Accordingly, it is considered, that while moderate effects on the landscape would be apparent in this viewpoint, the overall impact on the landscape would be limited.
180. The Landscape Section advise that the while the proposed housing would not be unattractive in itself, the effect on the present character of the area would be fundamental and therefore assess the effect as being high and adverse in this area. However, they consider that the effects of the proposals to be lower than the previous scheme in views in from outside of the area as the development has been set back further from the road in the view from the B6310 noted by the Inspector, and would be more effectively screened by landscaping elements. It is considered that the effects of the proposals on the landscape of the Park in the round as being of up to a high magnitude on completion falling to a medium magnitude beyond around 10 years. The assessment of residual effect as medium reflects the high and permanent, but localised and visually contained, effects in the north-west of the park. The significance of the overall effect on the park is therefore assessed as being moderate.
The wider Derwent Valley
181. It is considered that the landscape of the wider Derwent Valley is of medium sensitivity to development of this nature. It is an attractive landscape of high value which is reflected in its designation as an AHLV, but it is also a settled landscape in which built development is a characteristic feature. The valley topography affords opportunities for open and long distance views which increases the susceptibility of the landscape to the effects of built development. It is also heavily wooded which
Page 44 provides potential for screening and assimilation of development which reduces its susceptibility. The proposals would be visible in a variety of views within the valley.
182. A number of the viewpoints provided from greater distance to the site demonstrate that from areas such as Chopwell to the North West (viewpoints 13 and 14), and Gibside (viewpoint 12), the proposed development would not be visible. In closer proximity to the site, a number of viewpoints, including that from the Pontburn Viaduct, taken in winter months, demonstrates that very little of the proposed scheme would be visible, and less so in summer months and as structural planting develops.
183. In some of the more open panoramic views from higher ground to the south and east of the site, in particular, the southern flanks of the valley falling from Dipton (viewpoint 9 at Hill Top), Pickering Nook (viewpoint 10) and Burnopfield (viewpoint 4), the application site is visible as part of an area of open pastoral farmland between woodlands along the Hamsterley Burn, larger plantations to the west and the wooded roof-scape of Hamsterley Mill. Much of the proposed development would be visible during and after construction in these views. However, it would form a small part of visually complex panoramas in most cases, but would be relatively conspicuous in others. Viewpoint 4 in the LVA, from the B6310 in the High Friarside area, for example, demonstrates that the development would be relatively conspicuous; however, it would be progressively screened by the proposed structural landscaping until its appearance became that of woodland or a wooded roof-scape similar to that of Hamsterley Mill. The Landscape Section advises that the stage at which that screening would become fully effective would vary but would expect it to begin to achieve a ‘wooded roof-scape’ character in these views from around 10 years.
184. The existing landscape is a mosaic of farmland, woodland and built development. The effect of the introduction of additional built form on the character of the wider landscape in these views would be of low to moderate magnitude in the short term, but falling progressively over time to negligible or low. This is consistent with the Inspector’s findings on this issue in assessing the previous scheme and the changes in layout are considered to have not materially affected this. The Inspector also noted that there would be some visual alteration in hours of darkness with new lighting visible. This would erode night-time darkness locally but would not entail a substantial change in character, and measures to minimise light spill form the development could be controlled by way of planning condition.
185. In contrast to the more open views form the south, the northern flanks of the valley the site is less open to view being screened to a greater degree by topography and by vegetation in Hamsterley Mill and along the railway walk. The effect in these views would be of a low magnitude.
186. The Inspectors concerns about the effect of the earlier scheme on the landscape tended to focus on the impacts closer to the site. A number of viewpoints have been provided in the LVA in order to demonstrate that the revised scheme has sought to address the Inspectors concerns.
187. Viewpoint 1 is from the Derwent Walk and specifically from the west of the car park and at a point where the path has climbed back up form road level. At this point the proposed housing would, at its nearest, be a little over 35m away. The viewpoint was chosen as it offered glimpse views of the site through the mature woodland cover ad understorey planting which occupy the embankment between the viewpoint and the northern edge of the site. Photomontages provide in the LVA demonstrate that even in winter months the views of the housing would be largely filtered by the interviewing Page 45 housing, and would be further filtered during summer months. However, the submitted landscape strategy seeks to mitigate such effects further with significant landscape planting between this viewpoint and the northern boundary of the nearest dwellings. This would consist of a buffer of between 10 and 20m depth and would include a mix of both evergreen and deciduous planting. The landscape section considers that there would be some visibility in views from the immediate vicinity as noted above including short sections of the railway walk, however, the scale of change in the character of the landscape in these views would be typically medium falling to low with the development of structural landscaping.
188. Therefore, from lower ground in the valley and closer to the site, the proposed development would be often screened by topography, vegetation and buildings. There would be some visibility in views from the immediate vicinity as noted above including short sections of the B6310 east of and passing the site, short sections of the adjacent railway walk and some sections of nearby footpaths. However, the Landscape Section advise that the scale of change in the character of the landscape in these views would be typically medium falling to low with the development of structural landscaping, and that the significance of the overall effect on the Derwent Valley is assessed as being slight to moderate.
189. The Inspector concluded that the previous scheme would give rise to moderate landscape harm because of the extent of change at closer proximity, and that there would therefore be a detrimental effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Conflict was therefore identified with Local Plan Policy EN6, in terms of insufficient attention paid to the landscape qualities of the site in terms of its AHLV designation, and Local Plan Policies EN1 or EN2 which seek to ensure that development in the countryside is sensitively related to the landscape in the area. In particular, the Inspector’s identified a range of adverse landscape and visual effects in paragraphs 12 to 17, her conclusion that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area focussed on near views from the estate driveway in paragraphs 18 -19.
190. Taking each of these in turn, it is considered that in respect of paragraph 12 and the view from the B6310 lay-by, that the revised proposals would have a lower impact in this view from the B6310, with the development having been set back from that area and the access road having been designed with reverse camber and ditch to reduce its visibility. In relation to paragraph 13 and views form higher ground, it is considered that the character and appearance of the proposals in views from higher ground would remain similar and impacts would remain low. In respect of views approaching the site from Burnopfield, the Inspector found the change to be slight, and in this case it is considered that the cage would be notably lower in closer views as a result of the revised layout.
191. Similarly, while the Inspector noted in paragraph 15 that there would be glimpsed views of the development from the Derwent Walk, she did not conclude that there was necessarily harm as a result. The revised scheme would, it is considered have a lower impact in glimpsed views than the previous proposals. In respect of paragraphs 16 and 17, the revised scheme would have similar landscape effects; in particular, the roofs of buildings would remain visible in views from High Hamsterley and its relationship with the wider estate would be diminished to an extent. The particular harm the Inspector identified in relation to views from the estate driveway in paragraphs 18 and 19, have, it is considered, been addressed to a large extent by development now being at a considerable distance from the driveway together with the proposed structural landscaping.
Page 46 192. It is therefore considered that the particular harm identified by the Inspector in terms of the impact on closer range has been addressed to a large extent by the proposed development, while similar conclusions about slight effects in certain on medium and longer views would remain the same. The extent to which the scheme has paid particular attention to the sites designation as an AHLV is considered to be evidenced by the revised scheme in terms of its landscape-led approach to the layout, reduced amount of development, and the position and timing of structural landscaping, such that the extent of any conflict with Policy EN6 of the Local Plan is therefore minimised. There would similarly be some degree of conflict with Local Plan Policies EN1 and EN2, however, the revised scheme has addressed to a large extent the harm identified by the Inspector such that the scheme has minimised any conflict with Policies as far as it is able. The slight conflicts that the proposed development would have with these policies is a matter to be considered in the balancing requirement set out at criterion g of the EH Policy (set out at paragraph 46 above) and in the balancing exercise in reaching a conclusion on the scheme.
The effect on the setting of listed buildings
193. There are a number of Listed Buildings which are in close proximity to the site of the proposed housing, and these include, Hamsterley Hall itself, The Old Lodge at the entrance to the estate along with the gates at the same entrance. In assessing the proposed development, regard must be had to the statutory duty imposed upon the Local Planning Authority as set out at Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building, or its setting, the decision-maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. What this means is that a finding of harm to the setting of a listed building gives rise to a strong (but rebuttable) statutory presumption against the grant of planning permission. Any such harm must be given considerable importance and weight by the decision-maker.
194. Turning firstly to the impact of the proposed development upon the setting of The Old Lodge and the adjacent gates. As set out earlier in this report, the revised scheme has not only moved development further away from the listed Old Lodge and gates, but also the amount of development that was in close proximity to it. In particular, the nearest dwelling would be around 250m from the Old Lodge where previously the nearest dwelling was some 115m from the Old Lodge. Within that range of 115 to 250m from the Old Lodge, the earlier scheme proposed at least 10 new dwellings with associated garaging and access. The Inspector was particularly concerned that the Old Lodge and gates are some of the nearest listed buildings and on approach to the ornamental gateway on the B6310, the proposed housing would be seen on rising ground relatively close to the Old Lodge. Whilst proposed housing would continue to be seen in this view it would be to a lesser extent and of far less prominence. The proposed housing has been laid out in a way that it arcs around a central landscape area, such that those houses that would be most likely seen in the backdrop of the setting to the Old Lodge and gates would be approaching 350m distance away (plots 5 through 9, and in addition, these particular plots would feature extensive structural landscaping along their rear boundaries to further minimise their impact on the character of the area and the setting of these listed buildings.
195. The Inspector was concerned that the backdrop of housing would alter the whole approach between The Old Lodge and walled garden area when approaching and leaving the Hall, because it would erode the rural qualities of the area and pastoral scene at this point, and therefore that harm would arise to the setting of the listed Old Lodge and gates. In view of the above assessment of the changes to the scheme Page 47 and its layout in particular, and having regard to the advice the Design and Historic Environment Section, that any harm to the setting of these listed buildings has been appropriately minimised.
196. Turning to the impact on the setting of the Hall itself, and in considering the appeal scheme, the Inspector was concerned that the proposed development would be seen, including from the public right of way to the south, through the woodland to the rear of the Hall especially during winter months when trees are not in leaf and would be glimpsed at other times. Whilst some new planting was proposed that would supplement the existing vegetation, this woodland barrier was considered insufficient, as even glimpses of the proposed housing would have a discordant urbanising effect that would be harmful to the historic setting of the Hall as established by its formal gardens, parkland, pasture and woodland. It is understood that as a result of ongoing woodland management around the estate, that there has been clearance of vegetation in this area recently which has increased the extent to which the site of the proposed housing is now visible through the woodland. The revised scheme proposes dwellings at a similar distance to the existing woodland as the previous scheme did, although, there are considerably less in number in close proximity. The two schemes both featured a significant landscape buffer to supplement the existing woodland, and in addition, the proposed scheme also includes further structural planting beyond this buffer (separated by the access road) and around the side/rear elevations of plots 22-24, 28 and 32, as further mitigation.
197. English Heritage highlight that whilst the remnants of a historic park and garden surrounding Hamsterley Hall, the Hall itself does not dominate its grounds in the typical 18 th century manner. Instead its placement in the landscape emphasises its seclusion overlooking the steep valley of the Pont Burn. This isolation adds significantly to the buildings charm and reflects its relatively domestic scale. Key to maintaining this sense of seclusion against the visual impact of the proposed housing is the tree belt to the north of the Hall. English Heritage welcome the proposals to increase the screening in this area, and are, subject to the views of the Councils’ Landscape Section, satisfied that sufficient measures are in place to minimise harm to the immediate setting of the Hall.
198. The Landscape Section consider that given the nature of the topography it would be possible to screen built development in the backdrop of views of the Hall by establishing a visually dense belt of planting to augment the northern edge of the woodland, and whilst this would take time to be fully effective, it should be noted that the main landscape buffer proposed in this location forms part of a section of ‘advanced landscaping works’ as set out in the section 106 agreement. The planting in this area would take place within the first planting season following commencement of development, thereby seeking to ensure that it is established at the earliest practical opportunity. With those measures in place it is considered that the effect of the development in this localised, but particularly sensitive area, would be of a medium-high magnitude diminishing progressively to a low or negligible magnitude over around 10 years as the planting establishes.
199. Therefore whilst some limited harm would arise to the immediate setting of the Hall it would diminish as the planting establishes, and is, as English Heritage advise, sufficiently minimised. In respect of guidance in the EH Policy, criterion a, states that, ‘enabling development that would secure the future of a significant place, should be unacceptable unless it will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting’. It is considered that any harm would not materially affect the Hall’s intrinsic heritage values, would be minimised in terms of the Hall’s immediate setting, and would diminish in time.
Page 48 200. Overall, however, the development cannot be said to preserve or enhance the setting of the Hall and other designated heritage assets; some limited harm to those interests would result. The resulting harm to the Hall is considered not to be material and therefore criterion (a) of the English Heritage policy can be satisfied. However, the limited harm to designated heritage assets means that a strong presumption against granting planning permission arises. It is therefore necessary to decide whether the benefits of the development are sufficient to outweigh that presumption. It is noted that both English Heritage and the Council’s Design and Conservation Section consider that they are.
The suitability of the site having regard to the objectives of siting housing in sustainable locations so as to reduce the reliance on private vehicles
201. As the Inspector identified at paragraph 34 of her report, the site for the proposed enabling development is situated where there are no day to day facilities to which one could easily walk, such as shops, schools, or doctors, and so the site is not one from which a resident could access services without reliance on some other form of transport, most likely private car having regard to the nature of the development proposed, and therefore, that the site is not one that should be viewed as inherently sustainable. The location of the application site has not changed, and accordingly, the Inspectors conclusions about the inherent sustainability of the site remain relevant in the context of the proposed development. Objectors to the scheme have cited the sites lack of sustainability as a key ground upon which to again refuse planning permission. However, the issue in respect of the current scheme is whether the scheme addresses the sites lack of inherent sustainability to a greater extent than the appeal scheme. The reduction in numbers of units would clearly result in a lesser number of occupiers and thus a lesser number of private vehicles, and associated movements to access employment, education or services.
202. The use of private vehicles to access services and facilities is countered to some extent by the availability of alternative means of transport. In terms of bus service provision, it remains the case that the most regular service is available from the bus stops situated on the A694, and that reaching these stops would involve a relatively long walk of some 650m from the site boundary, which could be increased by some 450m at the furthest part of the site, and require crossing two roads to access buses to the Metro Centre and Newcastle, one of which is a busy class A road, and some steps at the southern end of High Hamsterley Road where it meets the B6310. There is, as was the case at the time of the appeal, a bus service (45 and 46), which serve these stops, running between Consett and Newcastle every quarter of an hour to twenty minutes, taking about twenty minutes to reach the Metro Centre, half an hour to get to Newcastle and about 20 minutes to Consett. A regular service is provided throughout the day, capable of accommodating a working day for commuters. The Inspector concluded that whilst one might expect a longer walk to a bus stop than would typically be the case in an urban area, it nonetheless was considered to act as a disincentive to pubic transport use versus the likely availability of private transport for the occupiers of the large family homes proposed. Such a conclusion remains reasonable, and the reduction in the number of units does not increase the likelihood of public transport use, rather it only reduces the number of trips by private car as opposed the usage in comparison with 60 dwellings.
203. The nearest bus stop on the B6310 is approximately 770m from the site entrance, and like those on the A694, links Newcastle with Consett, with a service every hour. The service takes about 8 minutes to Burnopfield, and 35 minutes to the Metro Centre and around 15 minutes to Consett Bus Station. The proposed development would, however, result in provision of two new bus stops with shelters in close proximity to the site entrance. The shelter on the southern side of the road for buses Page 49 to Consett would be within 30m of the site entrance, whilst the stop on the northern side of the road and for buses to Newcastle would be around 80m from the site entrance. This would therefore provide better facilities for occupiers of the proposed development. In conjunction with the provision of a footpath link from the end of Parklands along the southern side of the B6310 to where it meets the entrance to the Derwent Walk, this would also represent an improvement to the existing service for occupiers of existing houses in this part of Hamsterley Mill.
204. Moreover, this would likely to introduce public transport as an alternative means of accessing services and facilities elsewhere as a result of the current distances to stops, and even in cases where buses do stop when flagged down on the road, the perceived safety issues would be a likely deterrent for many, particularly in light of objectors concerns about the traffic levels and speeds on the B6310.
205. Therefore, given the overall distances to bus stops, journey times and other factors, such as convenience, carrying shopping and multiple visits, these reduce the likelihood of bus use. But, on some occasions occupiers of the proposed dwellings might well opt to use public transport, particularly if this were to be more convenient than parking in urban areas or for nights/meals out. Furthermore, the proposed formalised new bus stops and footpath provision would, at least, be a positive encouragement to such use, for both existing and prospective occupiers.
206. In terms of accessing education facilities, the Inspector found that generally it was her experience that those in rural areas are likely to use public transport to deliver children, particularly those of secondary school age, to and from school. In this case, children of primary school age would have the option of attending schools in Burnopfield, Ebchester and Shotley Bridge, all of which are accessible by public transport, although as the Inspector acknowledged this is far less likely for the youngest children requiring supervision and the ease of making return journeys for adults. In addition, it is acknowledged that as there are suitable schools within 2 miles walking distance for children aged 8 and under, the Education Authority does not provide free school transport. Similarly, for those over the age of 8, there are schools available within a 3 mile walking distance, and again no free transport, notwithstanding the availability of public transport, would be provided by the Education Authority. It is likely that there would be some reliance on private car use for accessing primary schools. However it is often the case that such journeys are often undertaken in conjunction with a journey to and from work by an adult as opposed to a specific journey for that purpose.
207. For children of secondary school age and where supervision by adults to and from school is less likely, there would be a free school bus from Hamsterley Mill serving the Consett Academy, and accordingly, there would be significantly less reliance on private car journeys for secondary age pupils living in the prosed development.
208. The site of the proposed housing lies immediately adjacent access to the Derwent Walk, which by virtue of being based on the route of a disused railway line, is free from cars, has reasonably gentle inclines (with some steeper sections particularly where access to it is gained, for example, where it meets the B6310 adjacent the application site) and a generally good ground surface. It gives access to locations with, for instance, schools and supermarkets at a reasonable distance for cycling; Consett is around 9km and has a full range of shops and services, while Rowlands Gill is some 3.5km, and also has a range of services and facilities, including a small supermarket. The route is nonetheless unlit and generally isolated from natural surveillance, and as such, is unlikely to be used by children travelling to and from school or that residents would undertake their main household shop by bicycle. The route might well, however, be used a means of combining leisure activities with Page 50 access to services, for example, the Derwent Walk Inn on Ebchester Hill is a relatively short cycle (4km) from the application site entrance. Therefore, whilst a significant amenity benefit for existing and prospective residents in recreational terms and offering some access to services, its existence does not, as the Inspector concluded, render the location a sustainable one.
209. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF sets out that in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. On this issue, the Inspector found that, despite the appellants suggestion that the proposed development would assist in maintaining local services and facilities, there are no immediate facilities which would benefit from the patronage of future occupiers and that it was likely that their expenditure or use of facilities by future occupiers would be spread over a relatively wide area, and consequently gave little weight to the importance of the contribution that the future occupiers of the development would make to sustaining local facilities. Whilst no new facilities have established themselves in the intervening period and in the immediate vicinity of the site, there are as described earlier, facilities a short cycle ride from the site that could be used by prospective residents, and likewise there is a strong likelihood that Lintzford Garden Centre on the eastern edge of Hamsterley Mill would be utilised by prospective residents, particularly given the range of goods available to purchase (clothes, furniture, and garden-related products) as well as a large café facility.
210. Despite the Inspectors conclusion on this matter, it is considered that more than a little weight can be given to the likelihood that residents would make use of nearby facilities, thus contributing to those services being maintained for the benefit of the community as a whole.
211. As set out earlier, the Inspector concluded that the site of the proposed housing cannot be considered to be an inherently sustainable location, and that the ‘executive’ nature of the housing is such that it is likely to be occupied by people with access to private cars. There is therefore likely to be a significant reliance on private car use to access services and facilities. As such, the proposals would not be wholly consistent with the aims of promoting sustainable modes of transport as set out at paragraph 30 of the NPPF. However, this must be balanced against a significantly reduced quantum of proposed development, and thus a reduced reliance on private car use, existing and improved access to bus services, the access to services and facilities afforded by the Derwent Walk, and the further support of local services and facilities that new residents would bring.
212. In addition, and as the Inspector noted in determining the weight to be applied to the issue of sustainability generally in the overall balancing exercise, there are other factors to consider. Notwithstanding the objectors concerns about the location of the site generally for housing, enabling development for a country estate may, because of the nature of the building it is seeking to support, be located in inaccessible or remote locations. The application site does, in this context, at least benefit from some scope for travel by means other than the private car. Therefore, whilst the site is not an inherently sustainable location for new open market residential development with related planning policy conflict, the revised scheme for a reduced quantum of development and the particular circumstances of the case as an enabling scheme provide sufficient justification for outweighing such harm in the context of comparing new residential development that was not linked to securing the repair and restoration of a heritage asset.
Page 51 Whether the amount and type of proposed enabling development is justified having regard to the needs of Hamsterley Hall
213. Hamsterley Hall is one of the most interesting and significant country houses in County Durham. Its primary significance as a grade II* listed building is its historical association with three national and internationally renowned owners and families. The first of these was Henry Swinburne (1743 to 1803), a pioneering travel writer and courtier of the 18 th century. The second was the novelist and sports writer Robert Surtees (1805 to 1864) whose popularity and reputation once rivalled Charles dickens. Thirdly, is the association with the Vereker family of the early 20 th century, including John Vereker, the 6 th Viscount Gort, who commanded the British Expeditionary Force in the early years of the Second World War.
214. Over three centuries each of these owners and families shaped the Hall ad left their imprint upon it. Its main architectural style is an early and now regionally rare example of ‘Gothic Revival’, introduced by Swinburne in 1769 and seen most brilliantly in the internal plasterwork and window surrounds of the east range, now the main front of the building. The Vereker family introduced salvaged architectural features from important historic buildings that were demolished in the 1930s and in doing so installed a ‘Tudor’ character on the Hall. Surtees main contribution was in the surrounding garden and parkland where the ‘romantic’ aspect of the Derwent Valley was emphasised. Behind all of these alterations and additions is an earlier house, which is difficult to interpret but there is enough fabric remaining to reward academic research. Whilst Hamsterley Hall is not necessarily the most physically imposing county house in the area, it is one of the most individual and deeply historic with associations that place it and the Derwent Valley in the national and international cultural and political sphere of history.
215. The Hall’s Grade II* status therefore acknowledges it as being an important heritage asset to the nation, and is among the top 8% of all listed buildings in England. The Hall is acknowledged to be in a state of disrepair after a steady decline since the mid 20 th century left it in a very bad structural state. Its condition is such that it was put on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register in 2010. On that Register it is categorised as being in the worst condition; that of ‘very bad’. English Heritage advise that, importantly, the Hall is not beyond saving, but only if action is taken to do so in the short term. In order to save the building and ensure its restoration, considerable financial investment is required. In this case, the costs of undertaking such works are significantly greater than the market value of the Hall upon its repair. Accordingly some other means of funding the works is necessary.
Efficient subsidy is not available from any other source
216. Enabling development should always been seen as a subsidy of last resort, since it is an inefficient means of funding a conservation deficit, often requiring enabling development with a value of several times the conservation deficit to break even. The enabling development guidance requires that an investigation should be carried out of the potential for grants which could be considered in combination with enabling development.
217. The applicant’s advisors have made a search of possible grant fund availability. However it is apparent that there is currently no readily available funding to restore the Hall. English Heritage advised that they are currently involved in a number of large and complex heritage at risk projects nationally that require immediate financial support and they already have a significant financial commitment to a number of heritage at risk projects in the local area. Their existing commitments mean that they are unable to commit to further spend and are unable to make any further offers of Page 52 grant for spend this financial year or next, beyond that already committed. Therefore, while in the longer term this does not mean that English Heritage would not be able to provide grant funding to other schemes such as this one, there is no certainty and none in the short-term. Hamsterley Hall, as set out earlier, is in a significant state of disrepair and in need of action in the short term. This is reflected in the proposed section 106 agreement, where stabilisation works to the Hall would be carried out within 5 months of the granting of planning permission. In addition, the works to Hall would be completed within three years of the commencement of development.
218. The Heritage Lottery Fund has also advised that they are not able to provide any funding because it would not achieve their programme outcomes and would not represent sufficient value for money. They advise that whilst they are able to fund applications from private owners under the Our Heritage programme, they must demonstrate a step change in terms of public access and engagement with heritage and there must be clear public support for the proposals. Some of the objectors have picked up on this point and are advising that public access should be increased.
219. The applicant’s met the representative from the Heritage Lottery Fund on-site, where they discussed the proposals, including public access, in detail. The applicant is proposing to open the Hall and grounds to the public over the national Red Cross Charity weekend each autumn, to bona fide scholarly organisations, interest groups and skilled craftsmen on up to 10 occasions every year. This is proposed to be secured in the section 106 agreement. Two information boards would also be provided, one to be erected next to Handley Cross Bridge adjacent to the byway and one at the entrance to the Derwent Walk adjacent to the car park. These would provide maps showing all local walks and some historical and ecological information regarding the Hall, historic parkland and ancient woodland. The Heritage Lottery Fund is aware of these proposals; however, they have advised that they would normally require substantial public access and even then funding could not be guaranteed, given the competitive process with other sites.
220. Savills, who have provided valuation advice to the applicants, have provided further detail in terms of the likely impact on the value of the Hall of increased public access. Their view is that increased public access to Hamsterley Hall would have a substantial impact on its value and depending on the degree of unrestricted access could realistically result in the property being unsaleable unless at a relatively nominal value which neither reflects the size or quality of position of the restored accommodation. In addition, a further reduced valuation which was not matched by any grant funding that would become available as a result of increased access could potentially lead to an increased conservation deficit, and therefore an increased amount of enabling development. The force in this argument is acknowledged. Additionally, use of the Hall as a private family dwellinghouse is the optimum use, in heritage terms, for the building. It is considered that the high level of public access likely to be required to secure HLF funding would erode the occupants’ privacy to the extent of compromising that use. In this case, it is therefore considered that the amount of public access currently proposed is appropriate and provides a reasonable balance between allowing public access and ensuring that the use of the Hall as a private family home is not compromised through an invasion of privacy.
221. The applicant has also previously sought funding from other sources including The Hadrian Trust, Country Houses Foundation, Natural England and SITA; however, no funding was identified. The Council’s Funding and Programmes Team as well as the Heritage, Landscape & Design Team have also advised that they are not aware of any funding streams within the Council that could fund such a project.
Page 53 222. It is therefore considered that further research into grant aid is unlikely to succeed and the need for action now has become increasingly urgent, if the building is to be preserved. Matters need to be able to move forward at sufficient speed to avoid further and more rapid deterioration whereby it is too late to save the building.
223. Some objectors have suggested that the Hall should be in public ownership, such as the National Trust. However, there is no policy or guidance that requires listed buildings such as this to be placed into public ownership or that that would prevent enabling development from cross-funding restoration works to privately owned heritage assets. English Heritage, whose advice is that the building’s optimum use is as a private dwellinghouse, have advised that they are satisfied with the range of grant giving bodies that have been approached and their responses, accepting that the opportunity for grant aid to reduce the conservation deficit is very limited in scope. Accordingly, it is considered that sufficient subsidy is not available from any other source, in accordance with criterion (e) of English Heritage’s enabling development policy guidance.
224. Another source of subsidy would be whereby a different owner was ready to fulfil the same level of repair as is currently proposed, but without recourse to subsidy through enabling development. Considering the significant conservation deficit identified, it is considered reasonable to assume that this would be unlikely. However, the EH guidance sets out in section 4.7 that a property normally needs to be marketed for at least six months. English Heritage have advised that whilst the failure to do so in advance of the current application weakens the justification for enabling development as a last resort, this needs to be considered against the pressing need to repair the property. A delay of six months to a year could further jeopardise the building’s stability and this must be considered against the seemingly low chances of finding an owner willing to take on the work without enabling development. Therefore, English Heritage considers that it is reasonable to forgo market testing in this instance.
It will secure the long term future of the place
225. In considering the appeal for the previous scheme, the Inspector found that certain works that would be funded by the enabling development, in order to secure a suitable value for the restored property, such as the upgrade to the driveway might well reflect expensive works that, whilst in a buoyant market might be justified, in the current economic climate may represent desirable improvements that are not essential to the restoration of the historic asset. The same can be said of the fit out of the Hall, with such works now being funded by the applicants. The cost of works to be undertaken to the Hall and the grounds by the applicants that would have been funded by the enabling development as result of the previous proposals extends to some £1,037,620. The Inspector noted that whilst mothballing might not be appropriate for this property, a less ambitious scheme might well be.
226. As a consequence of the Inspectors findings, the amount of enabling development has been reduced and the profits arising from it are now more tightly focused on the repair of the Hall and securing its future. English Heritage consider that this is a realistic change, but acknowledge that it is one which does not achieve full refurbishment of the Hall immediately, and as such, they consider that some doubt must remain over its future, however, more importantly it would be stabilised and its market value will increase meaning that the risk of its loss is vastly reduced. Moreover, they consider that, the works that would be funded by the enabling development would be sufficient to remove the building from the Heritage at Risk register.
Page 54 227. The enabling development works will not secure that the Hall is fit for use as a dwellinghouse. Further investment by the owner will be required to achieve that outcome. In broad terms, the Hall works to be required under the enabling development scheme proposals will result in a building that is expected to have a value of £1.2m. Savills (the applicant’s agents) estimate that if the additional £1.037m is spent on the building and surrounding parkland, it would then have a value of £2m. Although there is a shortfall, it is reasonable to expect that investment to be made in a family home and the Council can therefore be reasonably confident that the ultimate outcome of the works will be to secure the optimum viable use of the building.
That the amount of development is the minimum necessary to achieve the future of the place
228. In order to demonstrate that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to achieve the future of the place by bringing about the repair and restoration of the Hall, a detailed Financial Development Appraisal (FDA) has been submitted together with a market report by Savills detailing the valuation of the restored building and its immediate grounds. In order to ensure that the financial case for the enabling development was robustly examined, independent analysis was jointly commissioned by English Heritage and the Council. The appointed consultants, Gerald Eve, who have substantial experience in assessing the financial case for enabling development schemes, have provided detailed advice on all aspects of the financial case, whilst the Council’s Assets Section have provided additional advice in relation to the costs associated with the construction of the new dwellings and their likely sales values.
229. In simple terms the conservation deficit is calculated by subtracting the restoration costs from the end value. It is the resultant deficit that would be met by the proposed enabling development, and in particular by calculating the level of surplus that would be left once the development costs have been subtracted from the sales revenues. The conservation deficit and the surplus should be aligned to demonstrate that on the one hand there is sufficient housing proposed to ensure that the necessary works can be funded and equally to demonstrate that no more than is the minimum required to fund the necessary works. A detailed appraisal of the calculations and assumptions made by the applicants and the appointed consultants is therefore considered appropriate to understand the calculations involved, but for ease of reference the table below shows the respective figures provided by the applicants and those considered appropriate by the appointed consultants.
Financial measure Applicants Gerald Eve Total restoration costs £4,761,550 £5,317,574 Market value on completion £1,642,500 £1,625,060 Conservation deficit -£3,119,050 -£3,692,514 Enabling development surplus £3,105,782 £3,487,001 Outstanding conservation deficit -£13,268 -£205,513
230. Gerald Eve has considered the Savills report on the restored value of the Hall. Savills provided valuation advice based upon only those works to be funded by the enabling development having been carried out, and in relation to the Hall with immediate gardens and grounds only, although they recognise that a property such as this is unlikely to be sold without some form of enhanced land holding in order protect privacy and enhance amenity.
231. The report makes reference to seven properties which have been considered in the assessment of value. These properties range in size from 8,000 sq. ft. to 40,000 sq. Page 55 ft., are in varying states of repair and marketed with the benefit of a range of ancillary buildings and land. The values range between £126 / sq. ft. and £466 / sq. ft., with a median of £209 / sq. ft. The report does not provide a detailed commentary as to the application of the comparable information or the subsequent arrival at opinion of value. The valuation for Hamsterley Hall equates to approximately £138 / sq. ft. (based upon a refurbished Gross Internal Area of 8,700 sq. ft).
232. Gerald Eve advise that they recognise the nature and condition of the property deems identification of identical, and to some extent even similar, properties difficult, and that, therefore, direct comparison is not possible. However, they would have expected to see a thorough commentary for each comparable, identifying whether it is better/worse than the subject property and any adjustments that should be applied to the valuation of the subject property. Notwithstanding the absence of this analysis, Gerald Eve concludes that the valuation of the Hall and immediate surroundings is reasonable. Furthermore, they consider that while the inclusion of additional land surrounding the Hall would add value to the sale price of the property, the value added by the additional land would be below that which was achievable for the land if it were to be sold separately for agricultural purposes. It is therefore considered appropriate for the applicant to provide a valuation of the Hall in relative isolation and provide a value for the surrounding land separately.
233. The assessment of the detailed restoration costs have been undertaken by English Heritage’s specialist quantity surveying team, who have provided their findings on these costs to Gerald Eve as part of their assessment of the financial case generally. The restoration costs that are to be funded by the enabling development have been calculated at £4,132,157, excluding any allowances for finance, developer’s profit or site value. The applicant’s FDA provides for a total restoration cost of £4,761,550, which includes allowances for finance, developer’s profit and site value. With these items excluded the restoration costs would be some £3,758,695, or around £375,000 less than English Heritage’s appraised restoration costs.
234. In considering the inclusion or otherwise of developers profit within the conservation deficit calculation, it is noted that paragraph 5.4.1of the English Heritage guidance states that; “Development costs obviously include not only repair, but also, if possible or appropriate, conversion to optimum beneficial use, and a developer’s profit appropriate to the circumstances”. The guidance further states that developer’s profit should be set at a level which reflects the commercial risk, noting that there isn’t an ability for claw-back should the financial outcome be better than expected, but neither should there be an expectation of further enabling development if it is worse than expected. In respect of the level at which developer’s profit is set, the EH Guidance differentiates between a developer/builder, who will require a lower profit level, and an entrepreneurial developer, who will require a higher profit level. Gerald Eve therefore advises that the intention of the applicant to occupy the property as a residence should not prevent an allowance for profit to be accounted for within the conservation deficit. Furthermore, they consider the profit level of 7% on cost included by the applicant to be low and have adopted a higher profit level of 10% on cost (excluding finance) within their assessment.
235. In terms of the inclusion or otherwise of a site value within the conservation deficit calculation, the English Heritage guidance advises at paragraph 5.6.1 that, given the market value of a property is theoretically the sum remaining once development costs have been subtracted from end value, the result for some significant places in very poor condition will be negligible or negative. In respect of the Hall and its immediate surroundings, the applicant has attached a nil site value within the calculations, separating it from the surrounding 45 acre parkland and 80 acres of pastureland which have been given a value in isolation of £200,000 and £320,000, Page 56 respectively. Paragraph 5.6.6 of the English Heritage guidance advises that break-up value can be relevant if extensive land could be sold off and used separately. The intrinsic value of such land cannot be disregarded, and that either their value should be deducted from the purchase price to arrive at the real price paid for the place for which enabling development is sought or, if they nonetheless form part of an overall development scheme (which is desirable if their separate sale would fragment the place), their initial value, the cost of repair and conversion, and their end value should be included in the overall development appraisal.
236. Gerald Eve advises that they consider that the adoption of a break-up value on the surrounding parkland and pastureland is appropriate. The applicant has attached a value of £4,444 per acre to the parkland and £4,000 per acre to the pastureland, and on the basis of a high level review of agricultural land values within this area, they consider that a value of between £4,000 and £7,000 appears appropriate. A site value for these areas of £540,800 is considered appropriate.
237. The applicants total costs as set out in their FDA amounts to £4,761,550, however, based upon Gerald Eve’s opinion that a higher rate of developer’s profit is appropriate, the total costs to be adopted within the conservation deficit calculation amounts to £5,317,574, some £556,000 higher than the applicants figures. The applicant has adopted a value on completion of £1,642,500 within their assessment of the conservation deficit, arrived at through a break-up value of the Hall in isolation and the surrounding parkland and pastureland, however, Gerald Eve consider that this should also take account of sales agent fees and legal fees on the sale of the Hall, pastureland and parkland, thus arriving at a lower value of £1,625,060.
238. When the restored value is deducted from the restoration costs to produce the conservation deficit, that which has been calculated by the applicants differs from that calculated by Gerald Eve; the former amounting to -£3,119,050, and the latter at -£3,692,514. There is therefore a difference in the calculated conservation deficit of some £573,464.
239. Turning to the enabling development scheme itself, both Gerald Eve and the Councils Assets Section have reviewed the financial information provided by the applicants which sets out that the 35 proposed dwellings would have a gross development value of £17,220,000, based on average sales value of £240 / sq. ft. and an average unit price of £497,500. A review of sales values within the local area has been undertaken and it is considered that the units could achieve between £240 - £250 / sq. ft. Gerald Eve advise on this basis that the value adopted by the applicant is within a reasonable margin; however for completeness they have undertaken a sensitivity analysis to test the effect on the proposals of an increase in sales value, examining the assumptions made around build costs.
240. The build cost assumptions made by the applicant are based on costs prepared in March 2010 with an 11% increase applied based upon Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) published indices. The base build cost, including the 11% increase, equates to £96.27 / sq. ft. for the dwellings. The applicant has adopted a base build cost for the garages of £42.74 / sq. ft. Gerald Eve has reviewed information provided by the Build Cost Information Service (BCIS), rebased for Durham, to establish the average build costs for detached estate housing. The cost assumption made by the applicants is between the median build cost at £87.89 / sq.ft. and the upper quartile cost of £103.87 / sq.ft., and therefore while in the upper range, the costs are considered to be within a reasonable margin considering the high specification of the proposed dwellings. Similarly, the build cost of the proposed garages are considered to be high, however, they reflect the high specification proposed. Page 57
241. In terms of the other elements that combine to produce the overall development costs, Gerald Eve have advised that the additional site development works at a rate of £43.29 / sq. ft., which is similarly based upon cost information at March 2010 and rebased using RICS published indices, is considered to be acceptable when considered holistically. The contingency of 5% is considered to be high as the site is Greenfield and as the base costs are at the upper end of acceptable ranges, and ought to be around 3%. The professional fees of 4% are considered acceptable, and while the sales agent fees of 2.4% are considered high in isolation, the applicant has not included a separate marketing fee, and such fees are therefore considered acceptable. Gerald Eve also considers that the level of developer profit at 10% is low, and as such, they have assumed this would be 15%. When taken together, including median base build costs, Gerald Eve’s assumptions produce a development surplus (sales revenues minus development costs) of £3,487,001 in contrast to the applicant’s development surplus of £3,105,782, producing a difference of £381,219.
242. The applicants have calculated in their FDA that on the basis of the conservation deficit at -£3,119,050 and the enabling development surplus at £3,105,782, that there would be a small outstanding conservation deficit of -£13,268. On the basis of the assumptions made by Gerald Eve, there would be a remaining conservation deficit of -£205,513. However, Gerald Eve consider that the adopted sales values provided by the applicants in their FDA is at the lower range of achievable values and they have therefore undertaken a sensitivity analysis to test the effect on the resulting enabling development surplus, and thus the ability to meet the conservation deficit. This sensitivity test increased sales revenues by £5 / sq.ft., resulting in an outstanding conservation deficit of +£76,618.
243. Gerald Eve has therefore advised that it is inevitable that a present day appraisal will be unable to fully accurately reflect a future development in terms of costs and values. However, they are of the opinion that when considered holistically, the proposed development of 35 units is the minimum necessary to meet the conservation deficit.
244. The Inspector was concerned that the previous scheme had a significant imbalance between the conservation deficit and residual profit, the latter being a greater amount, such that the numbers of dwellings was considered to be more than the minimum necessary. Whilst there would be an outstanding conservation deficit, English Heritage advises that they consider the amount of new housing to be realistic and not in excess of requirements. In light of this advice, it is considered that the amount of enabling development proposed is the minimum required to fund the necessary repair and restoration works to the Hall. The concerns that the Inspector had in this regard are considered to have been addressed by the revised scheme, and this aspect of criterion f is therefore satisfied.
Public benefits arising from the scheme
245. The Inspector noted at paragraph 72 of her report, that in considering the benefits arising from the previous scheme, that the main public benefit that would arise would be the restoration of the Hall, and that this would weigh heavily in favour of the proposed development. English Heritage has advised that the repair of the Hall is a substantial public benefit for the Nation as well as County Durham.
246. Additional benefits would be derived from access granted to bona-fide organisations interested in the history and fabric of the Hall and charity open garden days. These benefits also weigh in favour of the scheme. Page 58
247. The Inspector noted that the inclusion of a play area to serve the development would be available to those living in Hamsterley Mill and visiting the area for instance as part of a walk or cycle ride, however, as such facilities were considered to essentially be a requirement of the development rather than a particular benefit for the public, she attached little weight to it. In this case, no play facilities are proposed; however, a financial contribution of £10,500 is offered within the s106 agreement and could be used towards the provision of new facilities in the local area. A scheme of 35 dwellings would not ordinarily give rise to the need for play facilities specifically, whilst the levels of open space to be provided for residents on the site are considerable, and above the requirements of Local Plan Policy HO22. Whilst the contribution would be funded by the enabling development, it is of such a limited amount that the quantum of enabling development could not reasonably be reduced to exclude it and therefore it is of some benefit.
248. Other benefits proposed as part of the previous scheme, including the new car park and picnic area, were given little weight by the Inspector who considered that they added a financial burden to the scheme and would be better used to reduce the quantum of development proposed. Whilst the current scheme would continue to provide a revised access to the existing car park, there would be no new car park or picnic facilities on this occasion.
249. Improvements to local bus facilities, with new stops and shelters and a roadside footway between the enabling development site and the end of High Hamsterley Road (Parklands on this occasion) was considered by the Inspector to be a benefit of the scheme that would also help the local community in terms of accessibility, and that it might also encourage recreational use of the public rights of way in this area, by making them more accessible, and that they weighed in favour of the scheme. Accordingly, it is considered that the provision of such facilities as part of the current scheme can similarly be considered as a public benefit weighing in favour of the scheme.
250. In addition to the bus stops and footway, additional signage would be provided at the entrance to Hamsterley Mill on approach from the west on the B6310, acting as a gateway feature. As described elsewhere in this report, there are substantial concerns among residents about the safety of the B6310. The additional signs would be such that they would act as a clear marker to drivers that they were entering a settlement and the need to slow down. Given the concerns expressed by residents and the applicant’s intention to address this in a positive way, it is considered that some, albeit limited, weight can be given to the proposed signs as a benefit to the public.
251. The Inspector previously considered that little weight ought to be given to the intention to provide executive housing. The dwellings proposed are clearly of an executive nature in terms of their scale, plot size and sale price. Policy 13 of the emerging County Durham Plan, seeks to allocate a site at Lambton Estate specifically for this purpose, but equally sets out that this does not preclude other executive housing coming forward elsewhere, subject to certain criteria being met. Business Durham has advised that there is a need for more executive housing in the County to provide greater options for senior executives to stay in the area. The development proposed appears to meet these needs and would help address current shortfalls of such housing. There is emerging research evidence that would suggest that similar developments of executive housing not only provide dwellings for senior executives but are also associated with new businesses being started by the residents. Durham currently has one of the lowest business start-up rates in the country, and as such any initiative that helps to encourage the start-up of businesses Page 59 in the County should be encouraged. Accordingly, it is considered that some, albeit limited, weight can be given to the executive nature of the proposed housing.
252. In summary, although the range of benefits outlined above do go some way in reducing the harm caused by the enabling development, none of them in themselves, or cumulatively, are considered sufficient to outweigh the harm, as clearly, it is only the repair the Hall that would be of such weight to outweigh other identified harm.
Site Access, Parking and Highway Safety
Site Access
253. The proposed new vehicular access with the B6310 is on the outside of a bend and was selected in conjunction with Highways Officers in order to afford acceptable sight visibility in both horizontal and vertical planes for a 40mph speed. Objections have been submitted that the access lies in a dangerous position on a bend with reduced visibility. However, the Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed access meets guidance on sight visibilities.
254. The existing access junction to the small car park beside the Derwent Walk has restricted sight visibility of and for vehicles joining and leaving the B6310. The proposals include the permanent closure of the existing junction, with related traffic movements transferred to the new residential estate access that affords acceptable sight visibilities in accordance with known B6310 vehicle speeds. The car park would be accessed from a minor junction leading from the residential estate road. The Highway Authority has advised that this would be a welcomed improvement to this facility. Maintenance related access to the southern side of the Derwent Walk would remain unaffected.
Impact on the Local Highway Network
255. Though not a particularly large housing development in relative terms, the proposals are the subject of strong concerns among local residents, in relation to the additional anticipated traffic and increased congestion on the B6310 and A694. The residents consider that the B6310 is a poorly designed road that is narrow, contains sharp bends and has restricted visibility.
256. The B6310 highway is part of the County's classified road network and carries approximately 2,500 vehicles daily where it passes the site (as a comparison the A694 carries over 6,000 vehicles per day). The classified road network is the County highways upon which strategic traffic is directed/signed, and 'B' roads, as in this case, typically link settlements and are not restricted to local traffic alone. This section of the B6310 is a local rural distributor road with characteristics (varying vertical and horizontal alignment) that are consistent with the ‘B’ road network, and mirrored in other parts of the County's classified road network.
257. The Highway Authority considers that the traffic generated would not impact on the stability of the network (i.e. no significant congestion or queuing will arise on the B6310 or the rest of the highway network). The applicant’s transport consultant has used industry standard methodology to predict vehicular traffic generation to and from the site. Total peak hour trip predictions are below the 30 two way trips threshold which is considered to have any material impact on the network and at junctions (Department for Transport ‘Guidance for Transport Assessment’).
Page 60 258. In respect of concerns regarding effect of extra traffic at junctions at Burnopfield, Swalwell roundabout and other locations away from the site in relative terms the proposed number of dwelling units is not large and could be easily accommodated on the B6310 link and, when dispersed further, cannot be considered material to junctions in the wider vicinity. The Highway Authority considers that refusal of the scheme on this basis could not be justified.
259. Residents have raised concern about the safety of Pont Burn Bridge. Whilst it is acknowledged that the road narrows across the bridge and that vehicles proceeding must give way to oncoming traffic, the Highway Authority consider that level of traffic generated as a result of the development would not have any significant detrimental impact on road safety as a result of any residents choosing to use the B6310 and Pont Burn Bridge to travel east from the development.
Vehicle Speeds
260. It is noted that there has been 1 accident on the B6310 in the vicinity of the proposed access over the past 5 years, which resulted from the loss of control of the vehicle late at night. The Highway Authority considers that this single incident would not support a need for a reduced speed limit, and that while it is recognised that there is an expressed desire from local residents to reduce the speed limit to 30mph, this would not be in keeping with relevant national guidance or the Council’s own speed management strategy. It is considered that the development and associated access would not result in any significant change in existing speeds on the B6310.
Gateway Feature / Bus Lay-bys and Footway Link
261. In response to comments provided by the local community, the applicant has agreed to provide the following:
• A gateway feature consisting of a sign stating ‘ Welcome to Hamsterley Mill – Please Drive Carefully ’ with associated road markings to help enhance the 40mph limit; • Bus stops / lay-bys on the B6310 close to the new junction with the proposed residential site. • A footway link along the south side of the B6310 leading from Parklands in Hamsterley Mill to the Derwent Walk.
262. Residents have raised concerns that any bus lay-by and footway link will create an additional safety hazard. The Highway Authority have expressed a view that a safer pedestrian environment can be created between the development, the Derwent Walk, and Parklands which will serve not only the residents of the development but those who may wish to gain access to the Derwent Walk. The bus laybys would be located off the running carriageway in suitable safe locations.
263. The gateway feature, bus lay-by and footway link is not something that is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning / highway terms; rather the applicant has agreed to provide these features at the request of Offices in order to help address some of the concerns raised by the local community.
Pedestrians and Cyclists
264. In respect of potential increased conflict with pedestrians and cyclists crossing the B6310 on the Derwent Walk, sight visibility is restricted for and of Derwent Walk users by the bend in the B6310 carriageway immediately to the east. However, vehicular traffic associated with the proposed development would either be turning in Page 61 left at the new access junction, before the Derwent Walk crossing location, thereby avoiding conflict, or approaching from the west where visibility is far superior. Drivers emerging from the new junction would be able to see any people waiting at either side of the Derwent Walk crossing point.
Internal Site Layout
265. The internal highway layout is deemed acceptable, as is parking provision. The internal highway layout is compatible with the Council's adoption standards.
Overall Assessment
266. It is accepted that occupants of the dwellings would be likely to place a greater than average reliance on the private motor car. However, it is considered the connecting B6310 highway would satisfactorily accommodate the anticipated generated traffic. Vehicular access to the Derwent Walk related car park would be improved and bus stop lay-bys would be created nearby for the use of the existing as well as new residents. While noting local concerns, and subject only to the attachment of the planning conditions, there is no aspect of the proposal in highway terms that is considered to warrant, or would sustain, a highways refusal. It is also recognised that the Inspector did not raise any concerns in relation to highway safety when considering a scheme for a greater number of dwellings.
267. The applicant has satisfied Officers that the scheme incorporates a clearly defined and safe vehicle access and exit onto the B6310 that meets guidance on sight visibilities at the junction; adequate provision for service vehicles for both the proposed estate and Hall; adequate vehicle maneuvering, turning and parking space; effective access at all times for emergency vehicles; and satisfactory access to the public transport network, through the provision of footpaths to new bus lay-bys, shelters and bus stops. It is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of Local Plan Policy TR2.
Residential Amenity
268. Although not a matter which has been raised to a significant degree by objectors to the proposed enabling development, it is nonetheless an interest of acknowledged importance. The proposed dwellings are some considerable distance to the nearest residential properties in Parkland’s, at around 60m. This distance combined with the raised level of the Derwent Walk that would separate the existing and proposed housing, as would extensive existing and proposed landscaping is such that there would not therefore be material harm to the nearest residents in terms of their amenity. The construction phase would, as with any development, cause some degree of noise and disturbance for the nearest residents, however, these are short term effects, around 15 months in this case, and are therefore given limited weight.
269. However, the Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Section consider that it would be appropriate in the event planning permission was granted that conditions are imposed relating to a construction management plan, noise emissions during the construction phase, burning of combustible material on site, operation of plant, vehicles and equipment, and restriction on the hours of construction. Subject to these conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Local Plan Policy GPD1 in this regard.
270. A further matter raised by the Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Section relates to the impact of any lighting within the scheme on proposed residents. This matter would, however, in any event, be the subject of a condition in order to Page 62 minimise light spill from the development in terms of its impact on the wider landscape. A suitably worded condition would therefore address both matters.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
271. The impact of development on protected species is a material planning consideration when reaching planning decisions. The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. It is clear that pursuing sustainable development includes moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature. Planning decisions should prevent harm to biodiversity and should encourage opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments. Article 10 of the Habitats Directive, as well as the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and the Natural Environment White Paper stress the importance of local ecological networks of linked corridors to allow the movement of species between suitable habitats, maintain networks of natural habitats, and protect these areas from development. Planning decisions should aim to maintain, enhance, restore or add to biodiversity geological conservation interests.
272. Pontburn Wood is located to the eastern side of the Hall estate and wildlife corridors are designated along the Pont Burn and up the Hamsterley Burn. They are protected through Local Plan Policies EN22 and EN23 which aim to maintain their conservation value and integrity. The proposed housing site itself does not have any wildlife designations and has the least nature conservation value. The pasture is judged as low quality habitat.
273. Biodiversity value is an attribute of lost historic landscapes, including that at Hamsterley Hall and its estate. Enabling development in support of places of heritage value should clearly seek to minimise harm to natural heritage and where possible make a positive contribution to maintaining and enhancing bio-diversity.
274. A number of ecology surveys have been carried out which have recorded the presence of plant/animal species, habits and the impact of development and proposed mitigation. A range of surveys were undertaken in 2008 and updates have been provided, including new Great Crested Newt, badger and bat surveys, as well as a Red Kite site inspection and impact assessment. The ecological assessments and surveys have been used to inform the most suitable location and layout of the proposed development. For instance the meadow to the east of the Hall is botanically diverse and the mature trees are important for the scarce breeding birds present on the site. The proposed location avoids direct habitat loss and disturbance. Overall, the Council’s Ecologist has advised that there are no reasons to object to this planning application for ecological reasons. Furthermore, in the appeal decision, the Inspector advised that she did not find harm on ecological matters.
Badgers
275. The applicants undertook a badger survey in March 2014 which did not find any evidence of badger activity within the application site. The report concludes that there are no badger setts within the site and the risk of badgers using the site undetected is assessed as low. Adjacent habitats (Hamsterley Woods and Derwent Walk) have the potential to host badgers but no evidence of badger activity or badger setts adjacent to the site was found.
276. The Council’s Ecologist has advised that the badger survey is comprehensive and concludes that badgers are not utilising the site for the enabling development.
Page 63 Red Kites
277. A Red Kite site inspection and risk assessment has been submitted. The site inspection observed a pair of red kites, which local residents have reported are nesting close to the proposed development. Due to the risk of persecution the location of this nest and the red kite site inspection and risk assessment cannot be placed in the public domain.
278. The risk assessment includes a mitigation strategy which the Council’s Ecologist has confirmed is adequate to ensure compliance with the protective legislation and to ensure the continuity of red kite breeding within the Derwent Valley. The Council’s Ecologist recommends that if planning permission is granted then a condition of compliance with the mitigation section of the impact assessment should be imposed on the enabling development works. The mitigation section includes the following design measures:
• Low density development with extensive gardens in a parkland environment to minimise habitat loss on a number of bird species including red kite • Creation of new wildlife habitats, including native woodland belts, hedgerows, species-rich grassland and new ponds to provide additional high value foraging habitat to red kites • Creation of a 15m buffer north of Hamsterley Wood • Design of street lighting to reduce light spill into the surrounding area
Great Crested Newts
279. Six great crested newt surveys were undertaken between 18 th March 2014 and 20 th May 2014 in the field lying to the west of the enabling development site. This area contains one man-made pond and three areas of seasonal flooding. A small population of great crested newts (less than 10) were found in one of the seasonal ponds. This waterbody is located 130m away from the residential development and 280m away from the Hall.
280. The great crested newt survey advises that proposed housing site is of low quality for great crested newts and there are no suitable areas for resting / hibernating. As a result, prior to the start of any works on the proposed housing site a great crested newt mitigation licence would be required from Natural England. The great crested newt survey advises that the risk of great crested newts foraging around the Hall is low and recommends that any development could proceed in accordance with a great crested newt method statement rather than requiring works to be undertaken under licence.
281. A great crested newt mitigation strategy has been submitted which includes:
• The designation of a great crested newt mitigation area in the field to the west within which there would be no changes to the current habitats and land management regimes • The creation of two great crested newt ponds with three hibernacula (habitat for newts consisting of piles of rubble, logs and earth banks) and piles of logs in the mitigation area • The delivery of a great crested newt capture and exclusion programme in accordance with a European Protected Species licence • The creation of new native woodland and hedgerow planting to provide a wildlife corridor between the great crested newt mitigation area, the proposed new housing and habitats present in the wider area
Page 64 • A management plan to ensure that the woodland and hedgerows and maintained in the long term
282. The Council’s Ecologist recommends that if planning permission is granted that a condition is imposed stating that no works of any kind likely to affect great crested newts is begun before the acquisition of the development licence and that all subsequent works comply with the details of the licence methodology and are overseen by a qualified ecologist.
Bats
283. Hamsterley Hall itself is a confirmed bat roost site, hibernating and breeding, for a number of bat species, namely common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Natterer’s bats, brown long eared bats and a Daubenton’s bat. As such, it is of County importance for breeding bats. The restoration works have been phased and timed in a manner that ensures the conservation status of the bats within the Hall throughout construction work and in the long term.
284. A detailed bat mitigation plan has previously been agreed with Natural England which demonstrates how the Hall can be refurbished while sustaining the existing bat population. This would be through the creation of purpose built lofts within the loft space of the Hall, as well as the retention and creation of access points into existing and purpose built roosts. The plan enables the bay mitigation work to be phased over two years. The finished development would provide more sustainable opportunities and a positive impact on bats in the long term.
285. Updated bat surveys have been completed in 2014 and the method statement for the amended Natural England licence is currently being progressed. However, there have been no major changes in the number and species of bats present since Natural England granted the last licence. The amended licence would be acquired in order to start mitigation works for bats in late summer 2014. Given that Natural England had already granted a licence for the bat work on the Hall, the Council’s Ecologist advises that it seems unlikely that Natural England would refuse an amended licence application in line with new data.
Bats and Newt Licence
286. The presence of protected species such as bats and Great Crested Newts is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/05 and the NPPF. The requirements of the Habitats Directive were brought into effect by the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, (now superseded by the 2010 Regulations referred to below). These regulations established a regime for dealing with derogations, which involved the setting up of a licensing regime administered by Natural England. Under the requirements of the Regulations it is a criminal offence to kill, injure or disturb the nesting or breeding places of protected species unless it is carried out with the benefit of a license from Natural England.
287. The species protection provisions of the Habitats Directive, as implemented by the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010, contain three ‘’derogation tests” which must be applied by Natural England when deciding whether to grant a licence to a person carrying out activity which would harm a European Protected Species (EPS). This licence is normally obtained after planning permission has been granted. The three tests are that: the activity to which the licence is required must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; there must be no satisfactory alternative and favourable conservation status of the
Page 65 species must be obtained. In respect of bats and newts a licence would be required from Natural England.
288. Notwithstanding the licensing regime, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must discharge its duty under the Regulations and also be satisfied that these three tests are met when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a development which could harm an EPS. A LPA failing to do so would be in breach of the Regulations which requires all public bodies to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions.
289. In this case, there is no satisfactory alternative if the Hall is to be refurbished which is in the public interest and it is in the public interest that the permission is capable of being implemented. The restoration would be controlled by appropriate conditions relating to the timing of the work and for the approved mitigation measures to be in place. Furthermore, the proposed housing development is (subject to the consideration of alternatives) required in order to enable the restoration of the Hall. A mitigation strategy has been designed to ensure that there are no significant impacts on bats or great crested newts. This would ensure that no bats and great crested newts are harmed during the work and the roosting/breeding opportunities and habitat at the site would be equivalent or greater than at present.
290. The Council’s Ecologist therefore recommends that if planning permission is granted then conditions are imposed that no works likely to impact on bats at the Hall or great crested newts begin until a licence is acquired and that all works carried out are in compliance with the licence methodology, including oversight of works by a qualified ecologist.
Mitigation from the Residential Development
291. Although the proposed residential development would result in a loss of green space, the proposals include a considerable enhancement in the quality of the habitats for great crested newts and other species in this area as a result of the creation of the new newt habitats. Additionally, the proposed landscape treatment, woodland, meadow grassland and gardens would increase the species diversity. The proposed landscaping would serve as a foraging and moving corridor for newts and bats through providing linear habitats of native tree species. Whilst the existing semi- natural type grassland would be lost there is considerable evidence regarding the contribution that garden habitats make to biodiversity.
292. Low level and cut off lighting is proposed to be adopted within the development to minimize light spill. This should accord with guidelines in respect of bats. Should planning permission be granted, it is recommended that a condition is provided requiring that the proposed street lighting for the estate be agreed, and would be required to take into account both wildlife and impact on the countryside in general, in terms of number, location and type, design, spill and brightness of lights. The Council’s adoptable standards for street lighting allows this to be done and in areas such as this enabling standards to be reduced, to the lowest possible level notwithstanding safety requirements.
Other Ecological Matters
293. Concern has been raised by the local community about the impact on the last remaining group of red squirrels in the Pont Burn Valley. The applicant’s ecologist has confirmed that no red squirrels have been observed. There were regularly sightings of red squirrels until 2000 with no records since then with the exception of a single sighting of 1 squirrel in 2005 in the woodland north of the B6310. Although the Page 66 ERIC records do not identify any recent sightings, there could have been sightings that have not been recorded. There are no records of red squirrel for Hamsterley Wood. Furthermore, it is understood that grey squirrel control measures have been undertaken on the estate, which is beneficial to protecting red squirrel populations in the area. There would be no direct loss of woodland as a result of the development. Indeed, there would be an increase in native woodland as a consequence of the development which would potentially provide more habitat for red squirrel.
294. Concern has also been raised by the local community about the impact on breeding birds. The proposed development site is located within a study area which contains a wide mix of habitats of considerable value to breeding birds and there are a wide range of species present with some UKBAP and LBAP (Biodiversity Action Plan), species locally scarce. Construction work would lead to displacement of breeding birds. The proposed new housing along the northern edge would increase disturbance and lead to a decrease in value although the gardens would act as a buffer zone. The creation of new wildlife habitats, native woodland belts and hedgerows and species-rich grassland would help to mitigate the impacts. Furthermore, if planning permission is granted, it is recommended that a planning condition is imposed that any on site vegetation clearance should avoid the bird breeding season (March to end of August) unless the project ecologist has undertaken a checking survey prior to clearance and confirms that no breeding birds are present.
295. Subject to the proposed conditions being adhered to it is considered that the proposed scheme would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range as defined in the Habitat Regulations. It is therefore considered that Natural England would be likely to grant bat and great crested newt licences. Given this and that it is in the public interest that the permission can be implemented, the LPA can discharge its duty under the Regulations. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with the requirements set out in Local Plan Policies GDP1, EN22 and EN23 and meet the objectives of the NPPF.
Other matters
Alternative sites or forms of development
296. DVPS and a number of objectors raise concerns in relation to the fact that the revised scheme has come forward on the same site and that consideration has not been given to alternative sites, or in relation to the Inspectors comments at paragraph 66 that an acceptable form of development might entail a lesser number of larger dwellings combined with breaking them down onto smaller sites might well assist in assimilation.
297. Where planning policies would indicate a refusal, but a development is being justified on the basis of need, as it is here, then a consideration of whether there are alternative sites to meet that need (i.e. development to secure the future of the Hall) in a less harmful way is likely to be required. This is particularly the case here, given the limited harm to designated heritage assets that it is considered would arise from the proposed development.
298. On the issue of the proposed housing being substantially on the same site as the previous scheme, although in a different form as described elsewhere in this report, the English Heritage guidance does state that on the basis of the Northumberland County Council-v-Secretary of State for the Environment case, that it was held that the land to be benefited does not have to be in close proximity to the land which is Page 67 the subject of the application. Enabling development may therefore be proposed on some distant site in the same ownership as well as within the place or its setting; but in practical terms it will normally be within the same local planning authority area. Distant sites have the obvious advantage of avoiding any harm to the significant place or its setting. Therefore, while the guidance sets out the advantage of enabling development taking place at a site distant to the significant place, it equally says that it may occur in the same place or within the setting of the significant place.
299. It would not therefore be considered reasonable to require the applicant to purchase further land. Indeed it was held so at the Combermere appeal in 2005, and later backed up by the SOS who agreed that the guidance specifically refers to sites in the same ownership. The Inspector and the SOS concurred that to remove ownership from the equation would lead to difficulties and this argument was dismissed.
300. As part of the previous application, and as set out in the applicants Planning Statement, information highlighting the potential sites/ numbers/design of houses that were considered, in discussion with the Council during the process, and their reasons for pursuing the submitted proposals. Commercial development was dismissed in the first instance, rather than housing as this was considered not to be commercially viable. In determining site selection a number of factors were considered to determine the best site including, the historical setting of the Hall, vehicular access, visual impact, ecology and landscape impact. Sites that were ecologically, historically or visually vulnerable were discounted. Opportunities for alternative sites outside the estate in the applicant’s ownership were considered. Negative pre-application advice was given in respect of a potential development site within the applicant’s ownership to the northern side of Hamsterley Mill. This particular site was facing the frontage of residents living on the main road through Hamsterley Mill and thus would physically impact on these residents. It was considered to be more visually prominent and intrusive. With the main A694 road defining the settlement limit it was considered to more evidently encroach into the surrounding open countryside, rather than appear as ribbon development to the existing Parklands estate.
301. It was considered that development in the immediate vicinity of the Hall and to the parkland east of the Hall would have a detrimental impact on the Hall and its historical setting and it is likely that English Heritage would have objected to such a proposal. Land to the east was also considered difficult to access as this is surrounded by fields and the Derwent Walk. Land to the north west of the Hall included wetlands containing a Great Crested Newt population. There are large areas of woodland in and around the estate, clearly it would be unacceptable for parts of any of these to be removed.
302. The issue of whether the stables and workshop buildings could be sold off or the site around them developed in order to finance some of the works was considered as part of the previous application. However, it was considered that this was not an appropriate means of funding the works to the Hall, as it could lead to issues such as fragmentation of management of the asset, privacy/closeness, end value and potential impact on the setting of the Hall. Additionally, there would have been insufficient land to satisfy the number of dwellings the conservation deficit demand. Access for a significant number of dwellings could not be achieved to the area as the existing access is substandard and intensification not acceptable in highway terms.
303. The stable and workshop buildings now benefit from planning permission for residential use and are nearing occupation. They remain in the ownership of the applicant. Their disposal to fund works to the Hall would clearly lead to the fragmentation of the estate and would clearly not provide sufficient funds to meet the conservation deficit, therefore relying on enabling development still being required to Page 68 meet the conservation deficit. Paragraph 5.4.2 of English Heritage’s guidance states that ‘enabling development must always be justified by the inherent lack of viability of the significant place, not an owner’s inability to fund a commercially viable scheme.’ In this case, the Spry family have used their own money to convert the buildings, which they were entitled to do. It is considered that it would not be reasonable to require the Spry family to sell the buildings in order to generate value to invest into the Hall. Therefore, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to consider their value in determining the conservation deficit.
304. Turning to the Inspectors comments about an alternative scheme coming forward that proposed a lesser number of larger dwellings combined with breaking them down onto smaller sites, on the basis that this might well assist in assimilation. Whilst it was the Inspectors view that this approach might be acceptable and would assist in assimilation presumably into the landscape more effectively than the earlier scheme, that is not to say that the scheme subject of this report might well achieve the same objectives or that that was the only means of achieving an acceptable scheme. Indeed it could be argued that the scheme does deliver the envisaged larger dwellings but rather than in smaller sites, they are in larger plots with significant structural landscaping around them, and as has been said elsewhere in this report, it is considered that the impact of the proposed development on the landscape has been substantially reduced, such that they would be better assimilated. Whilst it is appreciated that the objectors consider the comments of the Inspector to be binding upon the Council in considering a further scheme, in this particular case, her comments about one approach do not preclude other forms of development designed to achieve the same objectives. Accordingly, it is considered that the applicants need not have demonstrated a scheme that followed the Inspectors comments on this aspect.
305. It is therefore considered that whilst consideration of alternative sites and alternative forms of development is material to the assessment of the current proposals, no alternative scheme has been provided to the Council that has a realistic prospect of meeting the needs of the Hall and in a less harmful way than the revised proposals.
Alternative Uses for the Hall
306. Realistically there are limited opportunities for alternative uses as the property would not lend itself easily to subdivision due to size, layout and condition. Its Listing means that substantial alterations, additions or divisions would be unlikely to be forthcoming. The only conceivable alternative use would be a hotel. However, the cost of conversion would be prohibitive into the standard of hotel (4 or 5 star) that one would expect from a listed building and be significantly higher than the retention of the property as a single dwelling given the need to provide additional amenities and facilities to residents (restaurants, spa facilities etc.) and ensure compliance with Building Regulations, Disability Discrimination Act requirements and Fire Regulations. Realistically alternative forms of development such as employment generating uses such as offices, conferencing and leisure would be likely to generate proportionally less revenue than residential.
307. This position was recognised by the Inspector who considered that the best use for the Hall is one which keeps it in single ownership, with minimal intervention, so that is use as a single domestic dwelling would be an optimum viable use. Other uses, such as a hotel or flats would be less desirable because of the need for works to the building.
Page 69 308. Accordingly the proposals would secure the long-term future of the Hall and its continued use for a sympathetic purpose, in accordance with criteria (c) of English Heritage’s policy guidance.
Green Belt
309. As a significant number of objectors highlight, including the DVPS, Policy 14 of the emerging County Durham Plan proposes to designate the application site as Green Belt. The site is not currently the subject of such a designation in the adopted development plan in force in the area. In terms of determining the weight to be given to the proposed designation, it is noted in the context of paragraph 216of the NPPF, that whilst the plan has been submitted for examination in public, this has not yet taken place and at the time of writing there is no date yet scheduled for this commence. In addition, there are unresolved objections to the proposed designation, which further reduce the weight that can be given to the draft policy. It is therefore considered that an assessment of the scheme against Green Belt policy is not necessary in this case.
Drainage
310. In accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, consideration is required as to whether the development itself would be at risk of being flooded or whether the development would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Although the site is adjacent to two watercourses, the Pont Burn to the east and the Hamsterley Burn to the south it lies within flood zone 1 and thus does not lie in an area at risk of flooding. However, due to the size of the site a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted to demonstrate that flood risk elsewhere is not increased. The Flood Risk Assessment states that the existing surface water discharge rates (calculated at 12.8l/s) must be restricted to the existing greenfield run-off rate plus a 25% reduction to ensure the development does not exacerbate the risk of flooding downstream. This would give a proposed discharge rate of 9.6 l/s. The Environment Agency has agreed this rate and has requested a planning condition to ensure that the surface water is restricted to this rate.
311. Development on site would increase the impermeable area and therefore increase levels of surface run-off. In order to control this, it is proposed to provide a surface water storage system within the on-site infrastructure to limit the surface water run- off into Hamsterley Burn from the site, to a level below the existing agricultural surface water run-off levels. This would be limited by use of a flow control device, where water would be collected in oversized pipes prior to controlled discharge via an off-site connection into Hamsterley Burn. This would give assurance that the proposed development would not exacerbate the potential for flooding downstream and mitigate against an extreme flooding event. On the basis of the above, there are no objections from the Environment Agency subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition. It is considered that the surface water drainage proposals accord with the requirements of Local Plan Policy GDP1 and Paragraph 103 of the NPPF.
312. Foul water is proposed to be piped by the fall of gravity to a pumping station where it would then be pumped up to an adopted Northumbrian Water manhole and sewer to the north of the site. The exact specification of the pumping station will be confirmed in the detailed design state. It is envisaged that the pumping station will be designed to adoptable standards so that NWL will adopt and maintain the system. It would therefore have to meet certain standards in relation to capacity emergency, location, design etc. and it would be Northumbrian Water’s responsibility to maintain and manage it. Northumbrian Water has advised that at this stage there is insufficient Page 70 information provided with the application to demonstrate the impact on their ability to treat the foul flows arising from the development, and accordingly, they have sought the imposition of an appropriate planning condition to agree the detailed method of disposing of foul sewerage from the site. If it were the case that there was no capacity to treat foul flows, Northumbrian Water would clearly have objected to the proposals and sought additional information at this stage, as opposed to having sought the imposition of a condition. It is therefore considered that the matter of foul drainage can be appropriately addressed in advance of development commencing.
Archaeology
313. A desk-based assessment has been undertaken for the whole site and archeological evaluation of the proposed enabling development area which has highlighted the potential for archaeological resources. The applicant has also carried out archaeological evaluation predetermination so that any previously unidentified heritage assets may be investigated so that the impact of the development on them is understood through the submission of a written scheme of investigation (WSI) for full excavation and recording within the western portion of the enabling development area.
314. Furthermore, an Emergency Archaeological Building Recording and Watching Brief was prepared in July 2013 for the recording and monitoring of the western brick wing of Hamsterley Hall which had suffered a collapse of the north and west elevations. Subsequently, the eastern elevation also suffered a major collapse and a scheme for the controlled demolition of the wing was approved by English Heritage and Natural England on severe health and safety grounds, as well as to attempt to avoid potential damage to the earlier central range of the Hall to which the brick wing was attached. The collapse of the western wing highlighted the rapidly degrading nature of the Hall.
315. An Archaeological Building Recording (January 2014) has been undertaken of the standing structure of the main hall, on a room by room basis, which considers the archaeological and historical importance of the Hall.
316. The Council’s Archaeologist supports the aims and objectives of the proposed enabling development to provide the financial capital to conserve and restore this highly significant historic building dating from the 18 th century. It is advised that any works to the interior or exterior as detailed in the Listed Building Consent application should be monitored by a suitably qualified heritage professional to add to the detail already recorded and increase understanding of this highly significant building. The Council’s Archaeologist advises that an archaeological condition should be applied to secure the implementation of a programme of metric survey and building recording and that a copy of the results should be published. Subject to this condition, it is considered that the proposals would accord with Local Plan Policy EN19 and paragraphs 135 and 141 of the NPPF.
317. The pre-determination archaeological evaluation within the area of the proposed enabling development found positive evidence that an archaeological resource exists. This resource is shown to likely be prehistoric in date (late Bronze Age c.1000BC - 700BC to Iron Age c.700BC - 43AD). These remains are typically quite fragile and ephemeral in nature as often all that remains are the bases of ditches, pits and post- holes. Preservation of artefacts/ecofacts is highly dependent on the burial environment and the evaluation indicates that finds are limited. However, it is critical to note that a large amount of burnt daub was found in one trench suggestive of wattle and daub structure(s). The evaluation indicates that the western portion of the site is archaeologically sensitive. The Council’s Archaeologist advises that none of the recorded features suggest that a nationally or regionally significant archaeological Page 71 resource has been identified within the development area and that the nature of the archaeological resource is such that the impact to it by the development can reasonably be mitigated through the imposition of a suitably worded archaeological condition. The Council’s Archaeologist therefore advises that an archaeological condition should be applied to ensure that the archaeological remains are preserved by record and the results analysed and published. These conditions would be attached to any planning permission and would ensure compliance with Local Plan Policy EN19 and paragraphs 135 and 141 of the NPPF.
Coal Mining
318. This application falls within the coal mining Development High Risk Area as it has one or more recorded coal mining related features. Consequently the applicant was required to provide a coal mining risk assessment to enable the Coal Authority to assess whether the site-specific coal mining information required any amendments to the design/layout or mitigation measures to ensure health and safety.
319. The applicant submitted a Phase 1: Desk Top Study Report and a Phase 2: Ground Investigation Report which included a Coal Mining Report and BGS geological mapping. As part of the ground investigation a series of trial pits and boreholes were also drilled to establish ground conditions. The Ground Investigation Report states that there are no voids or broken ground present below the areas investigated and that the site does not appear to be at risk from shallow worked coal seams.
320. The Coal Authority considers that the Phase 2 report is sufficient, and advises that they have no objection to the proposed development.
Affordable Housing
321. Paragraph 50 of the NPPF requires that where affordable housing has been identified as being needed policies should be set for identifying this need, which contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was updated in July 2013 and the findings incorporated within the Submission Draft Local Plan. Within North Durham the target is for 15% affordable housing, subject to the impact on the viability of the scheme.
322. In this respect, paragraph 173 of the NPPF states that pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. The sites and scale of development should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened.
323. Normally a development of this size would be required to provide an element of affordable housing, in accordance with the NPPF and the latest evidence base. However, in this case, the development does not include any affordable housing and no smaller housing is proposed. In order to keep the amount of enabling development to a minimum the proposal does not and could not include any affordable or smaller housing. The provision of this would necessitate further dwellings on the site, in order to ensure a viable and deliverable development, and the number of dwellings has been calculated on the basis of end value.
324. This approach accords with advice in English Heritage’s Enabling Development guidance which sets out at paragraph 6.1.4 that the delivery of public benefits, including affordable housing, tends to increase the amount of enabling development and therefore should normally be avoided. Page 72
The Balancing Exercise
325. As set out in the NPPF there is the need to undertake a balancing exercise and in the interests of clarity, it is considered appropriate to summarise the benefits and dis- benefits of the scheme in the context of the policy criteria set out in the English Heritage enabling development guidance.
It will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting
326. The works proposed to the Hall itself are considered to be acceptable where they are additional or amended or those works that already have the benefit of listed building consent. As set out earlier in this report, English Heritage and the Council’s Design and Historic Environment and Landscape Sections consider that the direct juxtaposition of views between the Hall and the proposed enabling development are shielded by woodland which would be substantially extended and form part of advanced landscaping works, and which would increase the screening effect. It is considered that the Inspectors concerns in this regard have been suitably addressed by the revised scheme. The most significant aspect of the Hall’s setting, its relative seclusion, would therefore be largely maintained and any harm is appropriately minimized and would not materially harm the heritage values of the Hall itself. It is considered that criterion (a) of the policy has accordingly been met by the revised proposals.
327. In terms of harm to other designated heritage assets and the application of the statutory presumption, Members are reminded that any harm to heritage assets is of considerable negative importance and should be given great weight in determining planning applications. In this case, however, the positive heritage benefits in avoiding the loss and securing the future of the Hall are considered to substantially outweigh the minor loss of significance to heritage interests.
It avoids detrimental fragmentation of management of the place
328. The Hall and much of the land that formed the estate will remain in single ownership, which is the optimum solution for a listed building. Therefore, the proposed development would not cause fragmentation of the heritage asset as required by criteria (b) of the policy.
It will secure the long term future of the place and, where applicable its continued use for a sympathetic purpose
329. The proposed end use of the Hall as a single dwelling and family home is that for which the house was designed and is consequently sympathetic to its significance. This intended use is clearly reflected in the submitted listed building consent application and related works to the building which continue to facilitate such a use. As the amount of enabling development has been reduced, in turn the level of financial benefit to the Hall is less; however, it remains at a level that is sufficient to secure the building’s stabilisation and repair. This outcome would save the building in the medium term better allowing it to be fully fitted out by the applicants for occupation in the longer term. In light of the Inspectors conclusions around the extent of works proposed to the Hall and the estate as part of the previous scheme and the preferred option of the use of the Hall as a single dwelling, it is considered that the scheme would ultimately secure the future of the Hall in the longer term and for the most sympathetic purpose, thus meeting the requirements of this criterion of the English Heritage policy. On this basis it can, as English Heritage advises, be concluded that considerable public benefit would be achieved by the proposals in Page 73 securing the Hall for the longer term, and thus complying with criterion (c) of the policy. The further works necessary to bring the Hall into a condition suitable for occupation are considered likely to happen.
It is necessary to resolve problems arising from the inherent needs of the place, rather than the circumstances of the present owner, or the purchase price paid
330. The applicants have, as set out earlier, assumed a nil market value for the Hall. The nature of the works that are necessary to be carried out to the Hall and which account for a significant proportion of the overall repair costs are structural works. These works need to be undertaken in the short term in order to stabilise the building and prevent further catastrophic collapses. Consequently, the potential to spread such works and the cost over a long time period is limited. English Heritage is satisfied that the problems arise foremost from the condition of the building.
331. A number of objectors consider that the Spry family should pay for the works and that they should not have bought the Hall if they could not provide the funding. However, English Heritage’s guidance is clear that enabling development must always be justified by the inherent lack of viability of the significant place, not an owner’s inability to fund a commercially viable scheme. Conversely, the fact that an owner may have other means does not undermine the case for enabling development i.e. the case rests on the Hall having a ‘conservation deficit’, rather than the owner being able to or not being able to afford to restore the property. The conservation deficit could exist whether an owner had money or not, the question being whether the asset is beyond economic repair. If owners with money do not apply for enabling development and owners without money are precluded on the basis that if they had money they would not need to apply for enabling development, the concept would be of limited relevance to the repair of heritage assets.
332. In light of the above it is considered that it is the inherent needs of the Hall which it necessary to resolve, and not the circumstances of the present owner or the purchase price, noting that the latter has been taken as zero for the purposes of establishing the appropriate amount of enabling development. Accordingly, it is considered that the scheme meets the requirements of policy criterion (d).
Efficient subsidy is not available from any other source
333. The applicants have endeavoured to source grant funding from a variety of organisations, however, none has been forthcoming. Whilst the Heritage Lottery Fund indicated that funding might become available if there was a significant step change in the level of public access to the Hall, such increased public access would potentially undermine the optimum use of the Hall as a single dwelling, and potentially lead to an increase in the amount of enabling development if the value of the Hall as restored was reduce significantly and was not matched by the level of subsidy. English Heritage have advised that they are satisfied with the range of grant giving bodies approached and their responses, and accept that the opportunity for grant aid funding to reduce the conservation deficit is very limited in scope.
334. As set out earlier in the report, another form of subsidy would be a different owner ready to fulfil the same level of repair as proposed but without recourse to subsidy through enabling development. However, when considering the significant conservation deficit that has been demonstrated, it is reasonable to assume that this would be unlikely. While the English Heritage guidance sets out that there is normally a requirement to market the building for at least six months, this must be balanced against the pressing need to repair the property. A delay of six months to a year could further jeopardise the building’s stability and this must be considered against Page 74 the seemingly low chances of finding an owner willing to take on the work without enabling development. English Heritage has advised that they consider that in these specific circumstances it is reasonable to forgo market testing. Accordingly, it is considered that criterion (e) of the English Heritage policy is met.
It is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the place, and that its form minimizes harm to other public interests
335. In relation to the earlier scheme, the Inspector was concerned that the required balance between the conservation deficit and the residual profit from house sales was not balanced, and that the amount of enabling development prosed was not the minimum required to fund the necessary works to the Hall, and thus failing this key policy test of the English Heritage guidance. Extensive and detailed assessment of the submitted financial information, including the Valuation Report and the Financial Development Appraisal, has been undertaken by English Heritage, Gerald Eve (jointly commissioned consultants by English Heritage and the Council) and the Council’s Assets Section. The conclusion reached was that the amount of new housing would realise a development surplus below the amount needed to repair the Hall as planned but that this shortfall was within acceptable variations of development economics and that any shortfall would be likely to be covered by any uplift in sales values or cost savings. Consequently, it is considered that the amount of new housing is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the Hall.
336. Turning to whether the proposed enabling development is in a form that minimizes harm to other public interests, the proposed houses have been removed from the eastern part of the site and a paddock is now provided in this area to retain a sense of openness, protecting the setting of the Listed Old Lodge and Gates and the open character around the estate driveway. Whilst it is recognised that some houses are situated on the higher ground to the west of the site, a layered landscape approach with belts of trees running between plots would minimise any visual impact. The landscape harm at close range that the Inspector was primarily concerned about, has been minimised to an appropriate extent by the revised scheme.
337. No demonstrable harm has been identified in respect of highway safety, residential amenity, or ecology and nature conservation, in particular. Accordingly, it is considered that the revised scheme is one which demonstrates that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the long term future of the Hall and it is proposed in a form that is has been designed sensitively to the acknowledged AHLV designation and the character of the area as a whole. There are no deliverable less harmful alternative proposals being put forward. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would satisfy criteria (f) of the policy.
The public benefit of securing the future of the significant place through such enabling development decisively outweighs the disbenefits of breaching other public policies
338. In considering the appeal for the earlier scheme, the Inspector considered that the proposals would secure the restoration and future of the heritage asset, Hamsterley Hall, for a sympathetic purpose, and attached significant weight as the key public benefit. The proposed development would similarly secure the restoration and future of the Hall for a sympathetic purpose, and English Heritage advise that this proposal may well represent the last opportunity to save this grade II* listed building and that its repair is a substantial public benefit for the Nation as well as County Durham. The key issue is therefore whether the revised scheme minimises the harm to other public interests identified by the Inspector. Such identified harm related to the impact Page 75 of the development on landscape character, the setting of listed buildings, and harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the resultant conflict with Local Plan Policies EN1, EN2 and EN6.
339. As set out earlier in this report, it is considered that the revised scheme has, through a combination of a landscape-led approach, reduced quantum of development, significant structural landscaping and retention of a significant area of open land, that the proposals have demonstrated that harm arising from breaching relevant policies has been minimised in these respects. While there remains some conflict with Local Plan Policies EN1, E2 and EN6, the extent of conflict is considered to be much reduced as a result. Accordingly, it is considered that the key public benefit of securing the future of the Hall though the proposed enabling development would decisively outweigh the disbenefits of the extent of conflict with planning policies.
Securing the benefits
340. The vast majority of significant places survive because they are capable of beneficial use. Their maintenance is justified by their usefulness to and appreciation by their owners, not just value in the property market. Success depends on the benefits of the proposal being properly secured. To this end, the English Heritage guidance sets out that where a scheme meets all of the policy criteria, planning permission should only be granted if four key tests are met. These tests and an assessment of whether they are satisfied is set out below.
The impact of the development is precisely defined at the outset, normally, through the granting of full, rather than outline, planning permission
341. The submitted planning application for the proposed enabling development has been made in detail rather than outline, and consequently, the permission would a full one without the need for the submission of a further reserved matters application. Accordingly, the test is met.
The achievement of the heritage objectives is securely and enforceably to linked it, bearing in mind the guidance in ODPM Circular 05/05, Planning Obligations (now cancelled and replaced by paragraphs 204 and 205 of the NPPF)
342. Through the obligations that are set out in the draft section 106 agreement, there would be legally enforceable arrangements in place to ensure that the proposed residential development takes place in parallel with the restoration works to the Hall and Bothy. These arrangements would run with the land and would therefore also be binding on any future owners. In addition to the phasing of the works as set out below, the agreement would also provide obligations that would require the completion of the repair works within a three year period of the housing development commencing, such that, in the event the housing was not completed, the repair works would be done in any case. This approach is considered to accord with the requirements of the test.
The place concerned is repaired to an agreed standard, or the funds are made available as early as possible in the course of the enabling development, ideally at the outset and certainly before completion or occupation
343. The legal agreement would prevent the occupation of the first dwelling until a contract has been let for the completion of the restoration of the works to both the Hall and the Bothy and that these works will have commenced, and furthermore that the emergency stabilisation works (to include the erection of temporary support towers, temporary propping to floors, temporary supports to internal walls and Page 76 temporary towers to support trusses) would be completed within 5 months of the granting of planning permission. It is considered that funding is therefore being provided at an early stage to secure the implementation of the repair works. The occupation of new homes is further restricted insofar as the Hall works shall have been completed prior to the occupation of the 10 th dwelling, and the Bothy works shall be completed prior to the occupation of the 21 st dwelling. In addition, and as set out above, the obligations would seek to ensure that the works to the Hall and the Bothy are completed within a three year period following commencement. This will ensure that the heritage benefits are properly secured and means that the residential development cannot take place without the heritage benefits materialising. The housing developer has also offered a ‘parent company guarantee’ that is intended to meet the costs required to complete the Hall works and the Bothy works in the event that the owner defaults on their legal obligations. Whilst this overall approach does not necessarily secure all of the funding in advance of the first occupation, the Inspector considered that a similar arrangement proposed in the s106 agreement that accompanied the appeal scheme would be sufficient to meet the needs of the Hall, and as such, the approach proposed here would similarly, be considered acceptable.
344. In addition, and beyond the immediate repair of the Hall and the Bothy, the applicant has developed a ‘Conservation Plan’ which sets out the long term maintenance responsibilities and ongoing action necessary to sustain the significance of a place once the work has been done and is part of the legal obligations. It sets out future management, maintenance, regular inspection and periodic repair. In this particular case maintaining the value of the house in the market is likely to provide sufficient incentive to future owners to keep it in repair. Recurring repairs and replacements could be seen as part of the cost of maintaining the home and not something requiring the backing of a capital sum separate from the value of the house. As well as securing the long term maintenance of the place, the submitted Woodland Management Plan sets out the management of the Hamsterley Hall ancient woodland, between the Hall and the proposed housing site.
The planning authority closely monitors implementation, if necessary acting promptly to ensure that obligations are fulfilled
345. The Council has set out in its Local Enforcement Plan: A Guide to Enforcing Planning Controls, which sets out the Council’s adopted standards for monitoring planning permission and their implementation. In particular, the plan advises that all major developments, as is the case here, would be visited on at least three occasions each year. In addition, on cases with related legal agreements, again as is the case here, there would be regular monitoring to ensure that obligations are being fulfilled. It is therefore considered that a robust regime exists to ensure close monitoring of the implementation of the permission and therefore the ability to identify any breaches of control and act promptly and appropriately.
CONCLUSION
346. Hamsterley Hall is a highly significant and nationally important Grade II* Listed Building. However, it has been deteriorating since the 1960s and after years of neglect has fallen into an extremely dilapidated state of repair. It is on English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk register. Its restoration is a high priority and has now become urgent given its critical condition as evidenced by the recent structural collapse and resultant controlled demolition.
Page 77 347. The applicants have put forward a comprehensive package of proposals involving the restoration of the Hall to a single dwelling, together with the construction of thirty five new dwellings on land to the north of Hall to part fund this restoration. The package of proposals deals comprehensively with the Hall and its immediate surroundings, woodland and parkland, and their future use and maintenance.
348. It is considered that the revised scheme has substantially addressed the concerns raised by the Inspector in the appeal decision. The enabling development works now only fund repair and restoration works to the core asset of the Hall. The applicant is now funding the fit-out of the Hall, as well as works to the gardens and within the estate privately. Consequently, the amount of enabling development has been reduced to 35 executive homes, set within spacious plots. The houses have been removed from the eastern part of the site and a paddock is now provided in this area, protecting the setting of the Listed Old Lodge, Gates, Piers, Walls and the open character around the estate driveway. It is recognised that some houses are situated on the higher ground to the west of the site; however, the landscape-led approach with belts of trees running between plots would minimise any visual impact.
349. As set out at paragraph 140 of the NPPF, the proposals require a careful weighing up of the benefits of the enabling development to secure the future of the Grade II* Hamsterley Hall against the harm created by allowing new residential development in the countryside. On this basis it is considered that securing a sustainable long-term future of Hamsterley Hall, a nationally important Grade II* Listed Building which is now at great risk, would be secured by this scheme at a cost to the wider countryside which would be worth accepting; in this instance the planning harm arising from the housing development being located in the open countryside is considered to be outweighed by the benefit of repairing and restoring Hamsterley Hall.
350. In terms of the financial justification for enabling development, the submitted financial information has been the subject of rigorous scrutiny by English Heritage and Gerald Eve, appointed on behalf of the Council and English Heritage, as well as the Council’s Assets Section. The conclusion of that exercise was that while there was a small outstanding conservation deficit, the amount of enabling development prosed is considered to be the minimum necessary to meet the conservation deficit, and as such that there is therefore a legitimate financial case for enabling development commensurate with the current proposal. The proposals are considered to meet the requirements of the enabling development policy, and as such it is considered that the proposals would achieve a much needed long-term sustainable solution for the site, for which there currently seems no alternative prospect. The future of the listed building would be bleak if those repairs are not carried out now. This is the most likely scheme to succeed and secure the restoration of the Hall.
351. In this case, the public disbenefits are considered to not be insurmountable in this particular case due to the individual characteristics and location of the site itself and the careful consideration that the proposals have been given. It is acknowledged that there would be a loss of green open space, part of the countryside within an Area of High Landscape Value and there would be a change in character of the landscape and environment. It is considered that the assessed slight adverse visual harm to the countryside as well as the main road frontage and the unsustainable location of the proposed development located within the open countryside is outweighed by substantial public benefits to the current and future generations of restoring an important Grade II* listed building.
Page 78 352. The proposal is contrary to some of the principles of the NPPF and the development plan given that the proposed residential development is not situated in a sustainable location. However, the appeal decision was clear that the site is accessible to modes of transport other than the private car and that the inherent lack of sustainability is a secondary consideration, should the proposals have been acceptable in other respects.
353. The proposals raise no objections from the Highway Authority in respect of the proposed access in this location onto the B6310, increase in vehicular traffic on the B6310 and surrounding roads and highway safety in general for motorists, walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Provision is made for bus stops and laybys which are accessible by the proposed new residents and existing residents. Provision is also made for a Gateway feature to encourage drivers to slow down and drive carefully, as well as a new access to the Derwent Walk car park in a location with superior visibility.
354. Extensive assessments have been made and appropriate ecological mitigation measures would be put in place, indeed it is considered the scheme would also bring ecological benefits to the area, in the creation of wildlife habitats. There are no objections from the Council’s Ecologist and Natural England. In principle, satisfactory surface water and sewerage systems are proposed, again these have been considered acceptable by the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water. The detailed design of these systems can be appropriately conditioned.
355. It is considered that the design and layout of the dwellings and proposed landscaping belt is high quality and pays attention to the landscape qualities of the area, in keeping with the character of the area and is appropriate to the sites location.
356. It is acknowledged that the construction of dwellings would have some short-term impact of residential amenity of surrounding residents in terms of the issues associated with building works. Conditions would be attached to assist in reducing this impact as much as possible. There would clearly be a new estate located where previously there was a field. It is considered this would not directly affect the quality of life of residents of Hamsterley Mill and Parklands given the distances involved and there would not be significant long-term effect on the residential amenity of local people.
357. Whilst it is clear that there is a large amount of local objection to the proposals, and a lack of value or ownership attached to Hamsterley Hall, this must be balanced against the realities of a building on English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register and the future prospects for the building in the event of the current proposal not proceeding are bleak. The condition of the buildings has worsened considerably recently, with a major collapse having taken place last year, and the local ownership does not negate the importance of national statutory designation.
358. Taking into consideration all the issues raised in this report and by objectors, internal and external consultees and following very detailed scrutiny, that all the detailed proposals and the complex proposed remedial action present a justifiable unique opportunity to appropriately restore a significant building in County Durham. It is therefore considered that the proposed enabling development can be supported on the basis of the significant public benefit that would arise from the securing the future of the Hall through its repair and restoration.
Page 79 RECOMMENDATION
That the application for Planning Permission (DM/14/00101) be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to provide for the following:
• Restoration works to the Hall and Bothy; • Timing/phasing of the new build to prevent occupation of the 10 th dwelling until the restoration work to the Hall has taken place and to prevent occupation of the 21 st dwelling until the restoration work to the Bothy has been carried out; • Completion of the emergency stabilisation works to be completed within 5 months of the grant of planning permission; • Completion of the Hall Works and Bothy works within 3 years of commencement of development on the housing land; • Satisfactory parent company guarantee to secure repair works in default; • Public access to the Hall at the national Red Cross Charity weekend each autumn and for bona fide scholarly organisations, interest groups and skilled craftsmen on up to 10 occasions every year; • Training and recruitment strategy including school/college/university site visits, school workshops, apprenticeships and work experience placements; • Two interpretation boards providing information on the Hall and estate and surrounding landscape, Derwent Walk and biodiversity which would be located next to Handley Cross Bridge adjacent to the byway and at the entrance to the Derwent Walk adjacent to the car park; • The provision of a ‘Gateway Feature Scheme’ consisting of two signs and road markings to reflect the speed limit and to encourage cars to slow down and drive carefully; • The provision of two bus lay-bys with shelters; • A link footpath between the Parklands and the Derwent Walk • New access to the Derwent Walk car park with closure of the existing access; • Woodland management of ancient woodland; and, • An open space contribution of £10,500.
And subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the following plans:
2533.PL.10 Site Location Plan 2533.PL.11 Site Plan in Context 2533.PL.12 revA Proposed Site Plan 2533.PL.13 Typical Plot Layout 2533.PL.21 House Type A 2533.PL.22 House Type B 2533.PL.23 House Type C 2533.PL.24 House Type D 2533.PL.25 House Type E1 2533.PL.26 House Type E2
Page 80 2533.PL.27 Garages 2533.20.10 revB Basement Plan 2533.20.11 revB Ground Floor Plan 2533.20.12 revB Mezzanine Floor Plan 2533.20.13 revB First Floor Plan 2533.20.14 revB Roof Plan 2533.30.10 revA North and West Elevations 2533.30.11 revA South and East Elevations 2533.40.10 revA Section AA and Section BB 2533.40.11 revA Section CC and Section DD 2533.30.10 revA North and West Elevations 2533.30.10 revA North and West Elevations 2533 Hall Proposals (East and West Elevations) V5 2533 Hall Proposals (North and South Elevations) V5 2533 Hall Proposals (Ground Floor Plans) V5 2533 Hall Proposals (First Floor Plans) V5 2533 Hall Proposals (Mezzanine Floor Plans) V5 696_301 rev B – Ecological Mitigation Proposals
Reason: To define the permission and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained.
3. Before the development hereby approved is commenced, detailed drawings including sections showing the existing and proposed site levels and the finished floor levels of the proposed new buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be completed entirely in accordance with any subsequently approved submission.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residents/appearance of the area in accordance with policy GPD1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
4. No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces of the dwellings (including all areas of hardstanding) hereby permitted have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policy GPD1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
5. Prior to the construction of any of the hereby approved dwellings and garages, details of fenestration and door designs, meter boxes, refuse storage, and rainwater goods, garage and conservatory designs shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy GPD1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
6. No development shall take place until full foul and surface water drainage details, and the timing of their construction, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details.
Reason: To prevent flooding elsewhere in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF.
Page 81
7. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in full accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by M Design ref: MD0819/rep/001/rev A, and the surface water run-off shall be limited to no more than 9.6 litres per second.
Reason: In the interests of minimising flood risk in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF.
8. Details of the location, design, intensity and orientation of all street lighting associated with the hereby approved development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the amenity of prospective residents, and to safeguard nature conservation interests in accordance with Policies GPD1, EN1, EN2 and EN6 of the Derwentside District Local Plan and Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
9. No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme, to include advanced planting, has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. All landscaping shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and phasing, with any failures replaced during the next planting season for a period of five years following the occupation of the 35 th dwelling.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with policy GPD1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
10. The development hereby approved shall take place in accordance with the recommended tree protection details and tree work contained in the Arboricultural Method Statement Revision D, Tree Protection Plan (drawing AMS TPP-D) and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Revision D all dated 26 th January 2014 or any revisions to these documents that are subsequently submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Therefore, development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with policy GPD1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
11. A visibility splay of 2.4 m by 120 m onto the B6310 from the centre line of the highway entrance to the hereby approved housing development shall be retained at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR2 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
12. No development shall take place unless in accordance with the mitigation detailed within section 6.3 of Impacts on Red Kites report by Rachel Penn, May 2014.
Reason: In the interests of protecting species and their habitat in accordance with Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
13. No development that would impact on Great Crested Newts shall commence until a Great Crested Newt license is acquired and all works undertaken thereafter shall be in compliance with the licence methodology including implementation of mitigation measures and supervision by a qualified ecologist. Page 82
Reason: In the interests of protecting species and their habitat in accordance with Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
14. No vegetation clearance shall take place during the bird breeding season (March to August) without an ecologist report being produced confirming no breeding birds to be present. Vegetation clearance shall commence within 24 hours of the ecologist's report being produced and that report shall be submitted to the Council within a period of 21 days.
Reason: In the interests of protecting species and their habitat in accordance with Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
15. The development hereby approved shall take place in accordance with the sustainability measures provided in Section 4 of the Sustainability Assessment prepared by Environmental Economics (May 2014) or any revision to this document that is subsequently submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to minimise energy consumption and to comply with Paragraphs 95 and 97 of the NPPF.
16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A to H (inclusive) of Part 1, Class A of Part 2 and Classes A, B, H and I of Part 40 of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall be carried out on the site without an application for planning permission having been first made to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may exercise further control in the area and to minimise the impacts of the development in terms of landscape value and the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies GPD1, EN1, EN2 and EN6 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
17. No development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of existing trees and hedges indicated on the approved plans as being retained has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Protection shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy EN11 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
18. No occupation of the hereby approved dwellings shall take place until details of the proposed B6310 bus stops, shelters, associated lay-bys, shared cycle/pedestrian surfaced between the site and Parklands; and, enhanced speed limit and gateway feature are agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Implementation shall take place in accordance with that agreement, and prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, highway safety and residential amenity and to comply with Policies GPD1 and TR2 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
Page 83 19. No development shall commence until drawings showing full engineering details of the proposed estate roads, including details of their implementation, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Development shall thereafter take place in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, highway safety and residential amenity and to comply with Policies GPD1 and TR2 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
20. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a mitigation strategy document that has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the following:
i. Measures to ensure the preservation by record of archaeological features of identified importance. ii. Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts. iii. Postfieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses. iv. Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals. v. Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories. vi. A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. vii. Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. viii. A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including subcontractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To comply with para. 135 and 141 of the NPPF as there are known non- designated heritage assets within the enabling development area.
21. Prior to the development being beneficially occupied, a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication. Reporting and publication must be within one year of the date of completion of the development hereby approved by this permission.
Reason: To comply with para. 141 of NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.
22. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:
i. Construction site access and the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials Page 84 iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate v. wheel washing facilities vi. site lighting vii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction viii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. ix. operating hour, including deliveries and temporary site generators. x. Noise and vibration mitigation measures.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, highway safety and public health in accordance with Policy GPD1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan
23. No construction work shall be undertaken before 0800 hours on weekdays and 0800 hours on Saturdays nor after 1800 hours on weekdays and 1300 hours on Saturdays, not at any time on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays.
Reason: In order to prevent an unacceptable risk of noise pollution for existing residents and to comply with Paragraphs 109 and 120 of the NPPF.
24. No vehicular traffic associated with Hamsterley Hall open days and other public events shall take access and egress to and from The Hall by means other than the hereby approved residential estate entrance as shown on drawing 253 106 P2. Signing shall be erected throughout the period of such events to clearly reinforce this routing to visitors.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR2 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.
That the application for Listed Building Consent (DM/14/00100) be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the consent is granted.
Reason: In accordance with Section 18(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the following plans:
2533.20.10 revB Basement Plan 2533.20.11 revB Ground Floor Plan 2533.20.12 revB Mezzanine Floor Plan 2533.20.13 revB First Floor Plan 2533.20.14 revB Roof Plan 2533.30.10 revA North and West Elevations 2533.30.11 revA South and East Elevations 2533.40.10 revA Section AA and Section BB 2533.40.11 revA Section CC and Section DD 2533.30.10 revA North and West Elevations 2533.30.10 revA North and West Elevations 2533 Hall Proposals (East and West Elevations) V5 2533 Hall Proposals (North and South Elevations) V5 2533 Hall Proposals (Ground Floor Plans) V5 Page 85 2533 Hall Proposals (First Floor Plans) V5 2533 Hall Proposals (Mezzanine Floor Plans) V5
Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained.
3. No development that would impact on Bats shall commence until a Bat license is acquired and all works undertaken thereafter shall be in compliance with the licence methodology including implementation of mitigation measures and supervision by a qualified ecologist.
Reason: In the interests of protecting species and their habitat in accordance with Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
4. A detailed Schedule of work, with associated methodologies including workmanship standards for the works to the listed building be submitted and approved in writing by the local Authority before commencement of the works and the subsequent works be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To preserve the special character of the listed building as required by Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
5. A detailed program of implementation including a revised or updated phasing plan for the works shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local Authority before commencement of the works and the subsequent works be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To preserve the special character of the listed building as required by Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
6. Detailed design drawings and specification of the new Georgian Bay in area 25 to the front eastern elevation of the Hall in accordance with historic evidence produced shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before commencement of development. The repair works to the bay shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To preserve the special character of the listed building as required by Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
7. Detailed drawings should be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority clearly identifying all historic glass to be relocated and identify new windows. There must be no net loss of historic glass and all glass should be incorporated as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the special character of the listed building as required by Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
8. Detailed drawings showing the appropriate relocation of the hall oak panelling with no significant net loss of panelling shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority and work should be carried out in accordance with the agreed plans.
Reason: To preserve the special character of the listed building as required by Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
Page 86 9. Prior to commencement a Method Statement for the assessment of the individual condition of each window in the building and temporary implementation of phased weather proofing is to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing. The results of this Method Statement to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and works shall be carried out as agreed in the agreed Method Statement.
Reason: To ensure the overall methodology is appropriate, good practice and to comply with Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
10. Prior to commencement a window schedule shall be submitted to include appropriately scaled Drawings showing levels of detail sufficient to interpret and subsequently reproduce details accurately in each case. The schedule submitted must show the method of repair and/or replacement of each window. It is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before each subsequent phase of work commences. The repair and/or replacement scheme must be in accordance with the approved Method Statement for the Condition Survey and prove that it is informed by its submitted results. The agreed window work then to be carried out in full in accordance with this approved scheme during each phase.
Reason: To ensure minimal intervention, good practice and to comply with Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
11. Prior to the commencement a Method Statement is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Statements are to confirm how samples of all pre-identified areas of existing plasterwork and joinery agreed as being removed are to be marked up and identified on a locational basis, each item is then to be securely stored in an agreed appropriate safe place and be available for inspection when required until such time as the Local Planning Authority considers they are no longer needed. Existing removed samples can best inform the detailed ongoing Programme of Works and enable accurate copies to be made and be installed in the building
Reason: In order to retain the architectural integrity of the building as required by Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
12. Before any work is undertaken in pursuance of this consent to demolish or to alter by way of partial demolition in each agreed phased work area on any part of the building; a structural engineers' drawings and/or a method statement that indicates the proposed method of ensuring the safety and stability of the building fabric to be retained throughout the period of demolition, assessment and reconstruction; shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The relevant work shall be carried out in accordance with such structural engineers' drawings and/or method statement thus approved.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the Building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan, NPPF and PPS 5 Practice Guide.
13. Structural Engineers' calculations, specifications, drawings and method statements, in respect of the following, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant phase of the work is begun. The relevant work shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details.
a) Repairs to the historic structure of the building including roof repairs, replacement floors;
Page 87 b) Alterations to upgrade the existing structure for increased loading, fire resistance or disproportionate collapse requirements. c) All new openings in load-bearing walls, in particular the new fenestration to elevations of the main housed, and structural alterations to the Bothy to insert new floors, roof, partitions and accommodate plant.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
14. A fire safety strategy and method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before works begin and works shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with such approved fire safety strategy and method statement. Particular regard should be given to the following items:
a) Method of mitigating or upgrading existing floors/ceilings and other building fabric to comply with the proposed fire safety strategy, including samples. b) Method of mitigating or upgrading doors to comply with the proposed fire safety strategy, including samples. c) Types, location, fixing methods and operation of any fire detection and suppressing systems, including samples, are to be agreed before installation.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
15. Details of specialised protection methods of an agreed list of features shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before work commences, with the relevant work carried out in accordance with such approval. No such features shall be disturbed or removed temporarily or permanently except as indicated on the approved drawings or with the prior approval in writing of the Council. Particular regard should be given to the following items:
a) All fireplaces and over mantels; b) All internal and external door and window architraves; c) All original and decorative glazing; d) All floor slabs that are to be retained in situ; e) Hinges and closing mechanisms and original ironmongery; f) Original floorboards and skirting boards; g) Staircases; h) Window shutters; i) Timber panelling in area 43 and area 13; j) The timber screen between areas 30 and 36; k) Hatch door openings in area 43; l) Stone columns within area 48; m) Decorative ceilings, cornices dado and picture rails;
Reason: In order that precautions are taken to secure and protect interior features against accidental loss or damage, or theft during the building work in order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
16. Before work commences details of an agreed list of items to be carefully removed shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, the agreed work be carried out in accordance with such approvals. The items shall be removed under the supervision of a person or body specializing in this procedure appointed by the Page 88 applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include a method statement for their removal, each to be clearly identified, securely labelled and stored under cover in a secure place and later reinstated in a manner, location and to a timetable agreed with the local authority. Written confirmation shall be given to the Council immediately following this work of the precise item(s) removed and their location where access shall be allowed to the LPA within three days prior working notice, if requested:-
a) All panelled or boarded doors b) Fireplaces that are to be removed c) All oak panelling in area 16 d) Stone slabs e) Floor boards f) Armorials and any historic glass g) All lintels and stone surrounds and associated window elements h) Cupboard doors 2No. in area 43 i) Gilt bed canopy in area 9
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
17. Before work commences the position, type and method of installation of all new and relocated services and related fixtures, for the avoidance of doubt including under floor and other heating systems, water and gas pipes and electrical cables, communications, alarms and information technology servicing, shall be specified in advance of the relevant work being carried out, and the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained wherever these installations are to be visible, or where ducts or other methods of concealment are proposed. Any works carried out shall be in accordance with such approval. Particular regard should be given to work affecting the following features of parts of the building including:
a) Wall and ceiling surfaces with known or anticipated historic decorative schemes. b) Decorative plasterwork. c) Timber panelling in rooms. d) Moulded joinery. e) Staircases areas.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
18. Before works commences, details of any new or repositioned plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, flues, vents, ductwork or cabling to be fixed on the external faces of the building or abutting them shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the agreed work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
19. Before works commence details are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority giving a methodology which sets out the most sensitive approach to the need to fixing new grilles, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other apparatus
Page 89 on the external faces of the building and thereafter the agreed work will be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
20. All new external and internal finishes and works of making good to the retained fabric, shall match the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile, unless shown otherwise on drawings or other documentation hereby approved or required by any conditions attached to this consent. Where the historic finish has been lost prior to works commencing a detailed historic analysis and justification for any reinstatement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
21. Prior to commencement a Method Statement for the implementation of any new or repaired facing brickwork and stonework shall be submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Individually identified treatments and locations of use shall match the existing original brickwork, stone work and pointing of the building in each locality in respect of colour, texture, face bond, joint size and pointing profile, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved in writing or required by any conditions attached to this consent.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest and character of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
22. All new joinery work shall match the existing original joinery work in respect of materials, dimensions and profiles, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved or required by any conditions attached to this consent.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan .
23. Prior to the commencement sample panels of all new areas of facing brickwork and stonework to be used on site shall be built on site and arrangement for inspection made with the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority will approve the specification of each agreed sample panel in writing before the relevant parts of the works are commenced on site. Specification of each agreed methodology shall show the proposed brick and stone types, colour, texture, face-bond, joint size and pointing profile. The relevant parts of the work shall be carried out in accordance with such approved sample panels. The approved sample panels shall be retained on site until the work is completed and has been approved.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
Page 90 24. Before the commencement of works to reinstate the main front door surround and canopy details to be submitted its form, appearance, design, method of fixing and detail of the proposed replacements affecting the entrance door shall be approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The relevant work shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
25. Before works commence, full details, including a method statement and plans, including details of any repairs to the dwarf wall, timber or glass, details of floor coverings, methods of fixing to the main building of the reinstatement of the dismantled Conservatory shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
26. Any hidden historic features which are revealed during the course of works shall be retained in situ, work suspended in the relevant area of the building and the Council as local planning authority notified immediately. Provision shall be made for their retention or salvage and/or proper recording, as required by the Council. Particular regard shall be given to the following areas:
a. Historic decorative schemes. b. Fittings fixtures and services relating to the original use of the building.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
27. No cleaning of external masonry, other than a gentle surface clean using a nebulous water spray, is authorised by this consent without prior approval of details. Proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the work is begun, and the work shall be carried out in strict accordance with such approved proposals.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
28. No repointing of brickwork is authorised by this consent without prior approval of details. Proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the work is begun, and the work shall be carried out in accordance with such approved proposals.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
29. All new partitions shall be scribed around the existing ornamental mouldings, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved or required by any conditions attached to this consent.
Page 91 Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
30. New external rainwater goods and soil pipes shall be of cast iron, painted in matt black and constructed in accordance with the agreed plans.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
31. Prior to commencement a written Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This statement should include drawings to a scale of 1:5 or as appropriate and previously agreed, to specify the repair work necessary and give details of the profiles and any new replacement elements including:
a) The plaster including all decorative ceilings and cornices; b) The timber panels to be retained in situ in areas 13 and 43; c) Joinery repairs to include windows, doors, skirting boards both internal and external to include paint colours; and d) All fireplaces including any surround, inserts and tiles;
Shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Thereafter the repairs to be undertaken in accordance with the approved method statement.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
32. Notwithstanding the locations shown on the approved plans, before the main works commence in each agreed Phase, full details (including elevational drawings) of the relationship of new fittings such as bathrooms, kitchen, utilities en-suites etc. and any other item of fitted furniture to the existing historic fabric and features of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these new fittings shall be incorporated into the building in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
33. Prior to the commencement of works, a report in respect of the dry rot in the whole building and its remediation within the building by means of a methodology statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details should include photographs, plans and elevations indicating the extent of any removal of existing fabric which may be necessary and the method of its replacement. Thereafter such agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
Page 92 34. Prior to commencement of works, all repair, replacement or restoration of the roof timbers on both the main hall and bothy including details of any insulation and samples of roof covering shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter such agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
35. Prior to commencement of works a methodology and detail for the replacement floors, ceilings and walls in the building which may have been removed due to rot or damage, or which have already been lost, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter, such elements of the building shall be replaced in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
36. Prior to the commencement of works, a scheme for external lighting, both on the building and within its curtilage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building and its setting in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
37. No opening up of the roof is to be carried out until adequate weather protection measures for the structure have been installed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; thereafter, the approved weather protection measures shall remain in place until the building itself is waterproof and weather tight and only removed with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
38. Scaffolding is not to be mechanically fixed to the masonry of the building, and all elements in close proximity to masonry shall be fitted with plastic end caps and/or other measures appropriate for the protection of the masonry.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building and its setting in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
39. Prior to commencement and notwithstanding the submitted plans, details shall be submitted in respect of any proposed render and limewash for any elevation including sample panel approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.
Page 93 Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
40. Prior to commencement of works, details of any proposed double glazed units and secondary glazing proposed including plans, sections and elevations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN17 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
41. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of the programme of metric survey and building recording during works to Hamsterley Hall internally and externally. This should be in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which is submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority as follows:
i. Methodologies building recording (metric photos/survey) prior to any conversion works or stripping out of fixtures and fittings or windows/doors, etc. ii. A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the approved strategy. iii. Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham County Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. iv. A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including subcontractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.
The recording strategies shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timings.
Reason: To comply with para. 135 and 141 of the NPPF as this is a nationally significant designated heritage asset.
42. Prior to the development being beneficially occupied, a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication. Reporting and publication must be within one year of the date of completion of the development hereby approved by this permission.
Reason: To comply with para. 141 of NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of securing the long-term sustainable future of a heritage asset. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012. Page 94 BACKGROUND PAPERS
Submitted Application Forms and Plans Planning application file ref: 1/2010/0143 Listed Building Consent file ref: 1/2010/0145 Appeal Decision (APP/X1355/A/11/2152787) Ancient Woodland Assessment Arboricultural Assessment Arboricultural Method Statement Archaeological Building Recording Archaeological desk-based Assessment Conservation Plan Design and Access Statement Emergency Archaeological Watching Brief Financial Development Appraisal Funding Statement Geophysical Survey and Archaeological Evaluation Habitat and Protected Species Risk Assessment Great Crested Newt Survey Report Hamsterley Hall and Enabling Development document Hamsterley Hall: History, Architecture and Landscape Inspection Report Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal Landscape Strategy Planning Statement Sustainability Statement Statement of Community Involvement Summary Statement Transport Statement Valuation Report Woodland Management Plan NPPF Derwentside District Local Plan Local Enforcement Plan: A Guide to Enforcing Planning Controls Responses from English Heritage, Highway Authority, Environment Agency, Natural England, Coal Authority, and Northumbrian Water Limited Internal responses from Design and Historic Environment Section, Landscape Section, Spatial Policy Section, Spatial Policy (Green Infrastructure) Section, Archaeology Section, Ecology Section, Assets Section, Structural Engineer, Rights of Way Section, Environmental Health, Environment, Health and Consumer Protection, Education Authority, Business, Durham, Economic Development Section, and Sustainability Section Public Consultation Responses
Page 95
Restoration of Hamsterley Hall as a single dwelling, incorporating works to the bothy, construction of a garage and reinstatement of conservatory, as well as enabling development Planning Services comprising 35 new dwellings with garages and a new site access from the B6310, with associated landscaping and infrastructure works at Hamsterley Hall and land to the north of the Hall, Hamsterley Mill, Rowlands Gill, NE39 1NJ (DM/14/00100/LB and DM/14/00101/FPA) This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date 1 July 2014 Scale NTS
Page 96 Agenda Item 4b Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: CE/13/01667/FPA
Conversion and extension of Neville House and demolition and replacement of Sheraton House to form FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : student accommodation development comprising of a total of 418 no. beds and associated works and landscaping
Alumno Developments (Durham) Ltd and Lend Lease NAME OF APPLICANT : Residential (Yorkshire) Ltd
Sheraton and Neville House, Darlington Road, Durham, ADDRESS : DH1 4SY
ELECTORAL DIVISION : Nevilles Cross
Henry Jones Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 263960 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The Site:
1. The application site lies within the Sheraton Park residential estate off the A167 Darlington Road in Durham City. The site encompasses two currently vacant buildings, Sheraton House (northernmost) and Neville House (southernmost), and land associated with them including a large central area which the two buildings both overlook. Residential properties surround the site at Dalton Crescent, Ellam Avenue, Kirkwood Drive, Faraday Court, Westhouse Avenue and Almoners Barn.
2. Construction on Sheraton and Neville House was completed in 1922 and formed the Neville’s Cross Teacher Training College. The college became a licensed hall of Durham University in 1924, however, University link ended when the site become the independent New College in 1977. The buildings were sold in 2002 for redevelopment and whilst the surrounding residential estate has been built the buildings themselves have not been redeveloped, remaining vacant. The buildings are not listed, and the site is neither within nor in the setting of a conservation area. The buildings have been described as “neo-Georgian” in style and are an example of the design of large educational buildings of the era.
Page 97 3. The site is currently boarded off and access to the buildings and the central space between the buildings is inaccessible to the public. Some trees are located on the periphery of the site and within the central space. To the east of the site there are the remains of a sales office building and to the rear of Sheraton House a timber structure constructed to house bats is located. An electricity sub-station is located immediately adjacent to the site to the south east.
The Proposal:
4. Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the site to provide student accommodation, totalling some 418 bedspaces in all. The application seeks the demolition of Sheraton House and its replacement with a building to house a total of 191 student bed spaces, the majority of which would be in the form cluster flats with a small number of studios.
5. The replacement Sheraton House building would have a maximum height of 16.4m, width of 65m and length of 42m. The proposed building would be contemporary in design approach though is designed to retain architectural and material reference to the existing buildings. The majority of the building would have accommodation on four floors though with a smaller fifth storey element and elements that would be only two and three storeys in height.
6. The replacement building has been designed to include a landscape courtyard area that would be surrounded by the elevations of the building itself. Like the present Sheraton House building, the proposed replacement building would be orientated so that if faces north towards Neville House.
7. Neville House, the larger of the two buildings within the application site, would have sections of its rear demolished and replaced with extensions and the remainder converted to provide a total of 227 student bed spaces, the majority of which would be in the form cluster flats with a small number of studios. The proposals for Neville House would include the provision of a ground floor community room available for use by local residents.
8. The extensions proposed would have a similar design approach to the proposed replacement building at Sheraton House, contemporary in nature but with architectural and material references to the existing buildings. The front and sections of the side elevations would remain as at present without extension. The majority of the accommodation within Neville House would be across four storeys with a further smaller fifth storey. The alterations would result in no overall heightening of Neville House with the ridge height remaining at 19.6m as at present. The width of the building would also remain the same as at present at 86.4m. The total length of the building would be slightly greater, increasing from 33m to 36m.
9. Between Neville House and the replacement Sheraton House building the space would be landscaped with the retention of trees and the planting of trees, hedges, ornamental plants and the formation of lawns. A central hardsurfaced courtyard space would be formed bounded in part by a low “ha-ha” wall with a further hardsurfaced forecourt to Neville House. Footpaths would intersect this central landscaped space. The submitted Design and Access Statement considers that the landscape approach to this central space is a contemporary interpretation of an Edwardian era landscape in keeping with the site and is proposed to provide a community parkland at the heart of the development.
Page 98 10. The layout proposes a total of 50 no. car parking spaces, 84 no. standard cycle parking spaces and 10 no. Brompton cycle storage spaces. The majority of vehicular parking spaces are on the periphery of the application site, with access direct from Clay Lane and Faraday Court. Vehicular access into the site would be provided adjacent to Sheraton House and Dalton Crescent and to the rear of Neville House providing access to both parking spaces and for service vehicles. Servicing/refuse collection access is proposed for Sheraton House, to the immediate west of the building off Clay Lane and for Neville House to its immediate rear off Faraday Court.
11. The application is being presented to Planning Committee as it constitutes a large scale major development proposal.
PLANNING HISTORY
12. In November 2002 planning permission was granted for 209 dwellings, change of use and conversion of Neville House into 62 apartments, conversion of Sheraton House to offices or offices and leisure with swimming pool and associated infrastructure works including new access to A167.
13. In June 2004 planning permission was granted for the conversion of Sheraton House to offices, erection of new office building and associated infrastructure works including underground car parking.
14. In February 2005 planning permission was granted for the conversion and extension of Neville House to form 67 apartments.
15. In April 2005 planning permission was granted for the construction of a freestanding wall to provide bat habitat.
16. In December 2006 an application for the change of use and conversion of Sheraton House to form 27 apartments, erection of office building to rear, associated works to include car park and landscaping, and relocation of electricity sub was withdrawn.
17. In January 2007 an application for the conversion of Sheraton House to form 25 apartments, construction of an apartment building to the rear of Sheraton House to form 22 apartments, and associated infrastructure works was withdrawn.
18. In April 2007 planning permission was granted for the conversion of Sheraton House to form 25 apartments and construction of apartment building to rear of Sheraton House to form 22 apartments and associated infrastructure work. In June 2010 the period of time for the implementation was extended through the grant a new replacement planning permission.
19. In February 2011 planning permission was granted for the variation of condition 10 pursuant to this replacement planning permission at Sheraton House so as to permit the provision of alternative construction site access arrangement.
20. In August 2013 the period of time for the implementation of the conversion of Sheraton House to form 25 apartments and construction of apartment building to rear of Sheraton House to form 22 apartments and associated infrastructure work was extended for a second time through the grant of a new replacement planning permission.
Page 99 PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
21. 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.
22. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. The following elements are considered relevant to this proposal;
23. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy . The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.
24. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
25. NPPF Part 6 - Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes . To boost significantly the supply of housing, applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
26. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning 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.
27. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities and planning policies and decisions should achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments. This includes the development and modernisation of facilities and services.
28. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change . Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
Page 100
29. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.
30. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment . Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf
31. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters.
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
The City of Durham Local Plan (May 2004) (CDLP)
32. Policy E14 - Trees and Hedgerows. Sets out the Council's requirements for considering proposals which would affect trees and hedgerows. Development proposals will be required to retain areas of woodland, important groups of trees, copses and individual trees and hedgerows wherever possible and to replace trees and hedgerows of value which are lost. Full tree surveys are required to accompany applications when development may affect trees inside or outside the application site.
33. Policy E16 - Protection and Promotion of Nature Conservation . Seeks to protect and enhance the nature conservation assets of the district. Development proposals outside specifically protected sites will be required to identify any significant nature conservation interests that may exist on or adjacent to the site by submitting surveys of wildlife habitats, protected species and features of ecological, geological and geomorphological interest. Unacceptable harm to nature conservation interests will be avoided, and mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts upon nature conservation interests should be identified.
34. Policy E21 - Conservation and Enhancement of the Historic Environment . Requires consideration of buildings, open spaces and the setting of these features of our historic past that are not protected by other legislation to be taken into consideration.
35. Policy 24 - Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Remains . Sets out that the Council will preserve scheduled ancient monuments and other nationally significant archaeological remains and their setting in situ. Development likely to damage these monuments will not be permitted. Archaeological remains of regional and local importance, which may be adversely affected by development proposals, will be protected by seeking preservation in situ.
Page 101 36. Policy H13 - Residential Areas – Impact upon Character and Amenity. S tates that planning permission will not be granted for new development or changes of use which have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of residential areas, or the amenities of residents within them.
37. Policy H16 - Residential Institutions and Student Halls of Residence. Provides for purpose-built accommodation provided that they are well related to local facilities and are not likely to impact adversely on adjacent development or lead to community imbalance.
38. Policy T1 - Traffic – General . States that the Council will not grant planning permission for development that would generate traffic likely to be detrimental to highway safety and/or have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property.
39. Policy T10 - Parking – General Provision . States that vehicle parking should be limited in amount, so as to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the land-take of development.
40. Policy T20 - Cycle Facilities. Seeks to encourage appropriately located, secure parking provision for cyclists
41. Policy T21 - Safeguarding the Needs of Walkers . States that the Council will seek to safeguard the needs of walkers by ensuring that: existing footpaths and public rights of way are protected; a safe, attractive and convenient footpath network is established throughout the City; that the footpath network takes the most direct route possible between destinations; and the footpath network is appropriately signed. Wherever possible, footpaths should be capable of use by people with disabilities, the elderly and those with young children. Development which directly affects a public right of way will only be considered acceptable if an equivalent alternative route is provided by the developer before work on site commences.
42. Policy R11 - Public Rights of Way . States that public access to the countryside will be encouraged and safeguarded by protecting the existing network of public rights of way and other paths from development which would result in their destruction or diversion unless a suitable alternative is provided and the proposal accords with Policy T21.
43. Policy C5 – New College Durham – Nevilles Cross Site . States that planning permission will be granted for the redevelopment of the site for residential, office, leisure or other institutional use provided that; the proposal seeks to retain Neville and Sheraton House; that unacceptable loss of open space would not occur and landscape spaces are adequately protected; the proposal would not generate unacceptable levels of traffic and is adequately served by public transport; and the proposal would not adversely affect neighbouring occupiers.
44. Policies Q1 and Q2 - General Principles Designing for People and Accessibility. States that the layout and design of all new development should take into account the requirements of all users.
45. Policy Q3 - External Parking Areas . Requires all external parking areas to be adequately landscaped, surfaced, demarcated, lit and signed. Large surface car parks should be subdivided into small units. Large exposed area of surface, street and rooftop parking are not considered appropriate.
Page 102 46. Policy Q5 - Landscaping General Provision . Sets out that any development which has an impact on the visual amenity of an area will be required to incorporate a high standard of landscaping.
47. Policy Q8 - Layout and Design – Residential Development . Sets out the Council's standards for the layout of new residential development. Amongst other things, new dwellings must be appropriate in scale, form, density and materials to the character of their surroundings. The impact on the occupants of existing nearby properties should be minimised.
48. Policy Q15 - Art in Design . States that the Council will encourage the provision of artistic elements in the design and layout of proposed developments. Due regard will be made in determining applications to the contribution they make to the appearance of the proposal and the amenities of the area.
49. Policy U5 – Pollution Prevention – General . States that development that may generate pollution will not be granted if that pollution would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the quality of the local environment, upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or would unnecessarily constrain the development of neighbouring land.
50. Policy U7 - Pollution Prevention – Development Sensitive to Pollution . States that developments which are sensitive to pollution will not be permitted on land which is subject to unacceptable levels of contamination, pollution, noise or vibration.
51. Policy U8a - Disposal of Foul and Surface Water . Requires developments to provide satisfactory arrangements for disposing foul and surface water discharges. Where satisfactory arrangements are not available, then proposals may be approved subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme and its implementation before the development is brought into use.
52. Policy U10 - Development in Flood Risk Areas . States that proposals for new development shall not be permitted in flood risk areas or where an increased risk of flooding elsewhere would result unless it can be demonstrated that alternative less vulnerable areas are unavailable, that no unacceptable risk would result, that no unacceptable risk would result elsewhere, or that appropriate mitigation measures can be secured.
53. Policy U11 - Development on Contaminated Land. S ets out the criteria against which schemes for the redevelopment of sites which are known or suspected to be contaminated. Before development takes place it is important that the nature and extent of contamination should be fully understood.
54. Policy U14 - Energy Conservation – General. States that the energy efficient materials and construction techniques will be encouraged.
RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :
The County Durham Plan
55. 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. Page 103 56. 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). To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
57. Policy 2 – Spatial Approach. Sets out the spatial approach to development across the County with the main towns highlighted as being the principal focus for significant development followed by smaller towns and larger villages and then remaining settlements. In smaller communities and rural areas, appropriate levels of development will be permitted where it would serve their needs and to allow such communities to become more sustainable, resilient and to encourage social and economic vitality.
58. Policy 6 – Durham City. The spatial approach identifies Durham City as a key location for new development in County Durham. The Plan prioritises the redevelopment of land which supports Durham’s role as an employment, housing, retail and tourism centre, respects the special historic character of the City, supports the vitality and viability of the City Centre, seeks to realise tourism, leisure and retail potential and the accommodation aspirations of Durham University and identifies strategic sites and infrastructure projects for the City.
59. Policy 29 – Existing Housing Commitments . This policy states that planning permission will be granted on sites where an existing planning permission lapses during the Plan period provided that the proposal accords with relevant policies within the Plan and that there have been no material change in circumstances that precludes the development.
60. Policy 32 – Houses in Multiple Occupation and Student Accommodation . Seeks to promote mixed and balanced communities and maintain an appropriate housing mix. Applications for new build houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) or changes of use to HMOs will not be permitted if the application site is located in or within 50m of a postcode area where more than 10% of total properties are already in use as a licensed HMO or student accommodation. Any development should also be acceptable having regards to parking provision, bin storage/shared facilities and design.
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.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (City of Durham Local Plan) http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
61. The Highway Authority - has raised no objections to the development in its revised form. Access to the development for all traffic is considered acceptable. The site is located within a sustainable travel location.
62. Objection was raised to the originally submitted scheme with insufficient vehicular parking spaces considered to be proposed and the “zero parking” scheme proposed within the application was not accepted by the Highway Authority with unacceptable pressure for parking on adjacent streets considered likely. As a result, an increase in
Page 104 parking provision was considered necessary. Revised plans have been submitted which propose 50 no. spaces including 8 no. disabled spaces. Taking into account anticipated car ownership levels and the impact of a travel plan, such parking provision is considered acceptable. Additional demand for parking over and above this is possible; however, it is not considered that the impacts of this would be severely detrimental.
63. With regards to cycle parking it is considered that an additional 20 no. spaces are required. No provision is made for motorcycle parking and limited provision would be necessary. A condition is recommended for attachment on any approval to agree the details of the location and enclosure design of all cycle and motorcycle parking.
64. The Highway Authority do state that should public rights of way be utilised for pedestrian movement then the financial contribution proposed for improvements will be important.
65. A condition is required that 15% of the vehicular parking spaces provided are available as car share spaces with 1 no. space for an electric vehicle charging point. Further conditions would also be necessary so as to ensure management of student drop off and collection at term beginning/end and agreement on a final travel plan.
66. The Environment Agency – has raised no objections but recommend that Northumbrian Water are consulted with regards to surface and foul drainage.
67. Northumbrian Water – Have raised no objections to the development subject to a condition to agree details of foul and surface water discharge.
68. Natural England – Raise no objections with regards to statutory nature consideration sites. Advice is provided on the need to consider the presence of protected species and impact upon locally designated sites. Consideration should be given for the potential for the development to provide green infrastructure, biodiversity enhancements and landscape enhancements.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
69. Spatial Policy – Acknowledge that the proposed demolition of Sheraton House is clearly contrary to CDLP Policy C5. The proposal would provide an opportunity to redevelop a vacant site that has a negative impact upon the character and appearance of the area. However, the proposal to house over 400 students within a residential area is likely to have significant impacts on the levels of amenity enjoyed by existing local residents. In determining the application the Local Planning Authority would need to be satisfied that the impact on local amenity would not be to a level which would justify refusal of the application. With this in mind the accommodation and noise management plans must be effective and enforceable.
70. Design and Conservation – The general design, scale and massing of the development proposals is considered to be acceptable. A balanced view on the value of the non-designated heritage assets of Neville House and Sheraton House and impact of the development upon them including the loss of Sheraton House must be formed having regards to the merits of the development itself. The benefits of the conversion of Neville House, creation of a publicly accessible space and bringing a derelict section of townscape into use would appear to outweigh the loss of Sheraton House.
Page 105 71. Ecology – Initially objected to the proposal on the grounds that the submitted demolition method statement does not reflect the recommendations within the bat survey report, that inadequate survey work has been undertaken in relation to the existing bat mitigation structures on the site and in the absence of either further survey work or the submission of a robust methodology with regards to the Neville House conversion. Since this time the applicant has provided a further bat survey report and ecology have withdrawn their objection considering that the adequate information has been supplied to demonstrate that bats are not present within Neville House or the bat mitigation structures. Mitigation measures within the submitted report should be conditioned as well as a condition ensuring that demolition must adhere to the method statement within the submitted report.
72. Landscape – Have raised a number of queries and concerns over the submitted landscape scheme referencing the significant amount of hard landscaping, lack of clarity on the proposal in certain areas of the site, use of hard surface materials, the form of enclosures proposed, location and detail of the cycle parking and degree of soft planting.
73. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – state that the predicted level of traffic resulting from the development would not necessitate the need for an air quality assessment.
74. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Contamination) – state there is no need for a contaminated land condition to be applied to any approval.
75. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Noise, Dust, Light and Odour) - initially requested additional information to be supplied namely regarding internal noise levels and tonal issues. The information within the submitted environmental noise report regarding the impact of the development upon the existing environment and proposed noise management measures was considered inadequate and vague. Since this time revised details have been supplied. Having considered this information Environment, Health and Consumer Protection have raised no objections provided that the noise management plan is implemented and that a condition is attached to any permission to ensure this. The potential for the development to cause nuisance from construction activities through noise, smoke and dust emissions is referenced as is the potential for light spillage and conditions to mitigate impact are proposed on any approval.
76. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (Public Protection) – Provide advice with regards to the requirements of the Housing Act 2004 covering matters of fire risk assessment and detection, fire doors, emergency lights, means of escape, room spacing, lighting and ventilation requirements, kitchen requirements, drainage and sanitary conveniences, washing facilities, space heating and refuse storage and disposal.
77. Tree Officer – raises no objections to the submitted tree report and the proposed removals detailed therein are considered acceptable with no specimens proposed for removal considered to be of any significant value.
78. Archaeology – Raise no objections though a condition should be attached on any approval requiring the undertaking of a primarily photographic English Heritage style building recording and that a copy of this mitigation strategy is deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record.
79. Public Rights of Way – No objections to the development are raised and there any potential improvements to the public right of way network would be welcomed. Page 106 Confirmation as to how the proposed pedestrian routes within the development would be managed is sought.
80. Sustainability – Welcomes the intentions to build to BREEAM and to upgrade the fabric of performance to Neville House, a final strategy for the use of low carbon technologies that delivers carbon savings should be devised. In general sustainability terms concern is raised at the demolition of Sheraton House although the reasoning is in principle accepted and as a result as much demolition waste as possible should be reused within the development.
81. Travel Planning Team – The submitted travel plan contains all the required components at this stage of the planning process but it is considered that there are some areas that need further clarification and commitment. These additional requirements include that the travel plan coordinator must be in place for the lifetime of the development, further identification of specific measures is needed and there is the need for the introduction of travel plan targets.
82. Employability - State that the proposed development is an opportunity to pursue targeted employment opportunities via a planning obligation.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
83. The application was advertised within the press and on site, and letters were sent to neighbouring properties. A total of 108 no. letters of representation have been received with 95 no. are letters of objection with 3 no. letters of support. The remaining 10 no. letters either contain queries or raise particular points or provide a neutral stance on the application.
84. Objection is raised to the consultation process undertaken on the application by the Local Planning Authority and the pre-application consultation exercise undertaken by the applicant. The planning application address of Darlington Road is considered to be confusing.
85. Objections are raised to providing purpose built student accommodation in this locality and the sheer occupancy levels proposed, and the impacts upon the amenity of residents namely the potential for noise disturbances, smells from communal kitchen areas, anti-social and intimidating behaviour from groups of students and students dominating the central landscape area. Objection to groups of students smoking outside is also cited. Concerns are raised over a loss of light and privacy. Concerns are expressed over the passing of pedestrian traffic and potential noise on footpaths and the impacts of the movements at peak hours. Objection is raised to the impact of the construction activities and weekend working upon the amenity of residents and potential for damage to property from deliveries. Objection is raised to the proposed location of the servicing access and the noise from, for instance, bin collections. Concerns are raised over the impact of noise emanating from air-conditioning units and extractor fans etc. Concerns are expressed as to what the implications of the development are upon the maintenance and applicable charges for communal spaces within the development and impact upon existing infrastructure.
86. Queries are raised over the Local Authority’s strategy with regards to student development within Durham and the University’s accommodation plans and why proposals for student developments are not on University land. Reference is made to the emerging County Durham Plan and that the site is identified as a committed residential scheme. Concerns are raised that the development would effectively discourage residence in the area by the non-student population and create a further Page 107 student dominated locality in Durham. Consideration of the application should wait until the County Durham Plan and SPD on student accommodation is finalised.
87. Public responses propose amendments to the scheme so as to ensure that the impacts of the development are more acceptable including the relocation and redesign of the proposed building, redesign of vehicular entrance and landscape space design to prevent disturbance to residents. Suggestions are made that a community building and children’s play facilities could be provided as part of the development and disappointment is expressed that despite requests, the application is not proposing specific means of spending the proposed financial contributions. It is also queried as to whether the financial contribution towards public rights of way would be sufficient. It is pointed out that the proposals do not include the provision of facilities such as shops, cafes and the like for such occupancy levels. Queries are raised as to why standard housing cannot be incorporated into the development proposal. The revised plans so as to include a community space within the building are considered inadequate.
88. Objection is raised to the proposed demolition of Sheraton House, the scale and design of the proposed replacement building and extensions and alterations to Neville House. The development is not considered to be in keeping with the character of the area and was not what was originally envisaged under the Sheraton Park development. Should planning permission be granted a request is made that Neville House must be redeveloped before Sheraton House is demolished.
89. Concerns are expressed over potential parking problems and traffic generation with subsequent detrimental impacts upon highway safety. Some management proposals for instance a zero parking scheme and management of pedestrian route usage are considered to be unenforceable. Queries are raised as to whether the zero parking policy of the applicant would extend to motorbikes and mopeds. It is pointed out that although a management plan is proposed for the commencement of the academic year for vehicular arrivals it does not apply to the beginning or end of individual terms. Lack of vehicular drop-off areas within the layout is specifically cited as an issue and that this will increase the need for vehicles to park or wait on surrounding residential streets. Some objection is raised to the location of the proposed parking spaces for vehicles and cycles. Objections are raised to the proposed cycling provision which is considered to inadequate and a number of issues are suggestions for improvement raised with regards to the key cycling routes to and from the site. Concerns are expressed over the safety of some pedestrian routes.
90. Requests are made for traffic calming measures, highways improvements including with regards to cycling and reduction in the speed limit of the streets surrounding the development. Queries are raised with regards to the implications of a controlled parking zone being implemented. Reference is made to the considered lack of suitability of cycle routes in the area such as Potters Bank which is considered to be very slippery much of the year. A point is raised that the Brompton cycle dock is located within the courtyard of the replacement Sheraton House building and therefore may not be available to the public.
91. Queries are raised as to how the site would be used outside of term time and whether alternative uses such as holiday accommodation would occur. Concerns are expressed that if the development cannot be filled with students other forms of tenants may be accommodated.
92. The City of Durham Trust raise concerns over the potential for a surplus of student accommodation to emerge and advise that this proposal should be considered in tandem with the planning application at the former County Hospital, North Road. Page 108 Issue is drawn with the accuracy of the documentation supplied by the applicant in relation to the total number of students at Durham University with the figure considered to incorrectly include those at the Stockton campus.
93. The need for purpose built student accommodation is questioned taking into account the amount of accommodation for private rent available within the City. Queries are raised over the validity of the argument put forward by the applicant that the number of students required for the development and need to demolish Sheraton House on the grounds of viability and that the recent economic upturn will permit an alternative development to be viable in the future.
94. Objection is raised that the revised proposals seeking to control the occupancy of the development would still result in a great number of undergraduates but postgraduates residing in the buildings all year round and greater pressure for parking because of the staff and Fellow occupiers. It is also considered that the proposed control of the occupancy of development is not feasible or enforceable.
95. Queries are raised as to the extent of the University’s involvement in the scheme.
96. Concerns are raised over the potential impacts of the development upon bats.
97. Objection is raised to the applicant’s statement within a supporting document that there was a previously approved scheme for an office development which is not considered to be the case.
98. Objections on the grounds of the impact of the development upon property values are raised.
99. Harm to the areas of landscaping/land where increased use of public footpaths would occur and potential further hardsurfacing provided.
100. Queries are raised as to whether the applicant is fully aware of Sheraton Park Management Limited, land ownership and land management requirements. Queries have also been raised as to whether Sheraton Park Management Limited have also considered the implications of the development and future management responsibilities.
101. One respondent queries why the Council has not served a section 215 notice upon the owners of the land so as to ensure the proper maintenance of land.
102. Some support to elements of the proposal are raised namely that if the development were to emerge it would remove the derelict nature of the site in its present form and would provide a significant improvement in the appearance of the estate. The financial contributions proposed under the application would also benefit the community. Scepticism is also shown that another development such as standard residential would actually emerge as an alternative. The inclusion of a Brompton Cycle Hire Dock is also welcomed.
103. Sheraton Park Residents Association has submitted the results of a resident’s survey regarding the development to which 88 completed questionnaires were received. Key elements of these survey results indicate that the vast majority of respondents considered that the site is in need of redevelopment. However, the survey results showed clear concern with elements of the proposal particularly with regards the suitability of student accommodation and the potential impacts upon residential amenity.
Page 109 104. AlumNO! Community Group have also submitted the results of a survey of residents within Sheraton Park and the submitted results indicate that the vast majority of respondents oppose the development proposals. 105. Sheraton Park Management Limited have stated that though they do not object to the principle of the development they have issued a “holding objection” until assurance is provided that the applicant enters into a legal agreement agreeing to the procurement and long term management and maintenance of the central area proposed for landscaping.
106. Roberta Blackman-Woods MP has commented on the planning application and stated that the financial contributions proposed by the applicant should be utilised to benefit local residents and in the immediate vicinity of the development to mitigate the impact of the development upon surrounding properties.
107. Durham University have commented on the application and state that they welcome purpose-built student accommodation which is of appropriate quality and managed in such a way as to minimise loss of amenity to local residents and support the work of the University. The proposed development has been informed by discussions with the University including with regards to the unit types and layout. It is noted that the location is within easy reach of University sites, that limited parking is proposed in accordance with University policy and that a Brompton cycle dock is proposed. The development is considered to enhance the currently poor environment at the site and the University hopes to continue to work constructively with the developer and local residents so as to mitigate as far as possible any loss of amenity for residents. It is confirmed that work with the applicant with regards to a long lease of the site have occurred however it is unlikely that these would be concluded before determination of the application.
108. Durham Constabulary Architectural Liason Officer states that the Durham Police have experienced conflict between settled residents and the student community. Students are transient members of the community who can show a lack of consideration and commitment to their neighbours. Where student accommodation is situated close residential areas there is often conflict with the settled community with a breakdown in community cohesion and result in a draw on the Police. Student accommodation can also attract crime, students can be targeted. Good site management could mitigate the degree of potential conflict, however, there is little scope due to the site specifics of adequately controlling access movements to and from the site and footpath maintenance.
109. Save Britain’s Heritage have welcome the conversion of Neville House but object to the demolition of Sheraton House. Alternative proposals that would retain Sheraton House should be explored instead.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
110. The applicant states Alumno Developments (Durham) Ltd have sought to develop the Sheraton Park site for Student Accommodation based on an identified need for Student Accommodation within Durham and the sites close proximity to the City Centre and Durham University. Alumno have worked closely with Durham University to ensure that the accommodation is in line with their requirements. The issue of need has been set out in a separate assessment that accompanies the planning application.
111. Alumno consider that the proposed development is within a sustainable location which will promote pedestrian, cycling and public transport links to the City Centre and Durham University as well as reusing a Brownfield site which has been allowed Page 110 to fall into disrepair. Alumno note that the proposed development will have car parking available for disabled students and members of staff only. Car parking has been an issue throughout the application process but the proposals have been revised to meet the required standards of Durham Highways Engineers. Alumno will still actively endeavour to limit students bringing cars on site to comply with the University green travel plan and keep the site as far as practicable a car free zone.
112. It is considered that the proposed development will enhance the local area regenerating a vacant unused site and delivering high quality design that will deliver much need improved and fully accessible public open space. The design has involved detailed discussions with all professional at Durham County Council and as a result there are no objections the proposals from any officers.
113. Since submitting the Planning Application, Alumno have made a number of changes in order to enhance the proposed development. There has been a reduction in the number of bedrooms, this has allowed for a wider mix of room sizes with the intention of attracting a mix of students from post graduates to returning undergraduates. It has also allowed for the inclusion of a Community Room which can be accessed externally. A Cascade Agreement will also be added to the Section 106 Agreement for the Proposed Development. This will be a legal agreement which will ensure that there is a maximum of 50% undergraduates residing in the accommodation in any given year. This approach helps university promote a balanced and mixed community and promote mentors within shared living arrangements. The cascade arrangement does not preclude us from letting up to 100% postgrads.
114. It is considered that the management arrangements in place and the changes detailed above have allowed for a number of the concerns of neighbouring residents to be addressed. As such, it is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on the neighbouring residents. There are still outstanding objection form some neighbouring residents but at the same time there is a ground swell of support for the development and the compressive package of community benefits the scheme can bring.
115. It is considered that the proposed development can be considered sustainable and will result in a more pleasant environment of the wider Sheraton Park area. This is not a speculative development it is as a result of significant investment in Durham by Alumno who hope to be involved in the site for a long period of time and form part of an active vibrant neighbourhood.
116. The application as now presented has no objections from any statutory or non- statutory consultees and Alumno hope that if consent is granted in line with the positive officer recommendation work can start as soon possible to see the site back into a beneficial and sustainable use.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at: http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MY09W8BN5B000
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
117. 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 the
Page 111 development, impacts upon residential amenity, impact upon the character and appearance of the area and heritage assets, highways safety, ecology and matters of flood risk and drainage.
Principle of Development
The Land Use
118. CDLP Policy C5 applies to the site which states that in principle (subject to criteria being met), redevelopment of the site for residential, office, leisure or institutional use is acceptable.
119. The proposal seeks planning permission for a purpose built student accommodation scheme with on-site management. Such a use does not fall within any of the specified use classes of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 (as amended) or The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) and as a result is Sui Generis. However, the proposal still seeks a form of residential occupation and as a result officers consider the use sought essentially adheres to those uses required by Policy C5.
120. CDLP Policy H16 advises on student halls of residence and states that proposals within settlement boundaries will be permitted provided that a number of other criteria are met including with regards to the sustainability of the site and impact upon residential amenity.
121. The introduction of significant numbers of students into the site and local area is one of the key areas of public objection to the development. Policy H16 states that a student hall development should not lead to a concentration of student accommodation such that it would adversely detract from the amenities of existing residents. The issue of residential amenity is discussed in detail elsewhere within this report.
122. In terms of the sites sustainability credentials, it is located within the settlement boundary of Durham City as sought by CDLP Policy H16. For student occupation, ease of access to Durham University is important, as is access to the city centre. Key University locations off Stockton Road and South Road and the City Centre with its variety of services and facilities are within relatively close proximity to the site, approximately fifteen minutes’ walk. Although some footpath routes in the immediate vicinity of the site are at present unsurfaced/informal the applicant proposes a financial contribution of £50, 000 towards improvements. The application is accompanied by a travel plan. More detailed consideration of the development with regards to matters of sustainable transport are discussed in the separate highways section of this report, however, officers do not raise objection to the proposed development in principle having regards to the relationship of the development to services and facilities as required by CDLP Policy H16. The proposal also demonstrates efficient re-use of previously developed land which is one of the core planning principles of the NPPF.
123. It is therefore considered that the principle of the land use would be in accordance with having regards to key CDLP Policies H16 and C5 and Parts 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the NPPF.
Departure from CDLP Policy C5
124. CDLP Policy C5 states that in principle, redevelopment of the site for residential, office, leisure or institutional use is acceptable. However, this is subject to a number Page 112 of criteria including that the development must seek to retain Neville and Sheraton House and that important areas of open space, amenity space and landscaping are retained.
125. The proposal seeks the demolition and replacement of Sheraton House. The applicant has stated within the application submissions that retention, conversion and extension of Sheraton House has been considered but is ultimately unfeasible and unviable. As a result, the applicant states that the development has sought to retain Sheraton House in accordance with Policy C5. Policy C5 describes Sheraton House and Neville House as two “landmark” buildings and states that their retention should form the centrepiece of any redevelopment proposal. Officer’s interpretation of the content of Policy C5 is that the retention of the buildings on site is an objective of the Policy and therefore the proposed demolition of Sheraton House is in conflict with the Policy. CDLP Policy E21 similarly seeks to encourage the retention, repair and re-use of buildings and structures which are not listed but are of visual or local interest.
126. However, consideration must also be had to other material planning considerations including the NPPF. As Sheraton House and Neville House are not listed buildings but are of heritage value they constitute non-designated heritage assets. The Planning Practice Guidance defines non-designated heritage assets as “buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which are not formally designated heritage assets.”
127. The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Statement which seeks to evaluate the value of both buildings. The primary heritage value of the buildings is considered as being as a record of the development of ideas about education in County Durham and the association of the buildings with the changes in education following the 1902 Education Act. The Heritage Statement considers Neville and Sheraton House compared to other similar buildings in the country and they are considered to be less intact examples and of somewhat lower architectural quality, though remain of considerable historical and communal value locally.
128. The NPPF advises that in determining all planning applications relating to heritage assets that local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the asset, the contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and the desirability of new development to making a positive contribution to character and distinctiveness.
129. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF weight can be attributed to relevant policies within the CDLP according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF with the greater weight given to those policies that are more closely aligned to the NPPF. Officers consider that there is some inconsistency between CDLP Policy C5 and the content of the NPPF. Policy C5 essentially requires the retention of Neville and Sheraton House in any development scenario, whereas with regards to non- designated heritage assets, the NPPF states that a balanced judgement should be made having regard to the significance of the heritage asset, degree of harm/loss and the weighting of the merits of the proposals.
130. It is acknowledged that permitted development rights under Part 31 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 for demolition of Sheraton House (or indeed Neville House) apply. Potentially an applicant could apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether prior approval for the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site is required. In determining such an application consideration is only given to matters pertaining to Page 113 the method of demolition and restoration rather than the merits and value of the building itself. However, this does not remove the need to consider the development as a whole against the Development Plan and NPPF including assessing the loss of the heritage asset.
131. The two buildings certainly have heritage value. However, their value is considered to not be as great as that which applies to designated heritage assets. The heritage value and significance of the site would not be wholly lost/harmed through the development as the majority of Neville House would remain and the end use for higher education occupants retains a historical link to education which is the historical use of the site.
132. Where a proposed development would lead to the substantial harm or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset the NPPF requires a demonstration that the public benefits outweigh that harm or a demonstration that; the nature of the asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; that a viable alternative use cannot be found in the medium term; that conservation by grant funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. However, the NPPF does not state that such tests should be applied to non-designated heritage assets .
133. The application is accompanied by documents that seek to demonstrate the benefits of the scheme for consideration when balancing the merits of the application. Essentially the application seeks to present a similar level of justification as might be needed where harm or loss of a designated heritage asset were to occur.
134. In part the applicant has sought to demonstrate that it is impractical to economically convert Sheraton House and that it therefore requires replacement for the proposal to be viable. Unlike Neville House, Sheraton House was not designed for the purposes of accommodation, but rather as a teaching block with classrooms, library and other communal facilities. Certainly the layout and room sizes of Sheraton House do not lend themselves to the more cellular layout typical of purpose built student accommodation schemes.
135. The application is supported by a financial options appraisal which demonstrates that refurbishment and extensions to both Neville House and Sheraton House to provide student accommodation would not viable, whilst the proposed scheme would be.
136. Whilst officers agree that based upon the information contained within the submitted financial options appraisal, the option to retain both buildings appears unviable; it is also considered that this is on the basis of the land receipt that the owners seek. Were the landowner willing to accept a lower value for the land then the option to retain and extend Sheraton House is more likely to be viable.
137. Similarly, the applicant has also sought to demonstrate that previously approved schemes that have never come into fruition in the years since 2002 are not viable.
138. Ultimately officers consider that consideration must be had to the likelihood of securing a development in the short term against the likelihood of a scheme to re- use both buildings coming forward. At present there are signs that the economy is recovering and potentially an alternative development to that proposed within this application could be deliverable at the site. However, since 2002 and following the end of the previous use of the site no alternative development has come forward in the intervening 12 years. The site is, in its present vacant state, something of an eyesore. Whilst there is no guarantee, as with any development proposal, that this development would occur, there appears clear confidence in the applicant that Page 114 should planning permission be granted the development would materialise in the short term. Officers consider that there would, in general terms, be a significant benefit arising from the redevelopment of the site, in terms of the prevention of further deterioration of the site and this part of the local townscape.
139. The application explains how external funding from English Heritage is not an option to help with the retention of Neville House as the building does not meet English Heritage requirements for this funding.
140. The application highlights that the central landscaped area between the two buildings would return to use through the development proposal providing an amenity area for use for both the occupiers of the development and the wider public. An area of the ground floor of Neville House is proposed to be dedicated for community use. The application also highlights the financial contributions proposed under a S106 legal agreement towards public art, footpath improvements and to a community benefit fund.
141. Officers consider that the departure from CDLP Policy C5 and the degree of loss of heritage value on the site can be accepted should the application having regards to all other issues be considered acceptable in the balance. The comments from Design and Conservation essentially support this view.
Need for the Accommodation
142. Public responses to the application include those questioning the need for purpose built student accommodation, accuracy of the documentation submitted by the applicant in regard to the need for the accommodation and concern that a surplus of student accommodation may result in the City.
143. The application is accompanied by a needs study which has been amended during the course of the application. The needs study seeks to demonstrate a number of key points including; the expected growth in student numbers – an increase of 2000 by 2020; the proportion of students that Durham University can accommodate within existing college accommodation; and, the amount of additional accommodation that has been either recently developed, approved or is currently pending determination (approximately 2,500 no. beds).
144. In terms of the anticipated increase in student numbers, whilst very limited weight can be afforded to Policy 32 of the emerging CDP, within the justification to the Policy and the supporting background paper there is a clear understanding that Durham University, as set out in its 2012 Residential Accommodation Strategy, has an ambition to increase student numbers in the City from 15300 to 17100 by 2020 and an ambition to increase student numbers residing within purpose built student accommodation. This degree of increase in student numbers is similar to that suggested within the submitted needs assessment.
145. Officers consider that in terms of committed developments, either recently developed or approved development, the number of purpose built student accommodation bed spaces that can be provided is approximately 1,700. If the 418 no. bed spaces within this proposal is added then in excess of 2,000 bed spaces could be provided within the City through either recently developed or committed proposals being constructed.
146. However, purpose built student accommodation could potentially provide competition for the Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) market within the City. Therefore even if this development and existing approved developments were completed it does not Page 115 necessary follow that the accommodation would be surplus to requirements but provide competition for another sector of the student accommodation market. Officers consider that objections to the development on the grounds of competition could not be made.
147. Whilst in the future further consideration may be necessary with regards to the potential for a surplus of purpose built student accommodation within the City if more and more student development schemes are proposed, present evidence suggests that with regard to developed and approved schemes there is not such a demonstrable surplus of student accommodation to warrant officers raising objection.
148. Furthermore the existing CDLP provides no specific advice with regards to the need for purpose built student accommodation. The NPPF at paragraph 14 states that where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date then planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.
149. Officers raise no objections on the grounds of lack of need for the student accommodation proposal.
Other Issues regarding the Principle of the Development
150. With regards to the public queries over both the Council’s and Durham University strategy with regards to student development Policy H16 of the CDLP which is discussed above provides the key assessment criteria. Policy C3 of the CDLP provides advice with regards to Durham University student accommodation proposals, however, in this instance this policy does not apply to this development as it relates only to the proposals by the University itself. Limited weight can be attributed to Policy 32 of the emerging CDP. However, during the preparation of the CDP sites were not put forward for student accommodation through the consultation process and as a result no sites have been proposed for allocation for student development. However, the Local Planning Authority believes that a policy framework exists that allows for a careful consideration of student accommodation proposals.
151. Reference is made within the public responses to the emerging CDP identifying the site as a committed residential scheme. This is the case and Policy 29 of the CDP relates, however, only limited weight can be applied to this policy at this time. Regardless, the justification to the policy acknowledges that not all the committed sites are likely to be delivered. As a result it is not considered that this policy prohibits the prospect of an alternative development on the site nor would the delivery of an alternative development be considered to undermine the emerging CDP and its housing delivery requirements.
152. With regards to the point raised that consideration of the application should wait until the emerging CDP and student accommodation supplementary planning document are finalised, officers consider this is essentially a question of prematurity. The Planning Practice Guidance states that arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the NPPF and any other material considerations into account. In this instance officers consider this would not be the case and that consideration of the application at this stage would not undermine the ongoing plan making process.
Page 116 153. In terms of the point raised that this application should be considered in tandem with the proposed redevelopment of the former County Hospital at North Road (application CE/13/01696/FPA) officers consider that this need not be the case. Site and development specifics differ and require consideration on their own individual merits, and there are no grounds on which to justify delaying the determination of this application.
Impacts upon Residential Amenity
154. CDLP Policy H16 states that a student hall development should not lead to a concentration of student accommodation such that it would adversely detract from the amenities of existing residents. The NPPF emphasises at paragraph 50 the need to ensure mixed and inclusive communities and encourages that development establishes a strong sense of place and sustains an appropriate mix of uses as detailed at paragraph 58. Paragraph 69 emphasises the need for safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of such does not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.
155. Policy H16 does not prescribe a particular number of students who should reside in any one area.
156. Policy 32 of the emerging CDP relates to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and student accommodation. At this point in time the CDP is still emerging and it is considered that significant objection to Policy 32 exists. Therefore, it is considered that only very limited weight can be attributed to Policy 32. However, essentially, Policy 32 seeks to prevent the formation of further HMOs where such properties or other student accommodation already equates to more than 10% of the total number of properties in one locality. Policy 32 specifically discounts student accommodation managed by an educational establishment from the 10% figure. This development proposal does not constitute an HMO dwelling but purpose built accommodation more akin to a hall of residence though it is not known at this stage if it is to be formally managed by an educational establishment.
157. Policy 32 of the emerging CDP principally focuses upon HMOs and that over- concentrations of student occupied HMOs can cause detrimental impacts. Not all elements of Policy 32 strictly apply to this development as the development would not form an HMO though at this stage, as formal management by an educational establishment is not confirmed, the development would contribute to the percentage increase in students defined by Policy 32. Policy 32 advises that appropriately designed and managed purpose built accommodation is the more appropriate means of addressing student accommodation need within the City.
158. Based upon the Council’s records of properties with student exemption from Council Tax, there are six HMOs within Sheraton Park. This may be an underestimate, as there may well be further students residing in properties that are not on the available records. In any event, the proposed development would vastly increase the number of students within the immediate area. However, this increase in numbers would be in the form of managed purpose built accommodation.
159. The impact of the development upon existing residents is a significant concern among local residents, and a range of adverse impacts are expressed, as are a number of potential amendments to the scheme to try and mitigate its impact. Concerns are expressed that existing residents within the area could leave as a result. Officers also note the concerns expressed by the Durham Constabulary Architectural Liason Officer and internal consultees which highlight the impact on residential amenity as a key issue. Page 117
160. Officers acknowledge that students can have a tendency towards a lifestyle and behaviours that can cause impacts upon other residents. Late nights, noisy activities and activities in large groups are all examples. Associated with this, impacts such as taxi drop-offs, takeaway deliveries as well as significant pedestrian traffic can all occur. Such examples of activities and many others that could have an impact upon existing residents, are raised within the public responses.
161. Officers appreciate that the introduction of a significant number of students into an established residential area has the potential to affect the residential amenity of existing residents.
162. However, to a degree this would be the case with any residential redevelopment of the site. The extant planning permissions would form 114 no. flats. These flats range from 1 bed to 4 bed with approximately 200 no. beds proposed and occupancy levels potentially higher. In the event that the existing extant consents were developed and occupied by either student or non-student occupiers a significant increase in occupation of the site would result. An increase in comings and goings, activities and levels of disturbance would also occur.
163. Occupation by non-students would also result in occupation all year round, whilst student occupation would largely occur only during term time. This is certainly the case for undergraduates where during the lengthy breaks of the summer, Easter and Christmas periods, students are likely to vacate the site for around 6 months across the year. Postgraduate students can work to significantly differing timetables to undergraduates; however, again some are likely to vacate the site.
164. The applicant has proposed a range of measures regarding site and noise management and site occupation controls in order to mitigate and reduce the likelihood of harmful impacts upon local residents.
165. A student accommodation management plan and a noise management plan have been submitted within the application and amended during the course of the application. The application in its final, amended format proposes an accommodation and noise management plan within a legal agreement requiring adherence to its content. Whilst the previse wording of the relevant obligations in the agreement are not finalised at this stage, the measures to manage the site, noise and disturbance would include the use of resident wardens, “out of hours” security staff and CCTV. There would also be the incorporation of physical mitigation measures such as windows with restricted opening to 100mm, to reduce the potential for noise emissions from the buildings themselves.
166. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection considered the initial noise management measures to be too vague, however, the revised proposals are appropriate and subject to conditions being attached no objections are raised from Environment, Health and Consumer Protection with regards to matters of noise pollution. In this instance rather than conditions being attached to any approval the management measures would form part of a legal agreement.
167. In addition to the site and noise management measures the applicant is proposing to control site occupation so that the development would not be wholly under-graduate dominated but have better balance with proportions of post-graduate, fellow, research student and staff occupancy. The number of undergraduate occupiers would not exceed 60% of the total bed spaces proposed; this would equate to 251 undergraduate students at the site out of the total 418 bedspaces sought.
Page 118 168. Originally the applicant proposed wording within the legal agreement that would permit, following a marketing exercise, that occupation would be available to any of the proposed occupiers in any proportion. However, the applicant has confirmed that the legal agreement would not include this degree of flexibility and would limit occupancy for undergraduates to no greater than 60%.
169. Clearly, a 418 no. bed student accommodation development could not be developed at the site without impact. At times some noise and disruption is likely to occur from comings and goings, noisy activities, pedestrian movements and the like. There is clearly some strong public concern over how harmful such impacts could be.
170. However, appropriate management of the site would help to reduce the impact. The applicant has presented management methods that can be utilised to mitigate the impact of the occupancy levels. The legal agreement seeks a means to control occupancy to help ensure the balance of occupancy again to help with integration into the existing community.
171. Officers consider that redevelopment of the currently vacant and derelict site is a benefit in itself. Alternative development proposals would in their own right inevitably have a degree of impact upon residential amenity including the existing extant planning permissions that would result in high occupancy levels, potentially all year round.
172. Aside from the occupancy of the development public objections also relate to the considered harm of the redeveloped buildings themselves for instance through a loss of privacy and light and through specific design of the layout for instance location of communal spaces and bin stores.
173. Whilst Policies H13, H16 and C5 of the CDLP all advise that a development proposal must not adversely affect the amenity of existing nearby occupiers these policies do not provide prescriptive guidance with regards for instance separation between properties so as to ensure adequate privacy and amenity.
174. Policy Q8 of the CDLP does provide such advice however this relates to new residential (housing) layouts. Officers consider that this policy does not strictly apply given the sui generis student accommodation scheme proposed.
175. Separation distances to the rear of the proposed replacement Sheraton House to properties at Almoners Barn beyond Clay Lane are in excess of 38m. Separation distances to the properties on Kirkwood Drive that would have rear elevations facing the extended Neville House property are 33m.
176. The front elevations of properties on Faraday Court would face the side elevations of the replacement Sheraton House building and Neville House. Facing distances from Sheraton House to Faraday Court vary from 31m to 21m. Properties on Dalton Crescent are arranged in a crescent and therefore these properties are set at angles to the replacement building for Sheraton House and Neville House rather than directly facing them. The nearest properties on Dalton Crescent are located 16m and 9.5m from the closest elements of Sheraton House and Neville House, however, the rear elevations of these properties containing windows to habitable rooms do not directly face the buildings. The submitted floorplans on Sheraton House have been designed so as to incorporate windows set on splays on the side elevations that would flank both Faraday Court and Dalton Crescent. These splays would prevent direct views between windows within the development and properties on Dalton Crescent and Faraday Court. Sheraton House has been designed so that sections
Page 119 that are closest to Dalton Crescent and Faraday Court are reduced to three and two storeys, respectively.
177. As Neville House is to be retained but altered and extended the location of existing window openings is established and such splays would not to be incorporated and it is the properties on Faraday Court that flank Neville House that would have the closest direct facing distances between windows, with the closest being 19m. Accommodation within Neville House is across four storeys where it flanks Faraday Court.
178. The closest relationship between any element of the proposed buildings and neighbouring properties is that between Neville House and no. 10 Ellam Avenue where the rearmost sections of Neville House comes within approximately 3.5m of the garage of that property.
179. Extant planning permissions for the redevelopment of the site proposed significant extensions to both Neville and Sheraton House. The footprints of the proposed buildings under those planning permissions are very similar to those that are now proposed. Elements of the extant permissions or the site incorporate extended elements to Neville House that would be of a greater height than that now proposed. The extensions to Neville House under the 2005 approval to create 67 no. apartments had a height of 14.3m including where it lies to immediately adjacent to No. 10 Ellam Avenue. The extensions to Neville House under this proposed development would have a slightly lower height of 13.5m.
180. Equally elements of the revised Sheraton House building are higher than those previously approved under the application to create 47 no. apartments. The side elevations of the previously approved alterations to Sheraton House had a height of 11.4m whilst the side elevations of this proposal have a height of 12.4m.
181. Any alternative viable redevelopment of the site is likely to require significant physical alterations and extensions to the buildings on site (unless complete demolition was sought).
182. Separation distances between the proposed development and neighbouring property therefore varies quite significantly. With Neville House in situ and proposed for retention the relationship between sections of this building and the surroundings is essentially set although the extensions bringing the building much closer to some properties are not and are part of the redevelopment proposal.
183. The replacement Sheraton House building is sought to be rebuilt in essentially the same location which from an aesthetic and heritage point of view is considered appropriate.
184. On balance officers consider that the proposed development and final scale, location and design of the replacement Sheraton House building and extended Neville House would not cause unacceptable loss of amenity for existing residents through a loss of privacy, light or through the creation of overbearing features. Extant planning permissions on the site have established a similar mass of development and separation between buildings. The impact of this development proposal upon existing residents is considered to be commensurate with the extant consents and officers raise no objections to the development as a result.
185. Public objection makes reference to the lack of facilities such as shops, cafes and the like for the prospective occupants. Such facilities are not proposed, however, this is not unusual for a purpose built student development where communal spaces Page 120 can be restricted to laundry, reception, common room space and the like. The site is not considered to be located within an unsustainable location and as a result officers do not object to the proposal on such grounds.
186. With regards to concerns expressed the impact of smells from kitchen spaces, noise from extraction units and the impact and location of bin stores and related collection officers do not consider that such features would cause such harm to warrant officer objection.
187. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection has commented with regards to the potential for the development to cause nuisance from construction activities for instance through noise, smoke and dust emissions and potential for light spillage. Given the close proximity of the site to residential property and scale of works proposed officers consider that there is some potential for impacts upon residential amenity albeit for a temporary period. It is therefore considered that a condition be attached on any approval requiring the adherence to construction management methods to reduce the potential for impacts upon local residents. In addition a restriction on the working hours during construction can also be added via condition.
188. Objections are therefore not raised with regards to impacts upon residential amenity having regards to key CDLP Policies H13, H16, C5, U5 and U7 and Parts 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the NPPF.
Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Area and Heritage Assets
189. As set out earlier, Neville and Sheraton House are considered to be non-designated heritage assets, and which the NPPF states that a balanced judgement should be made having regard to the significance of the heritage asset, degree of harm/loss and the weighting of the merits of the application. Officers consider that the degree of harm and loss through the demolition of Sheraton House and alterations to Neville House can be accepted if other material planning considerations are considered to weight in favour of the development.
190. In terms of matters of impacts upon other heritage assets, the Council’s Archaeology Officer raises no objections to the development subject to a condition requiring photographic recording of the building and that a copy of this mitigation strategy is deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. Such conditions can be attached on any approval.
191. Public responses request that demolition of Sheraton House should not occur until the redevelopment works at Neville House have been implemented. Conditions requiring that development is implemented in particular stages can be applied but should only be done when appropriate having regards to the tests of applying conditions. Should Sheraton House be demolished and the development stall effectively the loss of the heritage asset would occur without the balancing benefit of site redevelopment or at the least the conversion of Neville House. With the loss of the heritage asset such a key issue and the justification for its loss effectively being be the benefits of the remaining redevelopment officers do consider that it is appropriate that a phasing condition be applied to any permission requiring that the conversion and extension works are substantially completed before the demolition of Sheraton House.
192. The replacement Sheraton House building and alterations to Neville House have received some public objection in terms of their scale and design. Both the replacement Sheraton House building and the extensions to Neville House are more contemporary in nature than the existing buildings. Design is ultimately a subjective Page 121 matter. The architect rather than seeking to copy the appearance of the existing buildings in a pastiche has sought to design that is of its time but still seeks to reference the existing buildings for instance through the materials palette and vertical emphasis of fenestration.
193. Design and Conservation Officers consider that the design proposals reflect a comfortable relationship with the retained historic fabric, and take into account the setting of Neville House as well as relating to the existing and previously approved footprints for development. The proposed replacement Sheraton House and extensions to Neville House are considered complimentary. Design and Conservation have stated that consideration could be given to revision to the entrance to the replacement Sheraton House building, however, this is not essential.
194. Overall officers raise no objections to the proposed replacement Sheraton House building or extensions and alterations to Neville House. The replacement Sheraton House building is considered to represent a quality design solution to the development and site in its own right thereby mitigating some of the harm caused through the loss of the heritage asset. Conditions can be attached to any approval to agree final material choices.
195. The application proposes a landscaping scheme for the central area between the two existing buildings. The site is currently fenced off with no public access. The re- opening of this central area is considered to be a benefit of the proposals, enabling access by the residents of the estate as well as providing a much-enhanced outlook for adjacent existing residents. The number of parking spaces proposed for the site has increased during the course of the application; however, the number of parking spaces within the central landscaped area is limited with the majority of spaces on the periphery of the site. This is a benefit of the proposal and is an improvement upon existing extant planning permissions for the redevelopment of the site where a greater number of parking spaces were proposed to intrude into the landscaped space.
196. Landscape Officers have raised some specific queries with the landscaping scheme submitted within the application. Officers consider that in broad terms the submitted scheme is appropriate and would represent a significant aesthetic improvement on the present situation. Officers do consider that a condition can be attached on any approval to require a further detailed landscaping scheme to be submitted and potentially further alterations to the scheme could result addressing some of the issues highlighted by Landscape. The Tree Officer raises no objections to the submitted tree report and the proposed removals detailed therein are considered acceptable.
197. In conclusion, whilst the proposal is contrary to CDLP Policy C5, the loss of Sheraton House can be accepted and no objections to the development are raised on the grounds of impact upon the character and appearance of the area or heritage assets having regards to CDLP Policies E14, E21, E24, H13, H16, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q5 and Parts 7 and 12 of the NPPF.
Highways Issues
198. The development proposal as originally submitted proposed limited on-site parking provision stating within the submitted application enclosures that essentially a zero- parking policy was to be enforced at the site and in the immediate surrounds.
199. The Highway Authority objected to the originally submitted layout proposing the limited parking of 16 no. spaces. The Highway Authority considered that there is no Page 122 assurance that the enforcement of the zero parking policy the applicant seeks to employ would work, with unacceptable pressure for parking on adjacent streets the result. The Highway Authority considered that an appropriate level of parking spaces available at the site would be necessary taking into account the site location, potential impact of a thorough travel plan and having regards to the likely car ownership levels of students.
200. The applicant therefore revised the layout so as to include an increase in parking provision with a total of 50 no. spaces now proposed. This increase in parking provision has satisfied the Highway Authority. The applicant maintains that they would still seek to enforce a zero parking policy and prohibit students from bringing cars to the site. Whilst this maybe the case the Local Planning Authority would raise objection to the development without the 50 no. parking spaces shown on layout and available for use should occupants bring cars to the site.
201. The Highway Authority considers that the 20 no. additional cycle parking spaces are necessary together with limited motorcycle parking provision. Such provision and design of enclosures can be ensured by condition on any approval.
202. Accompanying the proposal is a draft travel plan seeking to demonstrate means in which sustainable transport methods can be encouraged within the development. The Travel Planning Team have commented on the submitted travel plan whilst it is considered acceptable in principle considered there are some areas that need further clarification and commitment. Officers consider that the final detail of the travel plan could be resolved via a condition attached to any approval.
203. Public concerns include those regarding beginning/end of term time pick up and drop off times. The application includes reference to a management plan for this with staggered arrivals to the site. Whilst officers appreciate the public concern over this management approach and officers do consider it likely that there will for instance be late arrivals at times, the Highway Authority have considered the likely trip generation that would result from such an approach and no objections have been raised. A condition can be attached to any approval to require final details of management proposals for term beginning/end drop off and collections.
204. The Highway Authority do not consider that the development necessitates infrastructure improvements in order to make the development acceptable for instance traffic calming measures
205. Similarly, no objections are raised on the grounds of the safety of pedestrian routes in the vicinity of the site; public concern was specifically raised regarding the crossing of Potters Bank for instance. The Highway Authority do state that should public rights of way be utilised for pedestrian movement then the financial contribution proposed for improvements will be important.
206. Some public responses query if the sum of £50,000 would be adequate. Officers consider that it would certainly enable a significant improvement to an existing route.
207. Regardless the location of the development and proximity to for instance the city centre and key University sites is considered to be adequate and objections are not raised to the sustainability of the site in this regard.
208. A Brompton cycle dock is proposed within the layout. As pointed out within the public responses the cycle dock is shown within the courtyard of the replacement Sheraton House building raising a query over whether it could be available for use by
Page 123 the public. Officers therefore recommend that a condition be attached to any approval requiring that the location be agreed.
209. With regards to construction traffic and the development, any redevelopment of the site, not just the specific proposal within this application would involve construction traffic travelling to and from the site. The Highway Authority have raised no specific concerns with regards to the implications of construction traffic travelling to and from the site.
210. With regards to the query raised by Public Rights of Way the central landscaped area and pedestrian routes therein is to be managed by the developer and this would be detailed within the S106 legal agreement.
211. Overall no objections are raised to the development with regards to matters of highway safety or sustainable transport issues have regards to CDLP Policies H16, T1, T10, T20, T21, R11, C5 and Part 4 of the NPPF.
Ecology
212. The application as originally submitted was accompanied by an extended phase 1 habitat survey and bat risk assessment and bat survey report.
213. Ecology originally objected to the application. Inadequate survey work was considered to have been undertaken in relation to the existing bat mitigation structures on site and further survey work in relation to Neville House or the submission of a robust methodology with regards to the conversion/extension works would be necessary. The separately submitted demolition method statement does not reflect the recommendations within the bat survey report. Officers consider that the requirement for the demolition to implemented in accordance with the requirements of the ecology report can be covered by condition.
214. The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) and Paragraph 119 of the NPPF. Bats are a protected species. Under the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and as amended in 2012) it is a criminal offence to (amongst other things) deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb a protected species, unless such works are carried out with the benefit of a licence from Natural England. Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations requires local planning authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising its functions. Case law has established that local planning authorities must consider whether the applicant might obtain a protected species license from Natural England. This requires an examination of the derogation provisions.
215. In response to the objections of Ecology the applicant has submitted an updated bat survey report. This report demonstrates that bat roosts are not present within the concerned buildings and structures.
216. As a result Ecology have withdrawn the objection to the development though a condition should be applied that the mitigation measures within the ecology report are implemented. As protected species are not considered to be affected by the development there is no need to consider whether a protected species license would be granted.
217. No adverse impacts upon local or more widely allocated sites of nature conservation value is considered to occur through the development. Natural England has raised Page 124 no objections to the development. Accordingly, the proposals are considered to accord with CDLP Policy E16 and Part 11 of the NPPF.
Flood Risk and Drainage
218. The application site lies within flood risk zone 1, essentially the land least prone to flooding from rivers.
219. The submitted flood risk assessment does state that the site has the potential to be of risk from surface water flooding. The flood risk assessment states that appropriate drainage can be designed to cater for surface water flows and that the increase in soft landscaping/permeable surfaces as a result of the development would reduce the amount of runoff. The application proposes to discharge surface water and foul water flows to the adopted sewer network.
220. Northumbrian Water have been consulted on the application and whilst no objections have been raised to the development it is considered that further detail is required with regards to the management of surface and foul water from the development and a condition is recommended as a result. Such a condition can be attached to any permission.
221. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the development but recommend consultation with Northumbrian Water which has occurred.
222. Officers raise no objections to the proposed development subject to the attachment of conditions on any approval having regards to matters flood risk and drainage issues having regards to CDLP Policies U8a and U10 and Part 10 of the NPPF.
Other Issues
223. With regards to planning obligations the applicant has submitted a draft S106 legal agreement. The applicant is proposing a financial contribution of £170,000 towards the provision of public art. This obligation relates directly to CDLP Policy Q15. Further financial contributions are proposed with £50,000 towards public footpath improvements to aid pedestrian movements in the locality and £200,000 towards a community benefit fund. The S106 agreement is also proposed to include clauses with regards to targeted recruitment and training as requested by the Councils Employability Team, as well as the occupancy restrictions and landscape management as discussed in a preceding section of this report.
224. Public comments include suggestions that a community building and children’s play facilities could be provided as part of the development and disappointment is expressed that despite requests, the application is not proposing specific means of spending the proposed financial contributions. The proposal was amended during the course of the application and includes a space at ground floor which is proposed for community use. Potentially the financial contributions from the development could be used for children’s play and recreational land improvements. With regards to the concerns expressed that the applicant has not submitted more specific means of spending monies, officers consider that it is normal practice that financial contributions be offered without specific proposals necessarily being identified. The monies would be distributed following applications to the Councils S106 working group.
225. Roberta Blackman-Woods MP has stated that the financial contributions proposed by the applicant should be utilised to benefit local residents and in the immediate
Page 125 vicinity. The final S106 legal agreement would require the monies to be spent within the electoral division or vicinity of the site.
226. With regards to matters of land contamination the application is accompanied by desk-top study. This report concludes that there is a low likelihood of potential pollution linkages. Whilst recommendations are made for instance with regards to asbestos removal and review of previous site investigations within the submitted report the Council’s contaminated land officer has stated that there is no need for a contaminated land condition to be attached to any approval having regards to CDLP Policy U11 and Part 11 of the NPPF.
227. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection have also confirmed that the predicted level of traffic resulting from the development is such that it would is not necessary for an air quality assessment to be undertaken in relation to the development.
228. With regards to the public query as to why the proposal does not include standard housing. As discussed elsewhere in the report the application site does have extant planning permission for residential flats which have not thus far been forthcoming. The applicant is proposing an alternative scheme within this application which must be considered on its own merits.
229. Concerns have been expressed as to what the implications of the development are upon the maintenance charge for communal spaces within the development and impact upon existing infrastructure. Officers do not consider that potential impact of a development upon maintenance charges is a material planning consideration nor do officers consider that an objection to the development could be sustained on the basis of the use and pressure upon for example the public highway or landscape spaces. The applicant has stated that the legal agreement would ensure that the management of the central landscape space is their responsibility.
230. Objections are raised to the consultation process undertaken on the application by the Local Planning Authority and the pre-application consultation exercise undertaken by the applicant. Pre-application public consultation by proposed applicants is not a mandatory requirement for this development. The applicants have undertaken consultation exercises with the public before the submission of the application and details of this are included within the application enclosures. Officers consider that there are no reasons to object to the scheme on the basis of the applicant’s public consultation exercises. The Local Planning Authority advertised within the press, letters were sent to neighbouring residents and properties and site notices were placed in the locality. Re-consultation was undertaken regarding formal amendments to the scheme by the applicant. Officers consider that the address, whilst including the term Darlington Road has remained clear enough for the purposes of consultation exercises. Officers consider that statutory consultation requirements with the public have been met.
231. Concerns are expressed that if the development cannot be filled with students other forms of tenants may be accommodated or outside of term time the site may be used as holiday accommodation. The proposal is considered to constitute a sui generis use. Should any changes in the use of the development be proposed then potentially this would, dependent upon the circumstances, result in a change of use requiring planning permission. Officers consider that use as holiday lets would be materially different from the proposal and planning permission would be required if this use was sought. Furthermore the legal agreement proposed would define the occupation of the site.
Page 126 232. Objections are raised over the impact of the development upon property values, however, this is not a material planning consideration.
233. In response to public responses, officers have considered the condition of the buildings onsite and whether a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act should be served which would require the site owner to take steps to ensure further maintenance of the buildings. However, the buildings are not considered to be in such a condition that such a notice should be served.
234. CDLP Policy U14 supported by Part 10 of the NPPF seeks to promote energy conservation in new development and it is recommended that a condition is attached on any approval in regard to this.
CONCLUSION
235. This application is considered to be finely balanced with a number of key material planning considerations applicable to the proposal, some of which are competing.
236. The loss of Sheraton House is a negative element of the proposal; however, as a non-designated heritage asset, the loss can be accepted if the application is considered acceptable in the balance of issues.
237. The development presents an opportunity to redevelop a long-standing vacant and derelict site and potentially in the short term. The currently fenced off site would be re-opened with a high quality central landscaped area reinstated to improve the aesthetic of the area and provide a useable space. Neville House would be converted and altered but essentially retained, protecting this heritage asset from further decline. The proposed replacement Sheraton House building is in its own right considered to be a well-designed and attractive building that would complement the locality.
238. The impact of the development upon residential amenity in particular is a key material consideration with significant public concern over the impact of the introduction of so many student occupiers at the site. Officers consider that some impact involving for instance noise and disturbance would be likely having regards to the occupancy levels proposed. However, the application proposes a range of measures to reduce the level of this impact. Furthermore, any redevelopment of the site including the existing extant planning permissions would generate some impact from occupancy levels and comings and goings.
239. No objections are raised with regards to the other key material planning considerations discussed within the report.
240. On balance, the benefits of the proposal and redevelopment of the site are considered to outweigh the loss of Sheraton House itself, whilst impacts upon residential amenity would not be so significantly adverse so as to warrant refusal of the application.
RECOMMENDATION
That the applications be APPROVED subject to the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:
i) A financial contribution of £50,000 towards the improvement of public rights of way;
Page 127 ii) A financial contribution of £200,000 towards community infrastructure improvements; iii) A financial contribution of £170,000 towards public art provision; iv) The inclusion of targeted recruitment and training clauses; v) No more than 60% undergraduate student occupation; vi) Management plan of public and open space within the application site; and, vii) The inclusion of a scheme of noise and site management .
And subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The demolition of Sheraton House shall not commence until the conversion and extension to Neville House has been substantially completed.
Reason: So as to ensure that the heritage asset Sheraton House is not lost until other elements of the development are substantially complete having regards to Policies C5 and E21 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans and documents:
Plans: Location Plan 1000 P4 received 13 th January 2014 Landscape Proposals Plan 91534/8002 Revision K received 20 th May 2014 Parking Strategy Plan 91534/8007 received 20 th May 2014 Proposed Elevations 2061 Revision P5 received 13 th January 2014 Proposed Elevations Neville House 2013 Revision P7 received 20th May 2014 Proposed Roof Plan Neville House 2016 Revision P5 received 13 th January 2014 Roof Layout 2055 Revision P1 received 19 th December 2013 Proposed Floor Plans 2060 Revision P4 received 18 th December 2013 Proposed Floor Plans Neville House 2009 Revision P10 received 20 th May 2014 Existing and Proposed Site Sections 2063 Revision P2 received 13 th January 2014 Arboricultural Impact Assessment Tree Protection Plan TPPP-A received 19 th December 2013
Documents: Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report D/I/D/91534/03 received 19 th December 2013 Structural Inspection Report dated November 2013 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report received 19 th December 2013 Outline Method Statement (demolition) received 18 th December 2013 Revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment received 19 th December 2013 Revised Arboricultural Method Statement received 19th December 2013 Arboricultural Method Statement received 19 th December 2013 Bat Surveys 2013/2014 by Applied Ecological Services Ltd.
Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies E14, E16, E21, E24, H13, H16, T1, T10, T20, T21, R11, C5, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q5, Q15, U5, U7, U8a, U10, U11 and U14 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Parts 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the NPPF.
Page 128 4. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application no development shall take place until details of the make, colour and texture of all walling and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area having regards to Policies H13 and H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan and having regard to Part 7 of the NPPF.
5. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, no development shall take place until full details of all the proposed windows and doors within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area having regards to Policies H13 and H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan and having regard to Part 7 of the NPPF.
6. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, prior to their installation, full details of all enclosures including bin stores to be provided within the site shall be first submitted to and then approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area having regards to Policies H13 and H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan and having regard to Part 7 of the NPPF.
7. No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The landscape scheme shall include the following:
Trees, hedges and shrubs scheduled for retention Details of hard and soft landscaping including surface materials, planting species, sizes, layout, densities, numbers Details of planting procedures or specification Finished topsoil levels and depths Details of temporary topsoil and subsoil storage provision Seeded or turf areas, habitat creation areas and details The establishment maintenance regime, including watering, rabbit protection, tree stakes, guards etc
Trees, hedges and shrubs shall not be removed within five years. Any trees or plants which die, fail to flourish or are removed within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Replacements will be subject to the same conditions.
The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first available planting season following the completion of the development.
Page 129 Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area having regards to Policies E14, H13, H16, C5, Q3 and Q5 of the City of Durham Local Plan and having regard to Part 7 of the NPPF.
8. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until all trees and hedges have been protected in accordance with BS 5837:2012 and in accordance with the submitted Tree Protection Plan TPP-A and Arboricultural Method Statement received 19th December 2013. Said protection shall remain in situ until the completion of the development works.
Reason: In the interests of the preservation of trees and visual amenity having regards to Policies E14, H13, H16 and Q5 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
9. Tree works shall be limited to those set out within Appendix 1 of the Revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Revised Arboricultural Method Statement received 19 th December 2013.
Reason: To define the consent the interests of the preservation of trees and visual amenity having regards to Policies E14, H13, H16 and Q5 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
10. No development shall take place until the implementation of a programme of building recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be first submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The programme of building recording shall include; i) Methodologies for a Level 2-4 English Heritage style building record, primarily photographic, tied into the existing architect’s plans as well as documentary research to supplement the data of the Heritage Statement, prior to any conversion or demolition works. The level of record required for Sheraton House will be higher than that for Neville House. ii) A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the approved strategy. iii) Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham County Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. iv) A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including sub-contractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.
This archaeological mitigation strategy shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timings.
Reason: In the interests of preserving and recording archaeological and heritage assets having regards to Policies E21 and E24 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 12 of the NPPF.
11. The development shall not be occupied until a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving as part of the mitigation strategy required by condition 10 above has been deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record.
Reason: In the interests of preserving and recording archaeological and heritage assets having regards to Policies E21 and E24 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 12 of the NPPF.
Page 130 12. No development shall take place until a scheme for the management and disposal of surface and foul water from the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage from the site and in the interests of flood prevention having regards to Policy U8a of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 10 of the NPPF.
13. The development shall not be occupied until a final travel plan, conforming to the National Specification for Workplace Travel Plans PAS 500:2008, bronze level, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Said travel plan must include details of the appointed travel plan coordinator. The development must thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved travel plan for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In order to encourage sustainable means of travel having regards to Part 4 of the NPPF.
14. No development shall take place until details of the location and design of all cycle and motorcycle parking, including the Brampton cycle dock, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the details shown on submitted plans, the details shall include the provision of a 105 no. cycle parking spaces. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all cycle parking provision must be in situ before the development is occupied.
Reason: In order to encourage sustainable means of travel and having regards to the character and appearance of the area having regards to Policies H13 and H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 4 of the NPPF.
15. The development shall not be occupied until a management scheme for the arrival and departure of occupiers at term start and end has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity having regards to Policies T1, H13 and H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 4 of the NPPF.
16. No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on a Saturday. No works shall occur on any Sunday or Bank Holiday.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Policies U5 and U7 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
17. No development shall take place until a construction/demolition management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Said management strategy shall include but not necessarily be restricted to the following; i) Confirmation that no burning of materials or waste shall occur ii) Details of methods and means of dust suppression iii) Details of methods and means of noise reduction
Page 131 The management strategy shall have regard to BS 5228 “Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites” during the planning and implementation of site activities and operations.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed management strategy.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Policies U5 and U7 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
18. No development shall take place until details of the height, type, position, angle and spread of all external lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of minimising light spillage to protect residential amenity having regards to Policies U5 and U7 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
19. No development shall take place unless in accordance with the mitigation and compensation measures contained within Section A of “Bat Surveys 2013/2014” by Applied Ecological Services Ltd. This shall include adherence to demolition methods notwithstanding the content of submitted document “Outline Method Statement” (demolition) received 18th December 2013.
Reason: In the interests of preserving protected species and their habitats having regards to Policy E16 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
20. No development shall take place until a scheme to minimise energy consumption has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall consist of energy from renewable or low carbon sources provided on- site or an equivalent scheme that minimises carbon emissions to an equal level through energy efficient measures. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and retained so in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable construction and energy generation in accordance with the aims of Policy U14 of the City of Durham Local Plan and having regard to Part 10 of the NPPF.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
- Submitted application forms, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant
Page 132 - The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)National Planning Practice Guidance Notes - City of Durham Local Plan 2004 - The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) - Statutory, internal and public consultation responses
Page 133
CE/13/01667/FPA
Conversion and extension of Neville House and demolition and Planning Services replacement of Sheraton House to form student accommodation development comprising of a total of 418 no. beds and associated works and landscaping
Sheraton and Neville House, Durham City This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission o Date 1st July 2014 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
Page 134 Agenda Item 4c
+ Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00845/FPA
Erection of 167 dwellings, associated infrastructure FULL APPLICATION and landscaping. DESCRIPTION :
Taylor Wimpey North East. NAME OF APPLICANT :
Land North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Co. ADDRESS : Durham
Deerness ELECTORAL DIVISION :
Colin Harding, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 263945 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The Site
1. The application site comprises approximately 5.5 hectares of agricultural land and semi derelict former allotments bordered by hedgerows to the northern edge of Ushaw Moor. Immediately to the south of the site lies Ladysmith Terrace which hosts detached garages of varying condition on its northern side and residential terraced properties to on its southern side. To the south east lies a relatively modern development of detached properties at Welby Drive. To the west of the site is agricultural land and to the north, a willow plantation. The eastern side of the site is bordered by Whitehouse Lane which runs on a north – south axis between Bearpark and Ushaw Moor. Beyond this road lie residential properties at Whitehouse Court, some of which face westwards, towards the site.
2. With Ushaw Moor lying on the northern side of the Deerness Valley, the site naturally slopes downwards from north to south to significant extent, with south eastern corner lying some 20m below the north western corner.
3. Ushaw Moor is located approximately 3 miles to the west of Durham City Centre and approximately 1 mile to the south west of Bearpark. The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural and residential, with supporting community facilities scattered throughout the village. As set out in the City of
Page 135 Durham Local Plan, the site is beyond the identified settlement boundary, which is defined by Ladysmith Terrace and Whitehouse Lane, and is situated beyond the western extent of the Durham Green Belt. The site lies approximately 0.6km to the north of Deerness Valley Local Wildlife Site. There are 2 designated heritage assets located within 1km of the site, namely the Grade II* and II listed Ushaw College complex and Grade II listed Long Barn at Red House Farm. The site itself contains no heritage assets, landscape or ecological designations.
The Proposal
4. The application is for full planning permission for 167 no. dwellings, of which 33 no. would be affordable, equating to a 20% provision. The market housing would comprise 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings, and the affordable element of 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings.
5. Vehicular access to the site would be taken from Whitehouse Lane to the east of the site. Pedestrian access would be via accesses in the south eastern corner of the site onto Whitehouse Lane and at the southern boundary of the site onto Welby Drive. A further pedestrian access from the development onto Ladysmith Terrace was originally proposed, but has since been removed following objections from local residents.
6. The site exhibits a regular layout taking account of the topography, with a main east/west artery within the site, serving three north/south links. Pedestrian links run through the site on an east/west axis and include an area of public amenity space towards the centre of the site. Several different housetypes are evident within the site, including terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings and exhibiting a range of car parking arrangements such as driveways, shared driveways and parking courts. Various surfacing materials are proposed.
7. The proposal includes comprehensive landscaping, including trees and hedges both within and at the edge of the site. Furthermore, in a field to the north of the site which currently hosts a willow plantation, a significant landscape buffer is proposed in order to screen the site from the north and prevent the appearance of coalescence between Ushaw Moor and Bearpark.
8. The application is being reported to the County Planning Committee as it represents major development with a site area of more than 4 hectares.
PLANNING HISTORY
9. There is no relevant planning history at this site.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
Page 136 10. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should proceed without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
11. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:
12. NPPF Part 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy . The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon future.
13. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
14. NPPF Part 2 – Ensuring the vitality of town centres. Town centres are recognised as being at the heart of communities, with the pursuit of their viability and vitality as being paramount. Planning applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres firstly, then in edge of centre locations. Only when these are not available should out of centre locations be considered.
15. NPPF Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes . To boost significantly the supply of housing, applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities.
16. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond
Page 137 to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.
17. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Developments should be safe and accessible; Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, local services and community facilities to enhance the sustainability of community and residential environments. An integrated approach to consider the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.
18. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
19. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment . The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.
20. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)
21. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters.
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
City of Durham Local Plan (2004) (CDLP)
22. Policy E7 – Development outside of Settlement Limits. Development outside of settlement boundaries will only be permitted when it accords with other policies in the plan.
Page 138 23. Policy E14 – Protection of Existing Trees and Hedgerows . Views hedgerows and trees as a valuable resource to be protected when new development is being considered.
24. Policy E15 – New Trees and Hedgerows. Tree and hedgerow planting is encouraged.
25. Policy E16 – Nature Conservation – the Natural Environment . Is aimed at protecting and enhancing the nature conservation assets of the district. Development proposals outside specifically protected sites will be required to identify any significant nature conservation interests that may exist on or adjacent to the site by submitting surveys of wildlife habitats, protected species and features of ecological, geological and geomorphological interest. Unacceptable harm to nature conservation interests will be avoided, and mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts upon nature conservation interests should be identified.
26. Policy E18 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. The Council will seek to safeguard sites of nature conservation importance and development which would be detrimental to their nature conservation interests would not be permitted unless it meets certain criteria.
27. Policy E21 – Historic Environment . Requires the Council to preserve and enhance the historic environment by requiring development proposals to minimise impact upon features of historic interest, and encourage the retention, repair and reuse of visual of local interest.
28. Policy E23 – Listed Buildings. The Council will seek to safeguard listed buildings by not permitting development which detracts from its setting.
29. Policy E24 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Remains. Ancient monuments and other nationally significant archaeological remains and their settings will be preserved in situ and damage would not be permitted. Archaeological remains of regional and local importance will be protected in situ and where preservation in situ is not justified by, ensuring that in areas where there is evidence that significant archaeological remains exist, or reasons to pre-suppose they exist, pre-application evaluation or archaeological assessment will be required and requiring as a condition of planning permission, that a programme of archaeological investigation, recording and publication has been made.
30. Policy H3 – New Housing Development in the Villages. New housing development comprising windfall development of previously developed land will be permitted with settlement boundaries. Ushaw Moor is identified as a larger village.
31. Policy H5 – New Housing in the Countryside. In the countryside new housing development will be permitted only when it is; required by persons employed in agriculture or forestry where there is a functional need and the enterprise in financially viable, the size is commensurate with the established functional
Page 139 need; adequate provision cannot be made within the settlement/existing buildings and it respects the character of its landscape setting.
32. Policy H12 – Affordable Housing . Requires residential schemes of 25 units or more, of 1 ha or more, to provide a proportion of affordable housing where a local need exists.
33. Policy H12A – Type and Size of Housing. States that the type and size of dwellings will be monitored with where appropriate negotiation with developers to provide the right housing types and sizes to ensure balance.
34. Policy H13 - Residential Areas – Impact upon Character and Amenity. States that planning permission will not be granted for new development or changes of use which have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of residential areas, or the amenities of residents within them.
35. Policy Q1 – General Principles Designing for People. Requires the layouts of developments to take into account the requirements of users including: personal safety and security; the access needs of people with disabilities and the elderly; and the provision of toilets and seating where appropriate.
36. Policy Q2 – General Principles Designing for Accessibility. The layout and design of all new development should take into account the requirements of users and embody the principle of sustainability.
37. Policy Q4 – Pedestrian Areas. Requires that pedestrian area should be laid out and designed with good quality materials in a manner which reflect the street scene.
38. Policy Q5 – Landscaping General Provision. Sets out that any development which has an impact on the visual amenity of an area will be required to incorporate a high standard of landscaping.
39. Policy Q6 – Structural Landscaping. Development located on the edge of settlements or in exposed sites will be required to use peripheral structural landscaping in order to minimise.
40. Policy Q8 – Layout and Design Residential Development. Sets out the Council's standards for the layout of new residential development. Amongst other things, new dwellings must be appropriate in scale, form, density and materials to the character of their surroundings. The impact on the occupants of existing nearby properties should be minimised.
41. Policy Q15 – Art in Design . Encourages the provision of artistic elements within new developments.
42. Policy R2 – Recreational and Amenity Space in New Residential Developments. Seeks to ensure that the provision of open space for outdoor recreation is evenly distributed and is maintained at a level that meets the
Page 140 needs of its population. A minimum overall standard of 2.4 hectares of outdoor sports and play space per 1,000 population will be sought.
43. Policy R5 – Protection of Allotments states that permission for development which would result in the loss of allotments will not be supported, unless the allotments are genuinely redundant or where underused allotments can be improved by the redevelopment of a small part of the site or where alternative provision can be made in the immediate vicinity.
44. Policy R11 – Public Rights of Way and other Paths. Public access to the countryside will be safeguarded by protecting the existing network of PROW’s and other paths from development which would result in their destruction.
45. Policy T1 – Traffic – General. States that the Council will not grant planning permission for development that would generate traffic likely to be detrimental to highway safety and/or have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property.
46. Policy T5 – Public Transport. States that the Council will encourage improvements to assist public transport services within the district by a combination of measures.
47. Policy T10 – Parking – General Provision. States that vehicle parking should be limited in amount, so as to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the land-take of development.
48. Policy T19 – Cycle Facilities. The Council will seek to ensure the development of a safe, attractive and convenient network of cycle routes.
49. Policy T20 – Cycle Facilities. Sets out a requirement to encourage the provision of facilities for parking cycles in the city centre and at other appropriate locations.
50. Policy U8a – Disposal of Foul and Surface Water. Requires developments to provide satisfactory arrangements for disposing of foul and surface water discharge. Where satisfactory arrangements are not available, then proposals may be approved subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme and its implementation before the development is brought into use.
51. Policy U11 – Development on Contaminated Land. Development will only be permitted where the nature and extent of contamination is established, the development would not add to the level of contamination, proposals include remedial measures and that there is no detrimental effect on the environment.
52. Policy U13 –Development on Unstable Land. Development will be permitted provided that there is no risk to the intended occupiers from stability or that satisfactory remedial measures can be undertaken.
53. Policy U14 – Energy Conservation . States that the use of energy efficient materials and construction techniques will be encouraged.
Page 141
RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :
54. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. Further, the Planning Practice Guidance explains that in limited circumstances permission can be justifiably refused on prematurity grounds: when considering substantial developments that may prejudice the plan-making process and when the plan is at an advanced stage of preparation (i.e. it has been submitted). The following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application.
55. Policy 3 – Quantity of new Development. In order to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future residents at least 31,4000 new homes of mixed type, size and tenure are required in the County.
56. Policy 4 – Distribution of Development. To reflect the spatial approach the Plan allocates sufficient sites to provide for housing. In Central Durham the Plan allocates 8010 dwellings with 5220 in Durham City and 520 required in the smaller towns and larger villages.
57. Policy 8 – Durham City Strategic Sites . Strategic housing allocations are made within Durham City in order encourage economic growth and meet the development needs of the City. Three of the sites at Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Merryoaks will provide the funding the construction of the proposed Western Relief Road.
58. Policy 9 – Western Relief Road. In order to facilitate the development of Strategic Sites at Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Merryoaks, land is allocated for the construction of the Western Relief Road in Durham City. The three sites will be required to fund the Western Relief Road.
59. Policy 30 – Housing Land allocations. In order to meet the housing requirement and distribution set out in Policy 3 and 4 a number of sites are allocated for housing development.
60. Policy 31 – Addressing Housing Need. Requires all qualifying new housing to provide a percentage of Affordable Housing which is accessible, affordable and meets the needs of those residents unable to access the open housing market.
61. Policy 35 – Development in the Countryside. Planning permission for development in the countryside will only be permitted where it meets certain exceptions such as housing for countryside workers.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications can be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (City of Durham Local Plan)
Page 142 http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
62. Brandon and Byshottles Parish Council – Advise that it fully supports the application, which will add to the regeneration of Ushaw Moor. Initial concerns regarding access to the site and potential flood risk have been addressed within the submission.
63. Highways Authority – Officers object to the proposal. Officers have commented extensively on this proposal and originally raised concerns with regards to the potential impact of the development upon the wider highway network, considering it to be severe and also having concerns with the methodology utilised in the transport assessment.
64. Following further work carried out by the applicant, further comments have been received which reiterate the original objection. It is considered by officers that current junctions on the A167 are at saturation and that additional traffic from this development would simply add to existing queues. In such a situation, where signals are at saturation, small increments in flow lead to an exponentially larger increase in delay and this would be the case in this instance, resulting in a “peak spreading” effect and would constitute a severe impact upon the principle highways network. Officers also continue to have concerns over the methodology used in developing the Transport Assessment and whether the distribution of additional vehicles onto the road network has been accurately modelled,
65. Environment Agency – Having considered the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) the Agency advises that it has no objections subject to compliance with the submitted FRA and the rate of surface water discharge being agreed with Northumbrian Water. The Agency advises that substantial provision is made for biodiversity with suggestions as to the type of features which could form part of a SuDS and how habitats could be linked.
66. Northumbrian Water – Has raised no objections subject to specific foul and surface water discharge rates being adhered to as set out in the submitted utilities assessment.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
67. Spatial Policy – Officers advise that the scheme does not accord with the existing City of Durham Local Plan as it is considered to comprise residential development within the countryside which is not linked to an essential employment need. However, material weight can only be given to the City of Durham Local Plan insofar as it accords with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which takes a more flexible approach to settlement growth and development and directing it to sustainable locations.
Page 143 68. It is noted that the site is allocated for housing within the emerging County Durham Local Plan, albeit phased for release over the “medium-term” of the plan, with it being anticipated that the site would deliver houses from 2021 onwards. This is stated as being due to road network capacity issues and that the site is scheduled to come forward only after the Western Relief Road included in the County Durham Plan is completed, which is expected to be in 2021. It is therefore considered that the application is premature at this time, although it is recognised that only limited weight can be afforded to the emerging Local Plan at this time.
69. Design and Historic Environment – Officers have raised no objections in principle. However a number of comments are made with regards to the proposed layout including that the density is too high, the development would not integrate into the existing settlement to the south and is very inward facing, the proposed house types and materials to be used.
70. Landscape – Officers raise no objections in principle. However, they have suggested amendments to the remote landscape buffer proposed to the north of the application site in terms of its depth. A number of comments are made with regards to the layout of the development.
71. Archaeology – Officers raise no objections, noting the results of the geophysical survey that has been carried out, which suggests that there is a low/medium potential for archaeology across the site. Conditions relating to monitoring and recording are suggested.
72. Ecology – Officers have no objections to the proposal and the intention to install bat and bird boxes is welcomed. It is requested that any new hedges are located outside of the curtilage of properties in order to prevent removal in the future.
73. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Noise) – No objections are raised. No concerns are raised with regards to external noise affecting the proposed properties, and that the levels of proposed lighting are considered to be acceptable with regards to impact on existing properties in the immediate vicinity. It is noted that there may be some potential for disturbance during construction. It is therefore recommended that conditions should be attached to any planning permission to reduce and mitigate dust and noise, operation hours should be restricted, the burning of material in site should be prohibited and all noisy plant, vehicles, equipment and machinery should be properly operated and maintained.
74. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Contaminated land) – Officers are satisfied with the content of the submitted report, but note that further site investigation and remedial works are likely. Conditions are suggested in order to secure this.
75. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Air quality) – Officers advise that the location of the proposed development has the potential to impact upon air quality in Durham City due to vehicle emissions. However, they are satisfied
Page 144 with the modelling carried out by the applicant that states that any increase in air pollutant concentration would be negligible. Consequently, they consider that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon air quality. Conditions relating to dust generation during construction and single car usage are suggested.
76. Sustainability and Climate Change – Officers consider the site is sustainable in terms of accessibility to community services and facilities. It is noted that the site not within a short walking distance of a secondary school / 6th form, post 18 education providers, or the facilities and employment opportunities associated with a main town, retail park, industrial park or large employer. However, this is not considered to be a significant issue given the level of bus service. It is noted that additional investment to bus services may be required to maintain the existing level of service to an increased population.
77. Officers also advise that the proposal to adopt a fabric first approach to embedded sustainability is supported and that the intention to improve upon Part L of the Building Regulations by 12.64% is acceptable.
78. Access and Public Rights of Way – Officers advise that there are no recorded Public Rights of Way as passing the through the site. They do however note that there is an unrecorded path leading through the south western corner of the application site which links to Public Footpath no.53 Brandon and Byshottles before continuing westwards into Farhill Plantation, and that this path would not be incorporated into the development.
79. Officers note that as of 7 th May 2014, the unrecorded path was well trodden and with recent signs of pedestrian and equestrian use. It is also likely that the path is used by motorbikes and quadbikes and form an element of anti-social behaviour. Aerial photographs from 2001 and 2012 both show the trodden path, but it is unclear as to whether the route has acquired public rights through long use.
80. School Places Manager – Advises that there is adequate secondary school capacity within the immediate locality to accommodate the level of students generated by the occupation of the development. They do however note that there is a deficit of 16 primary school places and then contributions will be required in order to address this capacity issue.
81. Employability Team – Officers consider that there is an opportunity to explore employment and skills opportunities that would assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability. They advise that during the construction phase it is estimated that between 402 and 804 person weeks could be attributed to a scheme of this size/duration which equates to between 7-15 FTE job opportunities/apprenticeships.
82. Drainage and Coastal Protection – Officers raise no objections to the scheme considering that the applicant appears to have complied with all the requirements of the surface water management plan and supplied the relevant documentation of evidence.
Page 145
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
83. The application was advertised in the press, on site and in the locality. Letters were sent to neighbouring residents. 7 letters of objection have been received, as well as a single letter of support.
Objection
84. Concerns raised within these letters relate to the impact of the development upon congestion and highway safety both in the immediate vicinity and throughout the village. Particular concerns are raised with regards to the location of pedestrian accesses onto Ladysmith and previous commitments previously given by the applicants with regards to these. It is also noted that there is an existing lack of parking in the village centre, which this development would exacerbate. The ability of existing local services, to cope with the increase in population is also a cited point of objection.
85. Residents on Ladysmith Terrace consider that it is likely that properties on this street would be overshadowed by the development and it would also have a unacceptable impact upon the levels of privacy they currently enjoy. They also note the level of Anti Social Behaviour associated with the existing informal footpath which crossed the south western corner of the site and are concerned whether the development would make these problems worse, or would displace them to elsewhere in the village. The current condition of Ladysmith Terrace is also raised as a matter of concern.
86. There are also objections on the basis that the development would lead to increased flooding and that it would lead to a loss of ecological habitat. The wider views across Deerness Valley from the road between Bearpark and Ushaw College are noted as being of value and it is considered by objectors that the proposed development would erode these significantly. There are also concerns as to whether residential development in this location would prejudice any potential future redevelopment of Ushaw College. It is also considered that there are preferable brownfield sites elsewhere in Ushaw Moor.
Support
87. A single letter of support has been received, noting that the proposed development would bring in additional population which would lead to improved village infrastructure and enhance facilities. The removal of the existing wooden buildings on the site is also supported.
Non-statutory Representations
88. Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison) – Advises that the removal of the footpath onto Ladysmith Terrace is supported as it represented a potential crime generator. Further comments are made regarding layout and boundary treatments.
Page 146 APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
89. The site is suitable for residential development in principle and is sustainably located, being situated in close proximity to a range of services/facilities and accessible via sustainable modes of transport. The suitability and sustainability of the site is confirmed both by Durham County Council’s SHLAA and its allocation in the draft County Durham Plan.
90. Whilst the application proposals for 167 dwellings exceed the draft CDP’s estimated yield of 120 dwellings, the application proposals are considered to be acceptable given that the density is appropriate, that the proposals comprise an acceptable form of development and are environmentally sustainable and the there is a need for a higher level of delivery to meet the housing needs of Ushaw Moor.
91. Whilst the application has come forward in advance of the site’s medium term phasing within the draft CDP, the proposals are appropriate because there are no other allocations within the locality which will be prejudiced by the early delivery of the site, because Durham County Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, that is sufficient capacity in the sewage network and the development will not have a severe highway impact and because there is a precedent for the early release of “medium” term sites.
92. The application must be determined in accordance with the NPPF’s Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development because the extant development plan is out of date and that there is not demonstrable 5 year housing land supply. The proposed development is sustainable and the are no significant adverse impacts with justify the refusal of the planning application. In particular, the proposals are socially sustainable, economically sustainable and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=467DF1E2DCFCA22B6DA2210915EE43D4?action= firstPage
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
93. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: the principle of the development, affordable housing, access, traffic and highway safety, landscape and visual impact, design and layout, affect upon residential amenity, ecology and nature conservation, public rights of way, flooding and drainage and other matters.
Page 147 Principle of Development
94. The main issues in realtion to the principle of the proposed development are: the extent to which the proposed development accords with the existing development plan; the extent to which the proposed development accords with the emerging development plan; and, the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government guidance in relation to planning for housing and other policy objectives set out in the NPPF, with particular regard towards delivering a wide choice of high quality homes that widens opportunities for home ownership and helps create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.
95. The site is situated outside of the existing settlement boundary for Ushaw Moor, as defined by CDLP Policy H3. Policy H3 defines a series of ‘settlement boundaries’ for main towns and villages to indicate where new development is permissible. The implication is that housing development would normally be approved where it lies inside of the boundary, to help to contain settlements and prevent sprawl into the surrounding countryside. As the application site falls outside of the designated boundary, this proposal draws no support from this Policy.
96. Sites located outside of settlement boundaries should be assessed against ‘countryside’ policies and objectives as set out within CDLP Policies E7 and H5. There is a general presumption against allowing housing development beyond a settlement boundary unless it is required to fulfil an employment role. In view of this, it is considered that this proposal is in conflict with this element of the development plan.
97. Whilst the City of Durham Local Plan remains a statutory component of the development plan and a tool for determining applications, Government advice is to only afford existing Local Plans material weight insofar as they accord with the NPPF. In this context, settlement limits are not fully supported by the NPPF, which instead takes a more flexible approach to settlement growth and development. Paragraphs 47- 55 of the NPPF seek to boost significantly the supply of housing to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. To accord with the NPPF new housing development should be located to provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car. The key matter in applying the NPPF relates to directing development to sustainable locations.
98. The site is a proposed housingallocation within the emerging County Durham Plan as set out at Policy 30. In the context of paragraph 216 of the NPPF, it is considered that some weight can be attached to such a proposed allocation at this stage, given that the emerging Plan has been the subject of statutory consultation and submission of ahead of examination in public. Furthermore, there has been only one objection to this particular allocation as part of the emerging plan consultation. This was received from Brandon and Byshottles
Page 148 Parish Council, who have since indicated that the concerns that they raised with the proposed allocation have been adequately addressed in this submission.
99. The application site represents the only housing allocation proposed for the Ushaw Moor settlement, having been categorised as suitable for development within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Ushaw Moor is recognised within the County Durham Settlement Study as being a 2 nd tier settlement with a good range of services and facilities. As a consequence, the site is considered to be suitable for housing development, being located in a sustainable location and forming a logical extension to the village.
100. Regular public transport provision is available through the village and bus stops are available on Whitehouse Lane, in close proximity to the site. It is therefore considered that the settlement is a sustainable location and furthermore, meets the aspirations set out within Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
101. Policy 30 of the County Durham Local Plan recognises that the site is phased for release over the medium term, and that it would deliver houses from 2020 onwards. Policy 30 states that the delivery of an allocation in advance of its phasing will only be approved if it does not prejudice the delivery of other allocated sites, is required in order to maintain a five year supply of deliverable sites and the infrastructure requirements of the development can be satisfactorily addressed.
102. In this instance it is considered that the delivery of other sites would not be prejudiced as this is the only allocated site in Ushaw Moor. Furthermore, the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to maintain a five-year supply of deliverable sites to ensure choice and competition in the market. The 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment concluded that a five-year supply could be demonstrated in County Durham, so there are no deficiencies which need to be addressed by the release of more housing land. However, it is not the intention to resist schemes solely on oversupply grounds, but instead recognise that the Local Planning Authority can be more selective over which sites it does release, to ensure that the most sustainable and appropriate sites are brought forward for development. Furthermore, as the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained with the paragraphs 12 and 47 of NPPF is not engaged.
103. Turning to the infrastructure element of Policy 30, the medium term phasing of the site is primarily driven by concerns relating to the potential impact that traffic generated by the development would have upon existing congestion on the A690 at Neville’s Cross, and the junction of the A167 with Toll House Road. It is proposed that the Western Relief Road, provision for which is made in Policy 9 of the emerging CDP, would run from the A690/B6302 roundabout at Stonebridge and would provide the capacity to allow the development of the application site by 2021. The Western Relief Road would be funded by contributions relating to the development of the Durham City Strategic Sites
Page 149 under Policy 8 of the emerging plan at Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Merryoaks.
104. It is clear therefore, that the intention within Policy 30 is for this site to not come forward until after the Western Relief Road has been completed, unless it can be demonstrated that there would not be severe impact upon the highway network. Whilst at the present time only limited weight can be afforded to this policy due to the emerging nature of the County Durham Plan, this issue is explored in greater detail in the following section of this report.
Access, Traffic and Highway Safety
105. A transport assessment has been submitted in support of the proposals due to the potential amount of traffic generated by the proposed development. In assessing such impacts, paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Furthermore, as outlined above, Policy 30 of the emerging County Durham Plan seeks to resist sites allocated in the medium and longer term from coming forward prematurely where infrastructure requirements that are considered necessary are not in place.
106. The comprehensive transport assessment submitted with the application has been considered in detail by Highways Officers. The report, which has been updated during the consideration process, concludes that the traffic associated with the development would have an insignificant impact upon the highway network in Ushaw Moor and at junctions on the A167 (Tollhouse Road and Nevilles Cross) and A690 (Stonebridge) during the weekday am and pm peak hours.
107. It goes on to clarify the levels of movements of generated vehicles over the 60 minute weekday peak periods would not result in severe impacts at each of the junctions assessed, noting that the junctions on the A167 and A690 are already operating over capacity with queues at peak times. It contends that the impact on the junctions that would result from the proposed development would only be to increase the length of these queues slightly.
108. In the first instance, the Highway Authority disagrees with the methodology utilised within the Transport Assessment to reach these conclusions. Whilst the revised levels of trip generation are now accepted, there is concern with the means by which trips have been assigned to the highway network and that the subsequent modelled impact on certain junctions cannot be considered to be accurate.
109. The assessment finds that the impact upon junctions local to the site would be acceptable and this is accepted by highways officers, however the junctions on the A167 and A690 are currently saturated at peak times. The assessment makes the case that a slight increase in traffic generated as a result of the development would simply lead to existing queues lengthening slightly. However, the Highway Authority considers that the modelling of saturated junctions is unreliable and cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, they note that
Page 150 where demand is nearing saturation, small increments in flow generally lead to a significant increase in delay. This is an exponential as opposed to linear relationship, and at signals that are saturated, residual queues will remain at the end of each cycle which add to delay and consequently have a significant impact upon circulation and would lead to a “peak spreading effect”, resulting in longer periods of peak congestion At key locations within the principle highways network of County Durham that already suffer from congestion, this is considered to constitute a severe residual cumulative impact, contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
110. Turning to Policy 30 of the emerging County Durham Plan, these conclusions suggest that the necessary infrastructure is not currently in place to accommodate this development and that its release in the medium term is justified. Consequently, the application cannot be considered to accord with this policy, although only limited weight can be afforded to it at the present time.
111. With regards to other highway matters, the application is considered to be otherwise acceptable. Policy T1 of the CDLP states that development that would be detrimental to highway safety will not be acceptable. Policy T10 of the CDP seeks to ensure that an adequate level of parking is provided within developments. The internal layout accommodates all modes of transport and following amendment, now includes adequate parking provision for both residents and visitors. The site is sustainably located and the proposal includes the provision of an additional bus stop on the southbound side of Whitehouse Lane to be secured by legal agreement. The application also includes a revised Travel Plan, adherence with which can be secured by condition. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies T1 and T10 of the CDP in these respects.
112. Concerns raised by local residents with regards to highway safety impacts generally relate to the road network immediately local to the site. With regards to this, the modelling within the transport assessment is considered to be adequate and robustly demonstrates that the development would not lead to unreasonable congestion or highway safety issues within Ushaw Moor itself. It is accepted that Whitehouse Lane is a steep road and that in winter conditions it can be difficult to negotiate, however this is a Priority 1 Winter Maintenance Route and is treated as soon as is practicably possible. Consequently, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to resist the proposal on this basis.
Affordable Housing
113. In order to widen the choice of high quality homes and widen opportunities for home ownership, paragraph 50 of the NPPF encourages the provision of affordable housing based on evidenced need. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update report was completed in July 2013 and supplies the evidence base for 20% affordable housing across the Central Delivery Area in which the site falls. The requirement reflects an up to date needs assessment and identifies a significant requirement of approximately 189 net affordable units per annum throughout the Central Delivery Area up to 2016/17. This shortfall is greatest for one and two bedroom
Page 151 properties (68 net per annum). On the basis of the SHMA evidence base, Policy 31 of the submitted Local Plan identifies housing schemes of 15 dwellings or 0.5 ha or more where such an affordable housing provision should apply and that 10% of housing should be appropriate for older people.
114. In this particular case, the application proposes that on the basis of 167 dwellings being constructed, 20% would be affordable or 33 units overall. The proposal would assist in the delivery of a wide choice of homes based on current and future demographics as set out at paragraph 50 of the NPPF.
115. This level of housing development provides an opportunity to deliver major benefits by way of meeting the affordable housing needs of the City and its surrounds. In view of the cuts in Government support to fund affordable housing delivery, a contribution of this scale that would enable the 33 affordable units required by Policy to be provided, is a major benefit at a time when housing development is struggling to deliver enough value from many sites to make affordable housing viable.
116. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposals reflect the level of affordable housing recommended in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and as a consequence is consistent in Policy 31 of the emerging County Durham Plan and City of Durham Local Plan Policies H12 and H12A. The affordable housing provision would be secured in perpetuity by way of a legal agreement under the Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990.
Visual and Landscape Impact
117. The landscape is for the most part visually open, but there are more heavily wooded areas to the north and west. The site itself is made up of former allotments and small paddocks with associated structures, which are generally poor in condition. Residential development lies to the south and the site slopes significantly from north to south due to its position on the shoulder of the Deerness Valley. The site is not covered by any national or local designations but does lie close to areas of land identified as Area of Landscape Value in the CDLP. The site is in a relatively prominent location and is visible in distant and middle-distance views from the south, and in close views from the Whitehouse Lane heading north and also from the road linking Bearpark and Ushaw College, which runs to the north of the site.
118. The proposals would have no significant effect on landscape features as the site lacks mature features of any note. Existing hedgerows would be retained and in most cases improved. It is acknowledged that residential development would change the character of the site itself and being located at the edge of the village, it is critical that the development does not result in visual coalescence with Bearpark. Accordingly, a substantial landscape buffer is to be provided in the field immediately to the north of the site. This would aid the screening of the site from the Ushaw College road, and also from the most northerly part of Whitehouse Lane, where it meets the Ushaw College road and forms the visual entrance to Bearpark.
Page 152 119. In more distant views across the Deerness Valley, primarily looking north, development in this location would be visible as an extension of the urban form of Ushaw Moor. While it would lead to an increase in the amount of built development visible in some views it would not affect the general character of the landscape to a substantial degree.
120. Objections have been raised by local residents with regards to the loss of views across the valley, particularly from the road to the north of the site. It is considered with regards to this that the local topography mitigates any impact to some degree, with the site sitting below the crest of the shoulder of the valley. Certainly, the development would be visible in particular views, however these would be specific, glimpsed views from particular viewpoints and it is considered unlikely that such views would be lost entirely. Furthermore, the development appears as a natural extension to the village and should be read in this context.
121. Structural landscaping within and around the site would assist in assimilating the built development in middle and long distance views in the medium term, provided it is sufficiently robust, which would progressively reduce the level of impact in wider views as required by CDLP Policies Q5, Q6 and E15. The proposals would be visible in some views from land within the Area of High Landscape Value, but would be read in the context of the settlement fringe of Ushaw Moor. The effect would not be significant and would not bring the proposals into conflict with CDLP Policy E10.
Design and Layout
122. The layout and design of the proposal have been developed with respect to the existing settlement, the topography of the site and the challenges and opportunities that these elements present. The proposal reflects the edge of settlement position of the site, with the density of dwellings reducing towards the north of the site, providing transition from existing housing in Ushaw Moor to the south, to open fields to the north and west. The site is somewhat inward facing, with only properties on the eastern edge addressing Whitehouse Lane. However, the southern boundary would not lend itself to such treatment due to the existing garage sites located on Ladysmith Terrace. Furthermore, any inward facing character is mitigated by the sloping nature of the site, whereby properties towards the northern edge of the site would face southwards with vistas towards and over Ushaw Moor, thus opening up the site to a degree.
123. It is considered that proposals are appropriate in density and character having regard to the local and wider area and would contribute positively to the areas townscape and landscape, incorporating substantial investment to the public realm, strong green infrastructure to delineate routes and spaces, and a structural hierarchy of routes and spaces.
124. It is considered the scheme promotes legibility, accessibility and permeability and that the public realm is attractively designed. The linkages within the site and to the wider area have been well considered, with pedestrian accesses at the south eastern corner of the site, providing convenient access to services
Page 153 located within the centre of Ushaw Moor. A further pedestrian access was originally proposed onto Ladysmith Terrace at the south western corner of the site. However, it was considered that this access offered minimal advantages in terms of pedestrian legibility and represented a potential generator of crime, as noted by both Durham Constabulary and local residents. Consequently, this pedestrian access has been removed from the scheme. Overall, it is considered the design and layout of the detailed element of the proposals minimises opportunity for crime and anti-social behaviour within its layout. It is considered that the layout provides for a varied and appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes as required by paragraph 50 of the NPPF, as well as Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan.
125. The Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) undertaken as part of the evidence base for the emerging County Durham Plan provides the most up-to- date evidence base from which to calculate the site’s open space requirements. The OSNA suggests there are deficits in terms of the amount of parks/gardens and semi-natural green space and allotments within New Brancepeth and Ushaw Moor. The proposed development includes provision of open space on site, including an area of informal open space. Policy R2 requires the provision 100 square metres of informal play space and 200 square metres of amenity space per 10 dwellings. This equates to a requirement of approximately 0.5ha to be provided within the site, of which 0.48ha has been provided. Whilst this is approximately 200 square metres less than the requirement contained within Policy R2, it is considered that a financial contribution towards the improvement of facilities within Ushaw Moor could be secured as part of a Section 106 legal agreement in lieu of this element of public open space.
126. It is considered that the provisions to be made on site and those to be secured off-site are such that the proposals would fully comply with the requirements of CDLP Policies R2 and Q8. Although no specific provision has been made for artistic elements within the site as required by CDLP Policy Q15, it is considered that a proportion of the capital cost of development could be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement in order to provide public art elsewhere in the community.
Residential Amenity
127. The nearest properties to the site are situated across Ladysmith Terrace to the south and to the east at Whitehouse Court. Notwithstanding the recognised loss of private view, into the countryside the development of the site for housing generally is unlikely to substantially diminish levels of residential amenity that those living nearby can reasonably expect to enjoy in their homes and gardens, in terms of loss of outlook, light and privacy as required by CDLP Policies H13 and Q8, with the required separation of distances of 21m between facing habitable windows and 13m between windows and blank gables being retained between proposed dwellings and those which currently exist to the south and east of the site. Properties on Ladysmith Terrace lie approximately 27m to the south of the closest proposed dwellings, and properties on Whitehouse Court approximately 45m to the east. Furthermore, it is noted that the existing detached garages on Ladysmith Terrace provide a form of buffer to the site and
Page 154 furthermore, landscaping on this southern boundary has been increased in order to further lessen any impact that the development would have. Consequently, despite concerns raised by local residents on this basis, it is considered that proposal would have only an acceptable impact upon the levels of residential amenity enjoyed by occupiers of those properties on Ladysmith Terrace.
128. It is considered that the anticipated additional traffic associated with the proposed development would not result in diminished air quality. It is accepted that there would be increased traffic, comings and goings and noise associated with a new housing development, albeit additional housing close to existing residential properties would rarely be deemed unacceptable from a residential amenity perspective. Dwellings would be located within the site at appropriate separation distances, be of an appropriate scale and be screened by landscaping to some degree.
129. Given the number of dwellings proposed development would result in a potential lengthy build-out period of around 5 years. In order to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for existing residents and those who occupy dwellings in the earlier phases of development it is considered appropriate to require a construction management plan be developed and be implemented to ensure appropriate management of such issues as operations, deliveries, noise, dust, mud, vibration and light so that the construction of the dwellings would not adversely affect the amenity of residents. Other than suggesting conditions relating to construction methods and times, the Council’s Pollution Control team raise no objections to the scheme with regards to noise. It is therefore considered that the proposals would accord with Policies H13 and Q8 of the CDLP in these respects.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
130. There are no designated sites on or within the immediate locality of the site other than Deerness Valley Local Wildlife Site situated around 700m away. The vast majority of the site comprises arable land. The application has been supported by an ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecology Report’ and various surveys of protected species and birds undertaken. The site was found to be of low ecological value. The existing hedgerows are noted as being of some value and proposed as being retained. No plant species of conservation significance or protected species were recorded. A further reptile survey has also been carried out following the submission of the application and this has found no evidence of reptiles on the site.
131. The proposed landscaping scheme would enhance the ecological value of the site. Other ecological enhancements set out in the submitted ecological report include the installation of bat and bird boxes, planting of and improvements to hedgerows, native and wildflower planting and native woodland planting.
132. The Ecology Section accepts the submitted survey results, methodology and mitigation strategy designed to protect wildlife and their habitats. It is considered that the landscape and biodiversity enhancements on the
Page 155 application site meet the requirements of CDLP Policies E14, E16 and E18 and paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF, in that it is considered there would not be significant impact on wildlife, protected species and natural habitats and that the proposals contribute positively to connectivity and the creation and enhancements of habitats.
Heritage Assets and Archaeology
133. The application site is not situated in particularly close proximity to heritage assets, designated or otherwise, the closest being at Red House Farm approximately 185m to the north, and Ushaw College approximately 1km beyond. The local topography means that these buildings are over the crest of the valley, with the development lying on its northern shoulder. This means that it is unlikely that the development would be read in views of these listed buildings and would have no residual impact upon their setting. CDLP Policies E21 and E23 seek to preserve and enhance the historic environment and listed buildings and the application is considered to accord with these policies in this respect.
134. With regards to archaeology, Policy E24 seeks to ensure that the archaeological potential of development sites is adequately investigated and mitigated in order to preserve and record remains. With regards to this, the applicant has carried out a geophysical survey of the site which has concluded that the site has only low to medium archaeological potential. An historic field boundary in the form of a Scotch Dyke is evident, and it is recommended that this is recorded prior to topsoil stripping. It is considered that other archaeological potential can be addressed by means of condition relating to monitoring, mitigation and recording. Consequently, the application is considered accord with CDLP Policy E24 in this respect.
Public Rights of Way
135. There are no formal Public Rights of Way that would affected by this development. An informal path which crosses the south western corner of the site and runs along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the northern boundary of the residential property “Greenfield” located at the western end of Ladysmith Terrace. It would appear that this route is used to access Footpath 53 and an area of woodland further to the west and appears as well trodden on aerial photographs dating back to 2001. It is likely therefore that the path has been utilised for a number of years and it is possible that the path may have acquired Public Rights if its use has been unfettered for 20 years. However, it is has never been claimed as a formal Public Right of Way. Consequently, there is no current requirement for a stopping up procedure to be entered into at this time
136. It should also be noted that this informal path is cited by several objectors as being a source of anti-social behaviour and that no objections have been received with regards to its potential loss.
Page 156 137. It is therefore considered that there is no conflict with regards to CDLP Policies R11 and T21 in this respect.
Flooding and Drainage
138. The site lies within flood zone one where residential development is considered appropriate. The main consideration is the prevention of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment’s findings and recommendations, as well as surface and foul water drainage proposals, are accepted by Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency. This is subject to appropriate planning conditions which restrict the amount and location of foul and surface water discharge.
139. NWL has advised that its existing foul water drainage system has available capacity to accommodate a restricted discharge from the development. A Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) was considered in order to dispose of surface water, however the presence of impermeable soils, in the form of Glacial Tills on the site means that a SUDS scheme would not be possible. Consequently, it is proposed that surface water be drained from the site via a surface water sewer and ultimately, to a watercourse. The discharge levels will be restricted to the levels required by Northumbrian Water by means of underground flow attenuation measures. The objectives of CDLP Policy U8a and Part 10 of the NPPF are therefore considered to have been met. The concerns regarding this matter are noted, however it is the case that development of a site enables a positive drainage strategy to be implemented.
Contamination
140. The possibility of the site being contaminated has addressed by means of a ground investigation report. Although the report identifies nothing of significant concern on the site, the Council’s Pollution Control Team recommend that further investigative works take place and that a suitable remediation scheme be formulated, if necessary. The applicant has submitted remediation proposals to ensure the site is suitable for the proposed use which the Contaminated Land Officer considers to be acceptable. It is important that these works are carried out in accordance with the submitted remediation strategy together with a subsequent validation report to ensure that the proposed development complies with CDLP Policy U12 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF which would ensure the site and the surrounding area is safe and appropriately remediated. These requirements could be conditioned as part of any planning permission.
Other Matters
141. The site presents a good opportunity for innovative sustainable design and a fabric first approach has been taken in this instance and would lead to a 14.24% reduction in energy usage and a 12.64% reduction in CO2 emissions over the requirements contained within Part L of the Building Regulations. Consequently, the requirements of CDLP Policy U14 and the core principle of the NPPF of achieving sustainable development are considered to have been
Page 157 met. The imposition of a condition to meet this requirement would address concerns raised by the Sustainability and Climate Change Officer regarding improving the sustainability of the design and construction of the dwellings and the consideration of renewable or low carbon energy generation on the site.
142. The site formerly hosted allotments. This use is understood to have ceased in approximately 2006, with the site now being used primarily the equine grazing with some wooden structures remaining. However, it cannot be considered to be currently operating as an allotment site and would appear to have not done so for several years. Consequently the redevelopment of the site would not be in conflict with Policy R5 of the City of Durham Local Plan in this respect.
143. The School Places Manager considers that there is sufficient provision of secondary school places to accommodate the projected number of pupils that the development is likely to generate, but it is likely that additional primary school capacity will be required and that a financial contribution should be provided in order to secure additional classroom accommodation. This could be secured by means of a Section 106 agreement. It is considered that other services within the village are likely to be invigorated by additional residents and would serve to support the long term sustainability of Ushaw Moor.
144. Concerns regarding the condition of Ladysmith Terrace, and in particular the detached garages and condition of the road are noted and have been passed to the relevant services within the Council, however such matters are considered to not be material to the determination of the application.
145. It is considered that this development would be unlikely to prejudice any future plans for Ushaw College and furthermore, this would not represent reasonable grounds upon which to resist this proposal.
CONCLUSION
146. This proposal comprises residential development in a sustainable location and in many respects performs well against planning policy criteria.
147. Although not strictly in accordance with the CDLP as a matter of principle, the inconsistency of Policy H3 of this plan with the NPPF, means that this can be afforded only limited weight. The site is proposed to be allocated for residential development in the medium term within the emerging County Durham Plan and whilst there are concerns relating to prematurity in bringing the site forward at the current time, it is considered that the amount of weight that can be afforded to the emerging plan at this time is also limited and the application should not be resisted on this basis.
148. The development is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety, access, parking, subject to proposed mitigation. It is considered that the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties would not be significantly adversely affected. The proposed development is not considered to negatively affect protected species or nature conservation. It is also considered that any
Page 158 heritage assets would not be significantly affected. Adequate drainage to the public sewer would be provided and flood risk would not be increased elsewhere, subject to conditions. Conditions would also ensure that the site is safe for development and that archaeological investigations are carried out to ensure that any archaeological remains would not be affected by the development.
149. Careful and thorough consideration was given to the objections and concerns raised by local residents and these have been taken into account and addressed within the body of the report, with some matters of concern being addressed through the process of consideration. However, other matters raised are not considered to be of such weight that they would justify the refusal of the application.
150. Notwithstanding the above, significant concerns remain with regards to the impact that the development would have upon the wider strategic highway network, by means of increasing congestion and delays at key junctions on the A167 and A690 to an unacceptable degree and representing a severe impact contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
151. It is more than possible that these concerns would be alleviated following the construction of the proposed Western Relief Road and this forms the premise behind phasing the site in the medium term within the emerging County Durham Plan. With the applicant unable to satisfactorily demonstrate that the development would not have a severe impact upon the highway network, there is considered to be no compelling reason to bring the site forward at the present time, particularly as the presumption in favour of sustainable development has not been triggered, as the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an adequate 5 year housing land supply.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons
1. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development, as result of the levels of traffic that it would contribute towards already saturated junctions on the A167 and A690 at peak times would lead to severe cumulative impacts upon the transport network in form of exacerbated delays contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at the decision to refuse the application has sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application. This is evidenced by advising the applicant of objections to the proposal and encouraging discussions with the Highways Authority. However, the issue of concern could not be overcome and a positive outcome could not be achieved.
Page 159 (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1)(CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
• Submitted application forms, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant • The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)National Planning Practice Guidance Notes • City of Durham Local Plan 2004 • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses
Page 160
DM/14/00845/FPA Erection of 167 dwellings, landscaping and associated infrastructure at Land to the North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Durham Planning Services This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014 Scale Not to scale
Page 161 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 162 Agenda Item 4d Planning Services
COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: DM/14/01195/OUT
FULL APP LICATION DESCRIPTION Residential development of 390 dwellings (Outline, all matters reserved except access)
NAME OF APPLICANT Durham County Council Regeneration and Economic Development
SITE ADDRESS North East Industrial Estate, Stephenson Road, Peterlee, Durham
ELECTORAL DIVISION Peterlee East
CASE OFFICER Barry Gavillet 03000261958 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PRO POSAL
Site:
1. This application site lies within the settlement boundary of Peterlee and Electoral Division of Peterlee East. The 19 hectare site is situated 1km north of Peterlee town centre and 1km south of Easington village centre. Durham City Centre is located approximately 18km to the east. The proposed development site is the North East Industrial Estate which is located to the east of the A19 and on the northern boundary of Peterlee with Thorpe Road to the north, Armstrong Road to the west, Smiley Road to the east, and the open ground associated with Yoden Village to the south.
2. The North East Industrial Estate comprises a 1950’s grid pattern of industrial development, orientated east to west and north to south, in alignment with the surrounding street pattern. Significant industrial buildings are situated on the site, some of which have already been demolished due to their poor condition, as such the site is previously developed, brownfield land.
3. The site is connected to further employment land to the west which comprises the Walker’s Crisps Factory and a Doughnut Factory, however the buildings on the North East Industrial Estate are dated and in a dilapidated condition, apart from the Kookaburra Plant which has undergone recent reinvestment and which would continue to operate from its current location. The character of the existing industrial estate is therefore that of a partially derelict group of metal clad employment buildings of no architectural quality. Page 163
4. To the west of the site lies an existing residential area of Peterlee which comprises generally two storey, semi detached properties, developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Generally the facing materials are render, brick and concrete roof tiles.
5. Land to the south of the North East Industrial Estate is open green space which is maintained by the local Council and leads further into more public amenity space, schools, playing field and cemetery. This green wedge is significant in maintaining the separation between Peterlee and Horden.
6. The eastern boundary to North East Industrial Estate runs generally north to south and provides a significant treed area and is a distinct boundary to the edge of Horden. The housing in this area is generally two storey, pitch roof, render and brick properties of low to medium density.
7. There are numerous community facilities nearby including primary and secondary schools, shops, playing fields and healthcare facilities. There are also bus stops surrounding the site which run frequent services.
Proposal:
8. This application seeks outline planning permission for up to 390 residential dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.
9. The development site has been put forward as a strategic housing site in the County Durham Plan. The proposed allocation excludes land to the west of Armstrong Road and land occupied by Kookaburra, which is a major employer on the North East Industrial Estate. The majority of the land included within the site is now vacant and the remaining industrial buildings are no longer fit for purpose. The Council therefore considers that residential development is the most appropriate future use, subject to the relocation of existing tenants.
10. The Masterplan has been led by Durham County Council and the highways consultants to provide a new link between Thorpe Road and Yoden Road utilising an existing access along Thorpe Road and a realigned access at the Yoden Road entry point. This will provide a high quality new connection for buses, private vehicles, pedestrians and cycles and will form the primary circulation route within the Masterplan.
11. Service vehicles would access the existing Kookaburra Plant from the existing employment access and this will be curtailed to be totally separate to the residential areas. Pedestrian and cycle linkages will be retained along Armstrong Road to provide easy access to employment areas from residential areas.
12. The illustrative Masterplan indicates that a significant proportion of the site is provided as public open space which forms a key element of the landscape led Masterplan design solution. A significant amount of this open space would and landscaping would be provided around the Kookaburra Plant in order to provide mitigation from issues commonly associated with industrial uses.
13. This application is being reported committee as it is classed as a major development.
Page 164 PL ANNING HISTORY
14. Numerous planning permissions have been dealt with over a period of around 50 years for various developments associated with industrial and commercial uses.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY:
15. 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.
16. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’
The following elements are considered relevant to this proposal:
17. Part 1 - The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country's inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.
18. Part 4 - Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.
19. Part 6 - To boost significantly the supply of housing, applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
20. Part 7 - 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.
21. Part 8 - The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Developments should be safe and accessible; Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space and community facilites. An integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.
22. Part 10 - Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable
Page 165 and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
23. Part 11 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements
LOCAL PLAN POLICY:
District of Easington Local Plan
24. Policy 1 - Due regard will be had to the development plan when determining planning applications. Account will be taken as to whether the proposed development accords with sustainable development principles while benefiting the community and local economy. The location, design and layout will also need to accord with saved policies 3, 7, 14-18, 22 and 35-38.
25. Policy 18 - Development which adversely affects a protected species or its habitat will only be approved where the reasons for development outweigh the value of the species or its habitat.
26. Policy 35 - The design and layout of development should consider energy conservation and efficient use of energy, reflect the scale and character of adjacent buildings, provide adequate open space and have no serious adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents or occupiers.
27. Policy 36 - The design and layout of development should ensure good access and encourage alternative means of travel to the private car.
28. Policy 37 - The design and layout of development should seek to minimise the level of parking provision (other than for cyclists and disabled people).
29. Policy 66 - Developers will be required to make adequate provision for children's play space and outdoor recreation in relation to housing development of 10 or more dwellings. Provision may be secured elsewhere if it is inappropriate to make provision at the development site.
30. Policy 67 – Housing development will be approved on previously developed sites within settlement boundaries of established towns and villages provided that the proposal is appropriate in scale and character and does not conflict with specific policies relating to the settlement or the general policies of the plan.
Page 166 31. Policy 75 - Provision for cyclists and pedestrians will be reviewed to provide safe and convenient networks.
32. Policy 77 - The Council will seek to encourage the improvement of the public transport service and the rail transport of freight in the district.
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.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=7534
EMERGING POLICY:
33. 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). To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
34. Policy 1 (Sustainable Development) – States that when considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.
35. Policy 3 – (Quantity of New Development) – In order to meet the need and aspirations of present and future residents of County Durham and to deliver a thriving economy at least 31,400 new homes are proposed up to 2030.
36. Policy 18 (Local Amenity) – In order to protect the amenity of people living and/or working in the vicinity of a proposed development, permission will not be granted for development proposals which would have a significant adverse impact on amenity such as by way of noise, vibration, odour, dust, fumes, light pollution, overlooking, visual intrusion, visual dominance, loss of light or loss of privacy.
37. Policy 30 (Housing Land Allocations) – In order to meet the housing requirement of the County sites as shown on the proposals map has been allocated for housing.
38. Policy 31 (Addressing Housing Need) – To contribute towards meeting the needs of the County’s existing and future residents, new housing proposals will be required to provide a percentage of affordable housing.
39. Policy 41 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) – States that proposals for new development will not be permitted if significant harm to biodiversity and geodiversity, resulting from the development, cannot be avoided, or adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for.
40. Policy 48 (Delivering Sustainable Transport) – All development shall deliver sustainable travel by delivering, accommodating and facilitating investment in
Page 167 sustainable modes of transport; providing appropriate, well designed, permeable and direct routes for all modes of transport; and ensuring that any vehicular traffic generated by new development can be safely accommodated.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
41. Natural England have no objections to the proposals on the basis that regard is given to potential impact on European designated sites on the coast.
42. Northumbrian Water do not object to the scheme on the basis that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment which would control discharge rates of surface and foul water.
43. The Environment Agency have no objections to the proposals as the controlled waters on the site are of low environmental sensitivity.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:
44. Spatial Policy Officers have considered with regards to existing and emerging local policy as well as updated national policy in the form of the NPPF. While the proposal would conflict with policies within the Easington Local Plan, these have been identified as being out dated by the findings of the Employment Land Review which have informed the emerging County Durham Plan and also at odds with the NPPF.
45. The site has been identified as a strategic housing allocation within the emerging County Durham Plan which was submitted in April 2014. Although the Plan is yet to be adopted, there are no issue with regards to bringing the site forward prior to the adoption of the Plan. The site allocation has received limited objections and its approval would not conflict with advice on prematurity within the NPPF and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) and also the Council’s own guidance note. Considering all of the above, Spatial Policy Officers raise no objection to the principal of housing on the site.
46. Business Durham supports the application and are committed to working with the businesses affected by the plans.
47. The Tree Officer has no objections to the proposals on the basis that an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Constraints Plan are submitted.
48. The Economic Development Officer requests that a clause is included in the Section 106 Agreement which secures employment and skills training that would assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability.
49. Landscape Officers broadly support the proposals which is in accordance with the emerging plan and the residential development should be a positive outcome which would enhance the site and surrounding areas.
50. Design and Conservation Officers have no objections to the proposals but have raised some comments with regard to the impact on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument to the south of the site.
Page 168
51. Public Rights of Way Officers welcomes the proposals to provide better public footpath linkages around the site.
52. Highways Officers have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposals on the basis that conditions are attached to any approval. These conditions would relate to the improvement of bus shelters in the vicinity of the site, the submission of a residential travel plan aimed to reduce reliance on private vehicles, signalisation arrangements to be put in place at the Essington Way and Thorpe Road junction, improvements to roundabout junctions and other various junction, footpath and traffic calming improvements in the vicinity.
53. Pollutiion Control officers have given advice relating to residential amenity during construction. Conditions have been requested which would mitigate any odour and noise pollutants caused by nearby factory activities. In addition, a contaminated land study has been requested and any subsequent remediation conditioned along with a restriction on
54. Ecology Officers have raised no objections to the proposals. The proposed development should be carried out in accordance with the submitted ecology survey in order to minimise any impact on existing habitat and secure the creation of new areas for habitat.
55. Education Officers have assessed school capacities in the catchment area and have confirmed that sufficient school places are available.
PUBLIC RESPONSES:
56. The local member Councillor Bennett has offered his full support to the proposals.
57. Two letters have been received from nearby businesses. One letter is from Kookaburra who will continue to operate on the perimeter of the application site. They comment that they are satisfied that, in principle, the housing development shown on illustrative plans accompanying the application for redevelopment of the majority of the present industrial estate will not impact adversely on the operation of their factory. The company is equally comfortable that the separation to be created between the factory and the nearest housing is sufficient to reduce to a minimum the likelihood of any harm or nuisance being caused to future residents by the continued operation of the factory. In that light, Kookaburra Limited is generally supportive of the Council’s objectives and does not wish to object to the planning application subject to being consulted at the reserved matters stage.
58. A further letter has been received from NTE Limited, a company who continue to operate from within the application site. They state that they have been on the estate for over 20 years and employ 27 people and 3 subcontractors who are mostly local and the business has a turnover of £5.5 million. Whilst not objecting to the principle of housing on the site, they state that is should be a condition to provide financial compensation for the relocation of the business.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT:
59. Within the Submission Draft of the County Durham Plan, Durham County Council has identified a requirement for at least 31,400 new homes across the county by the Page 169 year 2030. Of that requirement, Peterlee and Horden have been allocated 1,830 new dwellings. The site at North East Industrial Estate, which forms the basis of this application, is referenced in the Submission Draft of the Plan as Allocation H/59, contributing 390 housing units towards the identified requirement.
60. The application site comprises 19.8 hectares of brownfield land within the North East Industrial Estate. The majority of the application site is either vacant or underutilised and much of the residual building stock is no longer fit for purpose. The area upon which the application is based suffers from dereliction and high vacancy rates and is not considered viable for long term employment use.
61. The outline application proposes a comprehensive redevelopment of the area which will deliver 390 new homes (in accordance with the Emerging Plan), in a mix of housing to meet local need. The proposal will regenerate an underused industrial estate, significantly improving the quality of the local environment. The scheme provides for the creation of well-planned landscaping and green infrastructure on the site and for the establishment of a link road between the A1086 and Eden Lane. The development will bring significant economic benefits to the local area, with an estimated:
• Construction value of approximately £31 million • 44 permanent construction jobs created through the lifetime of the build • 66 spin-off jobs supported in the supply chain through the construction phase and • £2.4 million additional annual expenditure in the local area, with the potential to support 21 full time equivalent jobs in retail and leisure.
62. Community Consultation has been undertaken in line with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
63. Durham County Council, supported by Business Durham, is liaising with landlords and tenants affected by the application to discuss their future business operations and potential options for relocation in the vicinity. Neither the operations of Kookaburra Limited, nor the operations of other major employers close to the application site will be affected.
64. In summary, the development proposed within the application will make a significant contribution to local housing requirements, create a number of valuable economic benefits and regenerate a substantial area of underutilised land.
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
PLANNING CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSMENT
65. Local planning authorities (LPA’s) must determine planning applications in accordance with the statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If the Development Plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan. Where there are other material considerations, the Development Plan should be the starting point, and other material considerations should be taken into account in reaching a decision.
Page 170 66. In this instance, the main relevant considerations are the principle of the development, highways issues, impact on surrounding residents and the street scene, affordable housing, pollution issues, ecology, trees, flood risk and the impact on existing business operations. Of particular relevance are the accordance with the saved policies from the District of Easington Local Plan, the Governments recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emerging County Durham Plan.
Principle of the development
67. The application proposes the development of 390 residential dwellings. The application is in outline with all matters reserved except for access. The site of the application is an area of North East Industrial Estate within Peterlee. The application site does not incorporate the entire industrial estate. It relates principally to the land to the east of Stephenson Road and Armstrong Road excluding the Kookaburra factory as well as the businesses west of Armstrong Road and North of Stephenson Road, notably Countrystyle and Walkers.
68. The application site would be defined as brownfield and is essentially an industrial area that is underutilised with areas of dereliction and vacancy evident.
69. The key planning policy issues in assessing this application are:
• Is the loss of an employment site acceptable? • Does development of the site for housing provide a sustainable form of development? • Does the site coming forward prior to the adoption the County Durham Plan prejudice the Plan and the plan making process?
Is the loss of an employment site acceptable?
70. The site is designated within the Easington Local Plan (2001) through policy 53. This identifies the site as suitable for Use Classes B1 (business), B2 (general industry) and B8 (warehousing) and small scale business use. This policy was subsequently saved in 2007.
71. Whilst the policy was saved, it is important to consider the approach within the Easington Local Plan against the more up to date national policy detailed within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
72. A key thrust of national policy through the NPPF is building a strong competitive economy as reflected in part 1 of the document. It states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. It further encourages that land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, it is advised that applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.
73. In relation to existing business sectors the NPPF also advises that account should be taken as to whether they are expanding or contracting and, where possible, identify and plan for new emerging sectors likely to locate in their area. It goes on to state
Page 171 that policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstance.
74. In line with national policy, the Council has carried out an Employment Land Review (2012), this has looked at existing employment sites across the County and made recommendations as to the future policy approaches for each. In terms of the North East Industrial Estate, the ELR identified that the condition and use of the premises varied dramatically with areas located at the western entrance relatively prosperous with well used and well maintained units. It went on to recognise that to the east of the site, units are predominantly vacant and in a poor state of repair. It concluded that the land to the east of Armstrong Road was suitable for alternative uses and a more flexible approach should be taken in future policies.
75. This is at odds with the protection it is afforded within the Easington Local Plan, however as stated, it is important to consider whether this approach is consistent with the more up to date NPPF. The up dated evidence within the ELR and the guidance detailed above within NPPF would suggest that the existing Local Plan policy is contrary to NPPF. It is therefore considered that limited weight can be afforded to its designation within the Easington Local Plan.
76. The Employment Land Review is a principal element of the evidence base for the emerging County Durham Plan. The approach advised within the ELR has therefore been considered and reflected within policies for this site. The land to the east of Armstrong Road is no longer protected for employment purposes within the County Durham Plan. The loss of employment land within this application is therefore considered acceptable.
Does development of the site for housing on the site provide a sustainable form of development?
77. Achieving sustainable development is the overarching aim of the NPPF and it sets the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the framework. The County Durham Plan has been produced on the principle of sustainability and this has influenced the emerging policies and allocations.
78. Peterlee has been identified as a main town within the Plan and a sustainable location for growth. Peterlee along with the other main towns are identified as the principal locations for new development reflecting their higher order services, access to public transport and their housing, employment and shopping needs.
79. The NPPF aims to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes specifically with the aim of significantly boosting the supply of housing. Local Planning Authorities are advised that they should use their evidence base to ensure their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing.
80. Considering the principles within the NPPF, the emerging County Durham Plan identifies, through Policy 3, a requirement of at least 31,400 new dwellings to 2030 within the County. Policy 4 of the Plan details how this will be distributed across the County with 1830 dwellings apportioned to Peterlee.
81. The North East Industrial Estate is identified for housing development to meet the need and distribution detailed within policies 3 and 4. Specifically it is allocated under Policy 30 (Site H/59) for the development of 390 houses. It is also identified as a Strategic Housing Site under Policy 11. The Council have also produced a draft Page 172 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the site, which further details how the site should come forward for residential development. The principal of housing on the site is in clear accordance with NPPF and the emerging Plan. It is therefore considered as a sustainable location for residential development.
Does the site coming forward prior to the adoption the County Durham Plan prejudice the Plan and the plan making process?
82. The County Durham Plan has now reached submission stage, the Plan was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in April, although no date has been confirmed for the Enquiry In Public. Annex 1 of the NPPF details how much weight can be given to policies in emerging plans. This relates to:
• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and • this degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
83. National Planning Policy Guidance also covers prematurity and details the circumstances that it might be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. It details that arguments that an application is premature is unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the NPPF and any other material considerations into account.
84. Alongside the advice with in NPPF and NPPG the Council have produced a Policy note that looks at the issue further in a County Durham context. This details where sites can come forward ahead of the Plan and is relevant when assessing this application. Of particular relevance to this site is the direction it gives on sites allocated for housing (outside of the Green Belt) within the Pre-Submission Draft Plan. The note advises that an assessment of an application can be based on the nature of objections to the allocation from the Plan’s consultation.
85. An analysis of objections to its allocation under policy 30 identifies just one objection to the site which relates to an issue that can be addressed through the Development Management process. Likewise there are no objections that were raised in relation to policy 11 that cannot be addressed through the same process. In addition the objections received do not suggest alternative sites to North East Industrial Estate in order to meet the housing needs of Peterlee.
86. Considering all of the above in terms of national policy and also the guidance note produced by the Council, it is considered that any approval of the site prior to the adoption of the Plan would not undermine the Plan or prejudice the plan making process.
Highways issues
87. Highways officers have been consulted as part of the application process and have commented that the A1086 Thorpe Road is well served by buses, principally services 23 during the day and 24 in the evening, plus some others. These services provide Page 173 good access to the regional town centres of Durham and Sunderland. However, in view of the anticipated increase in demand from the proposed development for public transport the existing 2 bus stops in the vicinity of the Cemetery on the A1086 Thorpe Road will need to be improved with new bus shelters and raised kerb installations, this should be dealt with by way of a condition.
88. The submitted Transport Assessment has also been assessed by Highways officers who have agreed with its content which is based on the same transport analysis which was previously accepted for the nearby Lowhills development of 900 dwellings. On the basis of the transport analysis various conditions have been requested including the need for staggered roundabout junctions at the junction of Essington Way, Lowhills Road and Stephenson Road along with the need for a signal strategy for the Essington Way and Thorpe Road junction to be implemented.
89. With regard to access into the residential development it is proposed to have two vehicular access points. One of which would be off Thorpe Road to the northern boundary of the site and one which would be from the Yoden Road and Eden Lane junction to the south west of the site.
90. Highways Officers have commented that the principle of a protected right turn lane on the A1086 Thorpe Road to serve the development is acceptable subject to a condition which requires further technical detail of this access point being submitted prior to any development commencing. In addition to this officers have concluded that the access point from the Yoden Road and Eden Lane junction is acceptable subject to further technical details being submitted.
91. On the basis of the above, and with additional conditions requiring completion of the 7.3 metre wide link road through the development, improvements to footpaths, traffic calming measures and the submission of a residential travel plan aimed to reduce reliance on private vehicles, the proposals would be deemed to be acceptable from a highways point of view.
92. It is therefore considered that with regard to highways issues that the proposals are in accordance with part 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policies 36 and 37 of the District of Easington Local Plan.
Impact on surrounding residents and the Street Scene
93. Policy 35 of the Easington Local Plan requires that development should reflect the scale and character of adjacent buildings and the area generally, provide adequate open space, appropriate landscape features and screening, and not be visually intrusive. Policy 1 reflects this in that development should be of a high standard of design and landscaping which relates well to the natural and built features of the site, the surrounding area and adjacent land uses. National guidance expects due regard to be had to the protection of the local environment.
94. In addition, policies 1 and 35 aim to safeguard the general amenity of people living and working within the vicinity of the site and the existing use of adjacent land or buildings in terms of privacy, visual intrusion, noise or other pollutants.
95. In terms of the impact on the amenity of existing residents who surround the site, it should be noted that this application is outline with all matter reserved apart from access. Therefore although officers cannot assess in detail the impacts on nearby residents until details of layout, appearance and scale are submitted at reserved Page 174 matters stage. However, given the distance to nearest existing residents to the south west and east of the application site, and given the level of buffer landscaping being proposed on the masterplan, officers are confident that the future reserved matters application can control any potential adverse impacts in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light or overshadowing to existing residents as a result of the proposed development.
96. In addition to the above, it is considered that the proposals would lead to a significant improvement to what is now largely a derelict and dilapidated site. Therefore, having regards to part 7 of the NPPF and the most applicable Policies of the District of Easington Local Plan officers considerer the proposals will result in a significant improvement to the street scene and visual amenity of the area and raise no objections to the application having regards to the impact upon surrounding residents and character and appearance of the area.
Affordable housing
97. The NPPF states that, in order to ensure a wide choice of high-quality homes, Local Planning Authorities should “plan for a mix of housing”, “identify the size, type and tenure of housing that is required in particular locations”, and “where affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site”.
98. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) report was completed in 2012 and supplies the evidence base for 10% affordable housing across the East Durham Delivery Area (on sites of 15 dwellings/0.5 hectares), while the NPPF (Para 159) makes plain the importance of the SHMA in setting targets. The SHMA and the NPPF therefore provide the justification for seeking affordable housing provision on this site, which should be secured via S106 agreement. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has argued that it would not be viable to deliver affordable housing on the site without additional funding being made available.
99. In the mid 2000’s the North East Industrial Estate was the subject of interest from a national housebuilder. A proposal for 500 homes was drawn up and a planning application was lodged in late 2007 with District of Easington Council (although never validated or progressed). The housebuilder did not take the scheme forward, anecdotally due to escalating costs of site assembly, the downturn in the housing market and the restrictions on loan finance.
100. In 2011, Durham County Council (Regeneration & Economic Development) commissioned external property consultants to appraise the development potential of the estate on the assumption of a 500 house scheme. The consultants’ conclusions suggested that there was potential for a “challenging yet deliverable framework” to regenerate the estate but that there were a number of significant constraints to overcome, including site assembly and clearance, land remediation and infrastructure costs.
101. The application site is allocated as H59 in the Submission Draft of the County Durham Plan for 390 homes. On that basis, it is considered that the site remains deliverable subject to strategic assistance from Durham County Council (approved by Cabinet in January 2014) but on the assumption that, given the abnormal costs of site preparation, the proposal is unlikely to be able to support an affordable housing allocation. In addition, costs will be involved in supporting the relocation of existing tenants.
Page 175
102. In 2013, the Council approved an application for 900 dwellings on nearby land at Low Hills, to the north of the industrial estate. The approval is subject to a S.106 agreement which provides inter alia for a contribution of £1.55 million to support affordable housing and regeneration in the East Durham housing market area. The applicant argues that it would be possible to utilise these funds to support affordable housing provision on the application site. Taking into account the above, it is not considered that this proposal should be subject to the requirement to provide 10% affordable housing on site at this time.
Environmental Health Issues
103. The NPPF states that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan
104. Officers from pollution control have assessed the proposals in terms of the potential impact of odour from the nearby industrial buildings and in terms of any potential noise nuisance.
105. In terms of odour, the applicant has carried out an odour assessment in line with current guidance, principally the Environment Agencies Odour Management guidance and other relevant guidance. The assessment consisted of a construction dust assessment, local air quality modelling and a review of recent odour modelling studies.
106. The construction phase assessment determined that the greatest potential dust generating impacts were predicted to be associated with demolition, construction and movement from the construction site. Therefore appropriate construction dust mitigation controls have been recommended based on the magnitude of impacts.
107. The local air quality assessment determined that concentrations are well below the annual mean objective and therefore the maximum impact was predicted to be of negligible significance.
108. The odour assessment determined that the three main odour emission sources identified near the proposed development site were Kookaburra, Country Style and Walkers. The emissions from the Kookaburra factory were assessed using detailed dispersion modelling to identify areas that would not be suitable for residential use and this has been reflected in the illustrative masterplan for the site. The odour from the Walkers factory was fairly faint at the boundary of the proposed development site, and it was not considered likely to be sufficient to give rise to frequent complaints due to both its intensity and relatively low offensiveness. The odour from the Country Style bakery was moderately strong and distinctive. The ‘baking bread’ odour is not typically considered to be highly offensive, although it should be acknowledged that extended exposure could result in this odour becoming objectionable for some people.
109. Although there are likely to be instances when odour will occur on the proposed development site, due to specific processing and/or meteorological conditions. This Page 176 is not considered likely to be sufficient to give rise to frequent complaints subject to the proposed mitigation measures, although there could be occasional complaints at locations close to the emission sources.
110. In terms of noise, the applicant has submitted a noise assessment report which was influenced by road traffic noise and various industrial noise sources.
111. Based on the results of the noise surveys undertaken and subsequent noise modelling with future traffic flows, all areas within 20 to 40 meters of Thorpe Road and Stephenson Road were found to exceed the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance limit of 55 dB.
112. However, mitigation in the form of acoustic barriers can effectively reduce the noise levels to within WHO guidance values i.e. below 55dB for external areas of proposed dwellings fronting Thorpe Road, Stephenson Road and the entrance to the new residential access road. In addition to this, acceptable internal noise levels can be achieved in all the proposed habitable rooms with the utilisation of suitable double glazing units as suggested as mitigation in the submitted noise report.
113. The impact of Kookaburra operations on proposed external amenity can be effectively mitigated with the implementation of an acoustic barrier surrounding the dedicated access route on Armstrong Road. Kookaburra operations can therefore continue without restriction as the impact is of marginal significance. The impact of Walkers operations are also of marginal significance at the nearest proposed noise sensitive receptor on Stephenson Road and will similarly not be restricted by residential development.
114. On the basis of the above and subject to the mitigation outlined in the submitted odour and air quality assessment and noise assessment it is considered that the proposals would be acceptable from a pollution control point of view in accordance with part 11 of the NPPF.
Ecology and trees
115. An ecology survey which assesses the impact of the proposed development on wildlife has been submitted, however given that the site is derelict and of very low ecological value this has raised no significant concerns subject to mitigation during construction and the creation of additional wildlife habitat. Notwithstanding this, the Local Planning Authority must also consider impacts on designated wildlife sites in the vicinity of the proposed development.
116. This application site is in close proximity to Durham Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Natura 2000 site and the Northumbria Coast SSSI, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, all of which are designations of significant importance.
117. In order to take pressure from additional visitors away from the coastal designations of significant importance, the applicant has proposed to provide additional Green Infrastructure (GI) which is an existing open space to the south of the application site where it is proposed to carry out enhancements designed to attract more visitors by providing an enjoyable natural environment for recreation as an alternative to the designated sites on the coast.
Page 177 118. Proposals for the GI consist of a series of new footpaths and upgrading of existing footpaths to provide improved circular walking routes along with improved open space and signage, all within easy reach of the site which would improve links from the proposed residential development to the recreational space.
119. In order to ensure proper maintenance of this site, an appropriate land stewardship management plan should be submitted and agreed in writing before any development commences to ensure future sustainability of the proposals.
120. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with saved policy 18 of the District of Easington Local Plan and part 11 of the NPPF, both of which seek to protect and enhance biodiversity and the natural environment.
121. In addition to the above, it is noted that there are a number of trees and in and around the site. Given the proximity of the proposed development it is considered that a further condition should be imposed which requires these trees to be protected during construction. Subject to this condition it is considered that the proposals would be in accordance with part 11 of the NPPF.
Flood risk
122. The NPPF states that inappropriate development in flood risk areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, that development should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and that safe access and escape routes from developments should be provided where required.
123. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application which finds that the site is not within flood zones 2 or 3 and that run-off from the site in a developed state could be managed in a sustainable manner. Northumbrian Water have been consulted as part of the proposals and have raised no objections subject to a condition which limits the surface water run-off and foul water generated by the site.
124. Subject to conditions controlling the rates of surface and foul water it is not considered that the development would lead to any additional flood risk than that which already exists and therefore the proposals would accord with part 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Impact on existing business operations
125. As part of the public consultation exercise, Durham County Council and Business Durham have encouraged affected businesses to engage in confidential discussions in order that officers understand their requirements in the context of future relocation.
126. Initial one-to-one sessions with affected businesses who expressed a wish to participate have been held and were followed up by conducting property searches according to the expressed requirements of businesses in an attempt to match their requirements to available premises in the locality in the context of a continuing dialogue to retain business activity and employment in the locality. The process, which will continue as required, is supported by a package of assistance as part of arrangements approved by the Council’s Cabinet in January 2014 for a business support strategy with a particular emphasis on considering potential financial assistance to those businesses which have short term leases and would otherwise not be eligible for compensation.
Page 178
CONCLUSION
127. The National Planning Policy Framework advises that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development such as this identified allocation which is a brownfield site within the settlement boundary of Peterlee. Officers consider that the development constitutes sustainable development, the key theme running through the NPPF and that the development does not conflict with the emerging County Durham Plan nor cause harm coming forward in advance of this plan. The principle of the development can therefore be accepted.
128. Several other key considerations apply to the site other than the principle of the development namely matters of highways, impact on the character and appearance of the area, affordable housing, pollution issues and ecology, all of which have been fully considered as part of the application process.
129. For the reasons set out in this report the scheme is considered to be in a sustainable location for residential development and would contribute toward an identified housing need. In addition the clearance of the North East Industrial Estate which is mostly derelict and in a dilapidated state would result in a significant improvement to the visual amenity of the area.
130. The development would provide employment opportunities for local people though securing targeted employment and training programmes as part of the legal agreement as well as enhanced play and footpath provision, improving the recreational offer for existing and future residents.
131. It is considered that the contribution the development will make toward meeting the housing and infrastructure needs of all sectors of the community and the investment and regeneration the development would bring to the area should be afforded significant weight in the determination of this application. Therefore the principle of bringing this site forward for residential development ahead of the County Durham Plan is acceptable and would not undermine future strategic objectives for the area.
132. On the basis of the above it is considered that the proposals are acceptable and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions and subject to the entering into of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the provision of:
i. £195,000 towards play and recreation in the Electoral Division of Peterlee East ii. A programme of Targeted Recruitment and Training
Conditions:
1. Approval of the details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) for the first phase of development (to be determined pursuant to condition 3) shall be obtained from the local planning authority before the first phase of development is commenced. Approval of the reserved matters for each Page 179 phase of the development thereafter (to be determined pursuant to condition 3) shall be obtained from the local planning authority before that phase of development is commenced.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Application for approval of reserved matters for the first phase of development must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission, and the first phase of development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the first approval of the reserved matters. The application for approval of the reserved matters for the subsequent phases of development shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission and each phase must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the approval of the reserved matters for that phase of development.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
3. Prior to the submission of reserved matters details for the first phase of the development., a Phasing Programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall identify the phasing of infrastructure, landscaping, public open space, accesses and residential areas of the development hereby approved. Thereafter development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Phasing Programme.
Reason: To ensure the co-coordinated progression of the development and the provision of the relevant infrastructure to each individual phase and in accordance with saved Policies 1 and 35 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 7 of the NPPF.
4. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved plans and specifications contained within:
Site Location Plan N81-2245, SLP-01 Proposed Alterations to NEIE Highway Network 2027/SK003/001 Potential Site Access from A1086 Thorpe Road 2027/SK001/001 Proposed Yoden Road/Eden Lane/Site Access Junction 2027/SK002/001
Reason: To meet the objectives of saved Policies 1, 35 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and parts 1 and 4 of the NPPF.
5. Prior to the commencement of development details of improvements to the 2 no. bus stops in the vicinity of the Cemetery on the A1086 Thorpe Road must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bus stop improvements must be completed in association with the construction of the protected right turn lane on the A1086 Thorpe Road.
Page 180 Reason: In the interests of minimising traffic generation and encouraging sustainable travel, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policy 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
6. Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling a Sustainable Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should include but not be restricted to providing details of the Travel Plan Coordinator. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved travel plan details.
Reason: In the interests of minimising traffic generation and encouraging sustainable travel, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policy 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
7. No development shall take place until a highways improvement scheme for the staggered roundabout junctions at C145 Essington Way / Lowhills Road/ Stephenson Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved highway improvement scheme must be completed and operational prior to occupation of the 100th dwelling.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
8. No development shall take place until a signalisation arrangement and detailed signal strategy for the C145 Essington Way / A1086 Thorpe Road junction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved signalisation and any signal timing arrangements must be completed and operational prior to occupation of the 100th dwelling on the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
9. Prior to the commencement of any development on site details of the protected right turn lane on the A1086 Thorpe Road must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved protected right turn lane arrangement must be completed prior to any residential development traffic accessing directly out onto the A1086 Thorpe Road from the development site’.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
10. Prior to the commencement of any development on site details of the Yoden Road/Eden Lane/Site Access junction improvements must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling that might access the site from the direction of Yoden Road/Eden Lane the amendments to the existing Yoden Road/Eden lane road junction, as shown generally on the Proposed Yoden Road/Eden lane/Site Access junction plan, drg. no. 2027/SK002/001,must be completed.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
Page 181 11. Prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling the 7.3 metres wide link road through the development, between the Yoden Road/Eden Lane junction and the A1086 Thorpe Road, must be completed and be operational.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
12. Prior to the Stopping Up of those sections of Parsons Road, Faraday Road and Armstrong Road the new 7.3 metres wide road link complete with 2 metres wide footways must be completed to the south of the Kookaburra industrial unit, between the sections of Armstrong Road that are to be retained.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
13. Prior to the opening of the 7.3 metres wide link road, between the Yoden Road/Eden Lane junction and the A1086 Thorpe Road, details of traffic calming to Eden Lane, between the junctions of Yoden Road and Ellison Road must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved traffic calming scheme must be completed prior to the opening of the 7.3 metres wide link road between the Yoden Road/Eden Lane junction and the A1086 Thorpe Road.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 4 of the NPPF.
14. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme to deal with contamination has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following, unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed use and dispenses of any such requirements, in writing:
Pre-Commencement
(a) The Phase 1 report has identified potential contaminants from the industry sectors which operated at the site throughout the sites history. The applicant needs to include Wallpaper Manufacturing process as the potential for contamination, a Phase 2 Site Investigation and Risk Assessment is required and shall be carried out by competent person(s) to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications.
(b) If the Phase 2 identifies any unacceptable risks, remediation is required and a Phase 3 Remediation Strategy detailing the proposed remediation and verification works shall be carried out by competent person(s). No alterations to the remediation proposals shall be carried out without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. If during the remediation or development works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Phase 3, then remediation proposals for this material shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works.
Completion
Page 182 (c) Upon completion of the remedial works (if required), a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Phase 3 Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risk to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with NPPF Part 11.
15. The approved development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by JBA dated April 2014 and the mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
- Discharging foul water will be restricted to 9 Litres per second and discharge in manhole 0204
- Surface water will be restricted to 95 Litres per second and discharge into manholes 7010 and 0203
The relevant mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation of the first dwelling on each phase of the development and subsequently in accordance with the timing and phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme.
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site and in accordance with saved Policy 1 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 10 of the NPPF.
16. Within each phase of development identified in accordance with condition 3, no development shall be commenced until an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan are submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The protection measures shall be in accordance with the relevant British Standard and shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with saved Policies 1 and 35 of the District of Easington Local Plan.
17. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with all ecological mitigation measures, advice and recommendations within the Extended Phase 1 Survey prepared by E3 Ecology Ltd (April 2014).
Reason: To conserve protected species and their habitat in accordance with the objectives of saved Policy 18 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 11 of the NPPF.
18. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a mitigation strategy document that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the following: Page 183
i) Measures to ensure the preservation in situ, or the preservation by record, of archaeological features of identified importance. ii) Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts. iii) Post-fieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses. iv) Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals. v) Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories. vi) A timetable of works for each phase in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. vii) Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. viii) A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including sub- contractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To comply with paragraph 141 of the NPPF because the site is of Archaeological interest.
19. Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling of each phase of development identified in compliance with condition 3, a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the archaeological mitigation strategy for that phase shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record.
Reason: To comply with paragraph 141 of the NPPF, which requires the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of a heritage asset to be lost, and to make this information as widely accessible to the public as possible.
20. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with all odour and air mitigation measures, advice and recommendations within the Odour and Air Quality Assessment prepared by Aecom (April 2014).
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of residents living in the approved development and in accordance with saved Policies 1 and 35 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 11 of the NPPF.
21. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with all noise mitigation measures, advice and recommendations within the Noise Assessment Report prepared by QEM Environmental Consultants (May 2014).
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of residents living in the approved development and in accordance with saved Policies 1 and 35 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 11 of the NPPF.
22. Prior to each phase of development (as identified in compliance with condition 3) commencing, a construction working practices strategy that includes (but not exclusively) dust, noise and light mitigation; tree protection; compound location; Page 184 traffic management and hours of working shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter construction will take place in accordance with that strategy.
Reason: In the interests of public health, highway safety and amenity, in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1, 35 and 36 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 11 of the NPPF.
23. Prior to each phase of development (as identified in compliance with condition 3) commencing a detailed scheme for the provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and their future management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of appropriate surface water management and in accordance with saved Policy 1 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 10 of the NPPF.
24. Prior to each phase of development (as identified in compliance with condition 3) commencing a scheme to minimise energy consumption in relation to that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall consist of energy from renewable or low carbon sources provided on- site, to a minimum level of at least 10% of the total energy demand from the development, or an equivalent scheme that minimises carbon emissions to an equal level through energy efficient measures. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable construction and energy generation in accordance with the aims of Policies 1 and 35 of the Easington District Local Plan and Part 10 of the NPPF.
25. No development shall commence until a detailed scheme for the provision of 10% of dwellings which meet the specific needs of older people shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In order to secure an appropriate mix of housing in accordance with Part 6 of the NPPF.
26. No development shall commence until a scheme for Green Infrastructure has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of new and improved footpath provision, landscaping, signage, waste disposal and a management and maintenance plan. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and retained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to conserve protected species and their habitat in accordance with the objectives of saved Policies 1, 18 and 35 of the Easington District Local Plan and part 11 of the NPPF.
27. Prior to each phase of development (as identified in compliance with condition 3) commencing a landscaping scheme shall been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall identify those trees/hedges/shrubs scheduled for retention and removal; shall provide details of new and replacement Page 185 trees/hedges/shrubs; detail works to existing trees; and provide details of protective measures during construction period. The works agreed to shall be carried out within the first planting season following completion of development of the site and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of 5 yrs following planting. Any trees or plants which die, fail to flourish or are removed within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with saved Policies 1 and 35 of the District of Easington Local Plan.
28. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of public art has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the timings within the approved public art scheme.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance and visual amenity of the area, in accordance with saved Policy 39 of the District of Easington Local Plan.
29. Notwithstanding the details submitted, this permission relates to a maximum of 390 dwellings on the site.
Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with part 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policies 1 and 35 of the District of Easington Plan.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENG AGEMENT
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising during the application process. The decision has been made within target provided to the applicant on submission and in compliance with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to promote the delivery of sustainable development.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
- Submitted Application Forms and Plans. - Design and Access Statement - County Durham Plan Pre-Submission Draft - District of Easington Local Plan 2001 - National Planning Policy Framework - Consultation Responses
Page 186
Page 187
Proposed 390 dwellings (outline) with all matters reserved apart from access. North East Industrial Estate, Planning Services Peterlee, County Durham This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission o Comments 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 July 2014
Page 188 Agenda Item 4e Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00362/FPA
Proposed repair and restoration of Seaham North Pier including the replacement of the concrete deck, repair FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : and repointing of masonry walls, repair and replacement of concrete coping stones, works to repair three previously breached sections, and temporary access to the Pier off the A182
NAME OF APPLICANT : Durham County Council ADDRESS : North Pier, Seaham Harbour, Seaham ELECTORAL DIVISION : Seaham Harbour
Laura Martin CASE OFFICER : 03000 261960 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
Site
1. The centre of the coastal frontage of Seaham is located on the cliffs above the harbour. The harbour is protected by two outer stone piers, the North Pier and the South Pier, within which there is a more complex series of sea walls and piers protecting the main anchorage and an inner dock. Seaham North Pier is a predominantly masonry structure approximately 435m in length and houses a lighthouse at its seaward end.
2. In 2011 AECOM undertook a Condition Assessment which identified that the structure is in poor condition and is at significant risk of failure.
3. The Condition assessment (including visual inspection, dive survey and ground investigation) states that the useful residual life of the structure is between 0-10 years (i.e. it is effectively life expired) and thus, there is a need for works to repair and restore the pier. The existing deck is in poor condition, the inner and outer walls are in need of joint repairs and it has been breached in three areas.
Page 189 Proposal
4. Full planning permission is sought for the repair and restoration of the North Pier including the replacement of the concrete deck; repair and repointing of masonry walls, repair and replacement of concrete coping stones, works to repair three previously beached sections and allow a temporary access to the pier from the A182.
5. There is ongoing regeneration work to Seaham Harbour, of which this scheme forms part of the final phase. Much of the earlier phased regeneration work including the Marina and waterside café/information centre has already been completed.
6. The application is brought before members of the planning committee as the development is classified as a major development.
PLANNING HISTORY
7. A Marine License is required from the Marine Management Organisation and is being applied for simultaneously with this planning application. This will include Assent to work in a SSSI as required from Natural England.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY :
8. Part 1 - The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country's inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.
9. Part 2 - Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period.
10. Part 4 - Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.
11. Part 7 - 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.
12. Part 8 - The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Developments should be safe and accessible, Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space and community facilites. An integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.
13. Part 11 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological Page 190 conservation interests and soils; recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
14. Part 12 - Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
15. Policy 1- Due regard will be had to the development plan when determining planning applications. Account will be taken as to whether the proposed development accords with sustainable development principles while benefiting the community and local economy. The location, design and layout will also need to accord with saved policies 3, 7, 14-18, 22 and 35-38.
16. Policy 9 - Development within the defined coastal zone will only be allowed if the requirement for the project cannot be met outside of it and the need for or benefit from the scheme outweighs any adverse impact.
17. Policy 22 - The character, appearance and setting of the conservation areas will be preserved and enhanced.
18. Policy 24 - Development which adversely affects the character, appearance, special architectural features or setting of a listed building will not be approved. The retention of architectural or historic features will be encouraged. Demolition of a listed building will be only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
19. Policy 35 - The design and layout of development should consider energy conservation and efficient use of energy, reflect the scale and character of adjacent buildings, provide adequate open space and have no serious adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents or occupiers.
20. Policy 36 - The design and layout of development should ensure good access and encourage alternative means of travel to the private car.
21. Policy 84 - Recreation, art, sport and/or tourism development in the coastal zone will only be approved where it is for the quiet enjoyment of the coast and is compatible in scale and character. Appropriately located and designed car parks of suitable scale that enable access to the coast will be approved.
22. Policy S28 - The development of the North Dock area of Seaham Harbour for tourism, leisure or recreation uses will normally be approved provided it accords with policies 15, 22 and 24 and would not conflict with local operators. Page 191 EMERGING POLICY:
23. 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). To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
24. Policy 1 (Sustainable development) - States that when considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.
25. Policy 16 (Sustainable Design in the built environment) – Development proposals will be permitted where they promote accessibility and permeability and ensure that the public realm is safe and attractively designed.
26. Policy 18 (Local Amenity) - In order to protect the amenity of people living and/or working in the vicinity of a proposed development, permission will not be granted for development proposals which would have a significant adverse impact on amenity such as by way of noise, vibration, odour, dust, fumes, light pollution, overlooking, visual intrusion, visual dominance, loss of light or loss of privacy.
27. Policy 19 (Air quality, light and noise pollution) – All development will be expected to prevent unacceptable levels of noise, air pollution and light pollution.
28. Policy 38 (Durham Coast and Heritage Coast) – The Council will seek to protect and enhance the Durham Heritage Coast and wider Coastal Zone and public enjoyment of this resource.
29. Policy 39 (Landscape Character) - States that proposals for new development will only be permitted where they would not cause significant harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape, or to important features or views, unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh its impacts.
30. Policy 44 (Historic environment) – Development will be required to serve the fabric, character, setting and cultural significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets and seek opportunities to enhance structures and areas of significance throughout County Durham.
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://content.durham.gov.uk/PDFRepository/EasingtonLocalPlan.pdf CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
31. The Coal Authority have no comments.
32. Northumbrian Water have no comments.
Page 192 33. The Environment Agency have given informal advice in respect of operations at the site.
34. Natural England have raised no objections.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
35. Highways Officers have raised no objections
36. Environmental Health have given informal advice in respect of hours of operation, dust and burning of materials on site.
37. Design and Conservation Officers advise that the short term negative impacts of the development would be outweighed by the long term public benefits of the restoration scheme. It is also requested that traditional stone is used instead of concrete for the coping stones.
38. Archeology Officers raise no objections.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
39. The application was advertised by means of a site and press notice and by a further 8 letters of notification to neighbouring properties within the Marina area. 1 letter of support has been received from the Lifeboat Centre who support the required repairs but requests that disruptions to the Marina are kept to a minimum during the construction period.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
40. Seaham Harbour is protected by two outer stone piers, the North Pier and the South Pier within which there is a more complex arrangement of sea walls and piers protecting the main anchorage, inner dock and recently constructed marina.
41. The North Pier is an essential asset that prevents coastal erosion and is a flood defence for the port. Preliminary inspections have indicated that the pier is in poor condition and at significant risk of failure with the residual life of the structure estimated at between 0-10 years therefore it is effectively life expired.
42. Seaham Harbour dates from 1831 and the centre of the coastal frontage of Seaham is located on cliffs above the harbour which accommodates ships of up to 8000 tonnes and drafts of up to 6.7m. The harbour offers 27000 sq m of covered warehousing, 6000 sq m of purpose built segregated open storage and has excellent road and rail connections thus making it an integral part of the local and regional economy.
43. The inner dock has recently been converted into a new marina with office/amenity building situated adjacent to the base of the North Pier. The local Sea Angling Club has access to the North Pier for fishing although the pier is closed to the general public.
44. The two main harbour structures play a crucial role in the provision of coastal defence and the Seaham Coastal Strategy Report concluded that if the harbour structures were lost, “there would be greater pressure on man-made defences leading to the eventual loss of substantial areas of Seaham”
Page 193 45. Seaham North Pier is a predominantly masonry structure, believed to be granite, with a mass concrete core. It is approximately 435m in length from the locked steel entrance gate to the lighthouse at the seaward end and the pier height varies between 10m towards the landward end and approximately 15m at the furthest point seaward. It is approximately 7m wide stepping out to 9m wide from the midway point to the lighthouse roundhead.
46. The North Pier is a critical element of coastal defence for the Durham coastal frontage and is a key coastal protection feature at Seaham acting as the main harbour wall facing the typical storm directions from the North Sea thus sustaining large wave attack. Without the pier Seaham and the shoreline to the south would be threatened by significant erosion as well as the loss of the flood defence. The pier provides safe harbour for vessels and continued operation of the harbour as a port.
47. The pier has gradually fallen into decline and is showing signs of progressive collapse having suffered severe storm damage with evidence of breaching in three discrete locations which appear to be equally spaced along the length of the pier. The breaches have been repaired by means of a combination of concrete blockwork, sandbagging and in-situ concrete. Some of the repair areas are showing signs of further distress including voiding, dislodged repair material and displaced blockwork.
48. The pier deck has been subject to a multitude of differing types of concrete repair many of which have since degraded and broken away exposing the previous underlying construction.
49. Should the pier fail, that failure could be total or alternatively a partial failure with further progressive failure depending upon the severity and length of the storm event and the number of subsequent tides. It has been estimated that the commercial and domestic assets situated along the coastal frontage defended by the the harbour and reliant on the trade generated by the dock could amount to a value in the order of £300m. This is a high level collective estimate based upon the value of utility assets, commercial buildings, domestic properties and highway infrastructure.
50. In summary Seaham North Pier is effectively ‘life expired’ and represents the single largest risk to the County Council. The economic impact of not maintaining the structure is significant as is the consequential economic benefit in terms of reduction in damages and/or coastal defence costs which would be derived from the repair/replacement of the structure.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
51. As identified in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the key consideration in the determination of a planning application is the development plan. Applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
52. The main considerations in regard to this application are the principle of the development, design, highways, residential amenity and protected speices.
Principle of development
53. In terms of the principle of the development the site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary for the town of Seaham and is situated within the existing harbour/marina development. Seaham is a larger town with a range of facilities and as such development of this nature would considered to be as within a sustainable
Page 194 location and would be supported in terms of national and local planning policy, in particular NPPF Part 1- general principles of development and Policies 9 and 35 of the local plan.
54. In addition as the works are predominantly repair works which would ensure the continued stability of the pier it is considered that the works are essential. Policy S28 of the District of Easington Local Plan adds further support for such works and encourages the use of the area for tourism and recreation purposes. Without the necessary repair works the pier would become unsafe and as such the application is ensuring that the pier and north dock area are secured for future generations.
Design and Impact upon historic setting
55. In respect of the proposed works it is considered that without them the pier would fail within the next 10 years and as such they are considered to be essential in this case. It has been acknowledged within the submitted EIA that due to the nature and scale of the works that there would be some short term impact upon views out of the Conservation Area and across the harbour and seascape. This negative impact should be balanced with the positive benefits of restoring the structure, ensuring it remains a feature of the area for the longer term.
56. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the NPPF Part 12 and policies 22 and 24 of the Easington Local Plan, by helping to retain the existing structure in the long terms and the works being of a sensitive nature to avoid any unnecessary impact upon the Conservation Area or other Heritage Assets.
57. A photographic and structural survey of the pier has already been undertaken as part of the advanced works associated with the scheme. This has provided a detailed overview of the North Pier structure in its present state and is considered adequate as a record of the structure as it currently stands.
58. The reuse of coping stones from the internal face to restore the outer face is vital to retain the visual appearance of the pier. However, new precast concrete copings that will be manufactured and used on the internal face would be in keeping with the structure to maintain the visual impact to users of the pier. As such it is considered that the concerns raised by the Design team would be very localised in there respect and would upon balance not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. A request was made to the applicant to use traditional stone for these copings however the cost implications where significant and would have put the scheme in jeopardy.
59. In relation to archaeology at the site whilst it is acknowledged that there were 25 recorded heritage assets and 77 shipwrecks within the study area associated with the application and its supporting documentation it is considered that due to the required works which in effect are on a ‘like to like’ basis it is considered that there would be no impact upon archaeology at the site.
Highways
60. In order to facilitate the development and allow construction traffic to safely enter the site a temporary access is proposed as part of the scheme. This would see construction traffic utilising the roundabout on the A182 to gain access to the pier. As part of the supporting documentation it has been identified that the bulk of the construction traffic and HGV entering the site will be utilising the A19 and then the A182 route from the south to the harbour area. In addition a Traffic management and access plan has been submitted as part of the application. Page 195
61. All of these combined come to offer assurances that the proposed development would have a temporary impact upon traffic in the area but that it can be suitably mitigated. As such the Highways Authority have confirmed that they raise no objection to the application and upon balance the small increase in vehicle movements around the site and surround roads is considered acceptable.
Residential amenity
62. The nearest residential properties to the site are Marquis Point which is located at the entrance to the Marina. These properties benefit from views across the marina and the beach to the east. In relation to the proposed works as previously advised these for the majority would be on a like for like basis and as such it is considered would have limited or very little impact upon the current levels of amenity enjoyed at the site. The issue in terms of impact upon residential amenity would be during the construction phase.
63. As part of the submitted EIA a detailed noise, air and vibration study was carried out. It was concluded that the noise levels would be under 65dba, as required, during construction works and with a further limitation upon noisy construction practises it is considered that the proposed works would have a limited impact upon the current levels of amenity. It is acknowledged that due to the nature of the site that works may have to be carried out outside of normal working hours due to the tides. Mitigation measures in respect of noise and vibration have been considered also in this respect which would further limit the developments impact.
64. In respect of increased movements to the site this again would only be during the construction period. The A182 in one of the main routes through Seaham Town centre and this this respect residential properties within this location are used to increased traffic levels compared to a normal residential estate road. As such it is considered that its edge of town centre location and the proposed Traffic management plan as submitted would ensure that disruption from vehicles would not be excessive compared to usual levels.
65. n relation to activities which current take place at the site such as angling, provisions have been made for the South Pier to be open during the works to ensure that there is a continuity of services at the site. In respect of the existing businesses in operation at the Marina it is recognised that proposed development will impact upon operations at their premises. However this is for a limited period and ultimately the scheme will have a positive effect on these receptors by providing for the repair and restoration of the pier.
Protected species
66. The application site is within close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The application site is partly within the Northumbria Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) which is a European site. The site is also listed as Northumbria Coast Ramsar site and also notified at a national level as Durham Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
67. This application is partly within the Durham Coast SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site Page 196 has been notified. Therefore it is considered that the proposed repair works would not adversely impact upon protected species at the site to such an extent as to warrant refusal of the application.
68. The Environment Agency have advised that they have no concerns in respect of the proposed works but advise that contractor should not inadvertently spread any invasive species during the works. An informative regarding the matter would be placed upon any approval at the site.
CONCLUSION
69. It is considered that the proposed works are urgently required in order to ensure that the pier does not fail and that existing operations at the site can continue in future years.
70. It is acknowledged that there may be a limited impact upon residential amenity during construction works, how these are for a limited time period and have been mitigated against wherever possible.
71. Protected species and the adjacent SSSI have been fully considered as part of the application and due to the nature of the proposed works and the proposed construction methods it is considered that the development can proceed.
72. Taking all relevant planning matters into account it is considered that the proposal is acceptable given that it accords with both national and local policy. It is not considered that the policies contained within the emerging County Durham Plan would conflict with the intentions of the existing local plan or the NPPF
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions;
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans. Scheme Drawings:
• Location Plan drawing 60216682/P00/000; • Site Plan drawing 60216682/P00/001 (2 No. sheets) • Construction Details drawing 60216682/P00/002-4 (3 No. Sheets); and • Existing and Proposed Elevations drawing 60216682/P00/005-7 (3 No. Sheets). • A Design, Access and Planning Statement (AECOM, 2014), including a Statement of Community Engagement • An Environmental Statement (ES) prepared by AECOM (February, 2014) in three volumes as follows: • Volume 1 Non-technical Summary; • Volume 2 Main Text; and • Volume 3 Figures and Appendices. • Air Quality Assessment Page 197 • Biodiversity Survey Report / Designated Sites and Habitats • Habitats Regulation Assessment • Geological Features Assessment • Heritage Statement • Land Contamination Assessment • Noise Assessment • Coal Mining Risk Assessment; • Flood Risk Statement • Lighting Assessment • Structural Survey • Construction Method Statement • Letter of No Impediment from Natural England dated December 2013.
Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with saved policies 1 & 35 of the Easington Local Plan.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
73. In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising during the application process.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
- Submitted Application Forms and Plans. - Design and Access Statement - Easington Local Plan 2001 - National Planning Policy Framework - Consultation Responses
Page 198
Proposed repair and restoration of Seaham North Pier including the replacement of the concrete deck, repair and repointing of Planning Services masonry walls, repair and replacement of concrete coping stones, works to repair three previously breached sections, and temporary access to the Pier off the A182 at North Pier, Seaham Harbour, Seaham This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005
Date. 8 July 14 . Scale 1:1,800 @A3
Page 199 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 200 Agenda Item 4f Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00464/WAS Change of use from quarry to recycling of road planings FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : and road base NAME OF APPLICANT : Aggregate Industries ADDRESS : Heights Quarry, Eastgate, Durham ELECTORAL DIVISION : Weardale Chris Shields, Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000261394 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
Site
1. Heights Quarry (site area of 35 ha) is an established carboniferous limestone site located between Westgate and Eastgate. It produces aggregate for use in construction projects. There are several properties within the vicinity of Heights Quarry. The closest, being Rosehill, lying some 500m to the south east of the permission boundary.
2. The site is located within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are no nature conservation designations within the site. There are three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) between 300m and 1km is 300m to the south, West Rigg Open Cutting SSSI some 435m to the west and Slit Woods SSSI 1km to the west. The North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Muggleswick, Stanhope & Edmundbyers Commons & Blanchland Moors SSSI and North Pennine Dales Meadows Special Area of Conservation and West Newlandside Meadows SSSI are over 2.2km from the quarry. .
3. The application site is an area of the existing worked out quarry floor within Heights Quarry covering an area of 2.05 hectares. This area has previously been occupied by a concrete products facility and is currently a flat area occupied by aggregate stockpiles of various grades. The application site is bordered by the main quarry face to the north, which wraps around at the west and east sides of the quarry, and by the restored overburden to the south, which also separates the extraction area from the coating plant.
Proposal
4. It is proposed to recycle up to 75,000 tonnes per annum of road planings and road base. Although the actual level is likely to be significantly less than this, the maximum figure has been provided to match the standard rules Environmental Permit. An Environmental Permit is required to allow the operator to store and sort waste material.
Page 201
5. The road planings and road base would be imported from road maintenance and construction projects supplied by the company. In many cases the vehicles delivering coated roadstone to the project would be able use their return journey to take the road planings or road base to the site to minimise vehicle movements. Road planings and road base would be stockpiled within the application area until a mass of 3 - 4000 tonnes has accumulated and at this point a mobile screen and crusher would be brought on to site to process the material into graded stockpiles of aggregate in the sizes <8mm, 10-20mm and 20mm+. None of the stockpiles would have a height exceeding 5 metres. The recycled road planings and road base can be incorporated into new coated roadstone at a ratio of 1:4 (20%) and so the stockpiles would be gradually used in this manner.
6. Due to the continued operation of the quarry it may not always be possible for the stockpiles of road planings and road base, and mobile plant to always be in the same place. The overall activity would typically not require an area of more than 1 hectare and therefore the application area of 2.05 hectares is intended to allow a degree of flexibility.
7. Importation of road planings and road base would largely take place during the day but would also be brought back at night if there was an overnight road resurfacing project being carried out. The mobile plant would have the capacity to process approximately 200 tonnes per hour and would be on site for 2-3 days at a time. The mobile plant would have its own environmental permit and would be operated within the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturday. If the recycling operation were to reach the 75,000 tonnes per annum then the mobile plant would be on site for approximately 50 days per year.
8. The access for the quarry is off the A689 road. It is proposed that the vehicle movements associated with the proposed development would utilise this access. There would be an average of 12 HVGVs per day, assuming that 50% of the imported material is backhauled.
9. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee because it represents a proposal for a major waste development.
PLANNING HISTORY
10. Planning permission for Heights Quarry was granted on 20 July 1963 under reference CA30209 which has been subject to review under the Environment Act 2003. The review of the planning permission was deemed as being approved on 28 March 2003. Mineral extraction is required to cease no later than 21 February 2042 and the site finally restored no later than 21 February 2043.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY : 11. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should 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. 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’. Page 202
12. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:
13. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies, since national waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. However, the NPPF requires local authorities preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in the NPPF so far as relevant.
14. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.
15. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land. Part 11 states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
16. NPPF Part 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals – paragraph 144 sets out the considerations in determining planning applications for minerals development. These include ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health, taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality, and providing through condition for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. Further advice is provided in the accompanying Technical Guidance of the NPPF.
17. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sets out the Government's policy to be taken into account by waste planning authorities and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK. PPS10 is still extant until it is replaced by national waste policy.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
County Durham Minerals Local Plan 2000
18. Policy M4 – Waste and recycled materials – encourages and supports the use of recycled and waste materials in place of newly won minerals. Page 203
19. Policy M5 – Construction/demolition waste recycling facilities – permits proposals to develop construction and demolition wastes at active quarries and landfill sites for a temporary period not exceeding the life of the site of the quarry or landfill site provided that: any existing adverse impacts on the environment or local community are not significantly increased; the operation or restoration of the site is not prejudiced or significantly delayed.
20. Policy M46– Restoration conditions– provide advice in relation to proposals for the after use of mineral sites. The Policies` states that conditions will be imposed, and planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover the matters necessary to ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site.
County Durham Waste Local Plan 2005
21. Policy W2 – Need – requires the demonstration of need for a particular development which cannot be met by an alternative solution higher up the waste hierarchy.
22. Policy W3 – Environmental Protection – states that proposals for new development will be required to demonstrate that the natural and built environment and the living conditions of local communities will be protected and where possible enhanced.
23. Policy W4 – Location of waste management facilities – states that proposals for new waste management facilities will be determined having regard to protection of the environment and local amenity, traffic impacts, opportunities to integrate with other facilities or developments which will benefit from the recovery of materials and to extend or develop existing waste management facilities.
24. Policy W7 – Landscape - concerns the character of the landscape and requires the waste planning authority to have regard to the potential of developments to restore or enhance landscape character. PPS10 paragraph 36 also requires waste facilities to be well designed and contribute positively to their surroundings.
25. Policy W8 – North Pennines AONB – states that proposals for waste development in or adjacent to the North Pennines AONB will be subject to the most rigorous examination.
26. Policy W29 – Modes of transport – requires that waste development incorporate measures to minimise transportation of waste.
27. Policy W31 – Environmental impact of road traffic – states that waste development will only be permitted if traffic estimated to be generated by the development can be accommodated safely on the highway network, the amenity of roadside communities is protected, the strategic highway network can be safely and conveniently accessed and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.
28. Policy W32 – Planning obligations for controlling environmental impact – states that in granting planning permission for waste development, planning conditions be imposed to cover, in addition to other issues, the prevention of the transfer of mud, dust, or litter onto the public highway by measures including the provision of wheel cleaning facilities, suitably metalled access roads and the sheeting of laden vehicles.
Page 204 29. Policy W33 – Protecting local amenity – requires that suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into proposals to ensure that any harmful impacts from noise, odour, litter, vermin, birds, dust, mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport and subsidence and landslip are kept to an acceptable level.
30. Policy W39 – Waste recycling – states that proposals for the recovery and recycling of inert waste materials, including construction and demolition waste, will be permitted, provided that they can be satisfactorily located at existing waste transfer stations, on land identified for general industrial use or on previously developed land in sustainable locations.
EMERGING POLICY:
31. 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. To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
32. Policy 52 – Sustainable Minerals and Waste Resource Management - states that the Council will promote, encourage and facilitate wherever possible the efficient use of minerals and waste and the development of a sustainable resource economy in County Durham by: a. Managing waste in line with the Waste Hierachy and encouraging the prevention, recycling or use of waste as a resource. Proposals which would help to prepare waste for re-use will be supported where they are acceptable in all other respects. b. Requiring all new built development proposals to use mineral resources as efficiently as possible; to reduce, re-use and recover the waste they produce during construction and demolition through on site re-use recycling or by processing at other aggregate recycling facilities; and to maximise the use of recycled and secondary materials within the development in place of primary aggregates. e. Permitting proposals for aggregate recycling facilities which help maintain and expand the Countys existing network of aggregate recycling facilities including at locations suitable for permanent waste management facilties and at active quarries and landfill sites (provided they are for a temporary period not exceeding the permitted life of the quarry or landfill site) and provided that the operation or restoration of the site is not prejudiced or significantly delayed and the overall proposal remains acceptable and does not have a unacceptable adverse impact on both the environment and amenity of local communities.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
33. Environment Agency – has raised no objections to the proposed development but has stated that the applicant would require either a Standard Rules Permit or a Bespoke Permit.
34. County Highways Authority – has raised no objections to the proposal.
Page 205
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
35. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – has raised no objections to the proposal noting that additional vehicle movements and crushing activities should not affect the existing noise climate. It is stated that dust emissions would be controlled through Environmental Permitting Regulations and there may be a requirement to vary the existing Environmental Permit for quarrying and roadstone coating processes. Officers have also recommended two informatives in relation to environmental permitting for the coating processes and mobile crusher.
36. Ecology – has raised no objections and stated that a Habitat Regulations Assessment is not required to determine the application.
37. AONB Partnership – advises that as the application relates to essentially similar activity to that at present and does not alter the nature of landscape impact or times of operation, it has no objection.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
38. The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. No representations have been received.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
39. Aggregate Industries UK Ltd is seeking to increase the use of recycled materials in their coated roadstone products as part of overall proposals to increase the sustainability of the company’s operations and minimise the use of primary aggregate
40. There are existing asphalt plants at Heights and Hulands Quarries. In order to increase the use of recycled materials in the plants Aggregate Industries would like to establish a low key recycling operation for road planings and road base adjacent to the asphalt plants. This development would provide a number of benefits:-
• It would increase recycling and reduce the dependence on primary aggregates. Up to 20% of the throughput of the asphalt plant could be recycled materials; • The project represents a logical and sustainable extension to the activities already carried out at the site; • Lorries delivering material from the quarries could return with a load of excavated road material for recycling thereby minimising vehicle movements; • The recycling operation would be sited within an existing quarry, in an area that is already disturbed by existing quarry operations; • The proposed site is located on the quarry floor in a well screened location and would barely be visible from outside of the quarry; • The crushing and screening operations would only take place during limited daytime hours and for around 25 days per annum; • Both sites benefit from direct access to the main highway network; • The developments would help maintain the competitive advantage of the existing quarries; • The sites are remote from residential receptors. At Heights Quarry the closest property is 800m from the site, and at Hulands Quarry the closest property is over 150m from the proposed recycling operation. In both cases the properties are screened by the quarry rim;
Page 206 • The development is consistent with national policy and the development plan. The Draft County Durham Local Plan identifies Heights and Hulands Quarries as ‘Safeguarded Mineral Sites and Infrastructure’. Heights Quarry is also allocated as a strategic minerals allocation. Policy M5 of the Mineral Plan provides active support for the establishment of recycling operations at existing active quarries.
41. Overall the developments would enable the recycling of aggregates within existing approved and safeguarded quarries that are well screened and remote from sensitive receptors. The development is consistent with national and local policy. Bearing in mind the presumption in favour of sustainable development we would urge you to approve the applications.
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, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology and the restoration of the site.
Principle of the development
43. The Government announced in Waste Strategy 2007 that it was considering, in conjunction with the construction industry, a target to halve the amount of construction, demolition and excavation wastes going to landfill by 2012, as a result of waste reduction, re-use and recycling. Final targets were set out in the Strategy for Sustainable Construction (BERR, 2008), and include: by 2012 a 50% reduction of construction, demolition and excavation waste to landfill compared to 2008; and by 2009 setting an overall target of diversion of demolition waste to landfill. The Government in June 2011 published its Waste Policy Review. The Policy Review notes that the existing halving waste to landfill commitment is on track to meet its 2012 target and highlights that the Waste Framework Directive target is to recovery at least 70% of construction and demolition waste by 2020. The Policy Review acknowledges that there will be some wastes for which landfill remains the best or least worst option which are likely to include some inert materials and wastes to restore quarries and mineral workings .
44. The Government’s policy direction with the Waste Hierarchy is clear that preparation for re-use and recycling should come before final disposal of waste. This is reflected in County Durham Waste Local Plan (WLP) Policy W2, County Durham Mineral Local Plan (MLP) Policies M4 and M5, and emerging County Durham Plan Policy 52 and the supporting text, which require developments to demonstrate an established need for the facility and to show that they would make a contribution to the County’s sustainable waste strategy and achieve overall environmental benefits, and move waste up the Waste Hierarchy.
45. The proposed recycling area would occupy a relatively small area within the existing quarry. The change of use would allow waste material to be processed and re-used as a secondary aggregate for construction projects in accordance with the waste hierarchy and would avoid the material being sent landfill for disposal. The impact of the proposed operation on lorry movements is unlikely to be significant given the small scale of operations proposed and the likelihood that wastes will be brought as "backloads" in lorries already visiting to load up with aggregate. The proposal would not impact upon the restoration of the site and a condition would be imposed to ensure
Page 207 that operations cease in line with the cessation of quarrying. The principle of the development is therefore considered to meet the objectives of National and Local Policy and specifically meets the criteria set out in WLP Policies W2 and W4.
Landscape and visual impact
46. The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) shows the site as lying within the North Pennines County Character Area which forms part of the larger North Pennines National Character Area. It lies in an area belonging to the Moorland Ridges and Summits Broad Landscape Type in the Stanhope Common and Cow Green Broad Character Area. The site is located within the North Pennines AONB.
47. Heights Quarry is located high on the north ridge of the Wear valley above steep pasture slopes. The site is not visible from the A689 due to the slope and contours of the hillside and views of the site from the south ridge and flank of the Wear valley are screened by tree planting and the restored area on the southern side of the quarry. The proposed waste recycling area would be located at a low elevation on the floor of the quarry and would be fully screened from view by the quarry faces. The overall effect on the character of the local landscape would be negligible; similarly the effects of the proposal on the special qualities of the AONB would be no greater than the existing quarrying operation. The AONB Partnership does not object to the proposal. It is therefore considered that the proposed recycling activity would not have a significant impact upon the landscape or visual amenity of the area in accordance with WLP Policies W8 and W33 and Part 11 of the NPPF.
Residential Amenity
48. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed development are Rosehill 850 metres to the south east of the site, Old Park House 950 metres to the south of the site and Park House 1100 metres to the south of the site. The current conditions for the quarry in terms of general noise and dust require all plant, machinery and vehicles used to be effectively silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations and best practical means being employed to ensure that all operations carried out on the site do not give rise to undue dust or wind-blown material being carried onto adjacent properties.
49. The proposed recycling operation would involve the use of a mobile crusher and screen to process and sort waste material, which has the potential to generate noise and dust. Noise and dust conditions would be imposed for this development in order to ensure alignment with the current site planning permission. Notwithstanding this, the proposed mobile plant would only be used intermittently and would be covered by an Environmental Permit and would be well contained with the base of the quarry. The Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Team has assessed the application and consider that due to the site being used as a quarry and coating plant the additional activities would not affect the noise climate of the area. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to only crush and screen the road planings and road base between the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon residential amenity in accordance with WLP Policy W33.
Highway Safety
50. The current conditions for the quarry do not restrict vehicle movement numbers. It has been suggested by the applicant that the quarry currently generates approximately 150 lorry movements per day based on an annual output of 400,000tpa.
Page 208 51. The proposed development would result in an additional 12 vehicle movements (6 in and 6 out) per day, representing a very minor increase when measured against the currently daily average for the quarry. This would be achieved by backhauling approximately 50% of the material on lorries that were already destined for the site, thus minimising the transportation of waste. The recycling operation would be limited by the Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency to 75,000 tonnes per annum as a result it is not considered necessary to impose a condition controlling vehicle movements associated with the proposed development.
52. There have been complaints in the past from night time vehicle movements to and from the site and it is therefore considered necessary to apply a degree of control to any activity which may exacerbate this issue. It is therefore considered that a condition restricting the delivery of road base and road planings to the site to be only be by backhaul during night time hours would be reasonable as this would limit vehicles travelling to the site to those that would be making the journey anyway. Therefore it is not considered that there would be significant transport implications as a result of the proposal. The traffic generated by the proposal would be safely accommodated on the A689 road which is easily accessible from the site. It is considered that the impact of the traffic generated would be acceptable with no adverse impacts upon local amenity. The Highways Authority has raised no objections to the proposal and it is considered that it would accord with WLP Policies W29 and W31.
Ecology
53. The application site is not located within any ecological designations but the North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Muggleswick, Stanhope & Edmundbyers Commons & Blanchland Moors SSSI and the North Pennine Dales Meadows Special Area of Conservation and West Newlandside Meadows SSSI are within 4km of the site. West Rigg Open Cutting,Slit Woods SSSI and Westernhope Burn Wood SSSI’s are within 1km of the site.
54. The proposed recycling activity would not constitute a significantly different or more intense use than what is currently carried out at the site and would therefore not have a greater impact upon the surrounding ecological designations. Due to the currently disturbed nature of the site, and proposed location for storage/processing of road planings, the likely risk of impact on protected or priority species is likely to be low. The likely risk of any of the qualifying species of the SPA (North Pennine Moors) being present/impacted on by the proposals is also minimal due to current levels of disturbance, lack of suitable breeding/foraging habitat on the quarry floor (location of proposal), and no likely increase in overall noise levels by the proposals. It is the Ecology officer’s view that a Habitats Regulations Assessment is not required. It is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon biodiversity in accordance with Part 11 of the NPPF.
Restoration
55. The approved restoration plan for Heights Quarry is for partially exposed faces with graded slopes to the quarry, ponded/wetland area in the north east corner and agricultural land to south. The proposed development would occupy an area of the quarry that would eventually require restoring in accordance with the approved restoration plan. It is therefore recommended that the proposed development have a time limit condition to ensure that it does not impede the restoration of the site in accordance with MLP Policy M46
Page 209 CONCLUSION
56. The recycling proposal for incoming inert waste lies within an existing quarry working and is itself distant from residential properties. Development Plan policies and Government policy, which seeks to concentrate on waste as a valuable resource and its disposal to landfill only as a last resort, are generally supportive of proposals that help to recycle waste. The proposal represents an opportunity to produce useful secondary aggregate in the context of an existing quarry without additional visual impact or significantly increasing the scale of operations.
57. Due consideration has been made in relation to the sites location within the North Pennines AONB and it is not considered that there would be a significant impact upon the scenic beauty of this area. Given the distance from residential properties and the current permitted activities the additional impact of the proposal upon residential amenity would be minimal. Any environmental impacts in terms of noise and dust these can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions.
58. The proposed development is considered to broadly accord with the relevant policies of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan and County Durham Waste Local Plan, meets the aims of national planning guidance contained within the relevant sections of the NPPF and would be consistent with the direction of the emerging County Durham Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions;
1. The development hereby approved must be begun no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Site Ownership Plan Application Boundary Plan Drawing No. HER2/2 ‘Application Drawing’ Drawing No. HER2/3 ‘Site Layout’
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents.
3. The recycling operation hereby approved must be discontinued upon cessation of quarrying or by 21 February 2042, whichever is the earlier, the associated equipment removed, and the area of land used for the development restored in accordance with the restoration requirements of Planning Permission No. CA30209 as Reviewed (Durham County Council Reference MRA/3/1 or subsequently approved planning permission relating to Heights Quarry.
Page 210 Reason: To ensure that site is properly restored (County Durham Minerals Local Plan Policy M46)
4. No crushing or screening of road planings or road base shall occur outside the hours of: • 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday • 07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays No operations shall occur at any time on Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33).
5. All plant, machinery and vehicles used on site shall be effectively silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations so as to minimise the level of noise generated by their operation.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33).
6. Measures shall be employed to ensure that all operations carried out on the site do not give rise to ensure dust or wind blown material being carried onto adjacent property.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33).
7. Stockpiles of imported road base and road planings and subsequently processed material shall not exceed 5 metres in height.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W7).
8. During the hours of 7pm to 7am , there shall be no deliveries of road planings and/or road base except by ‘backhaul’ delivery i.e. the delivery vehicle must exit the site laden with material.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33).
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
Page 211 BACKGROUND PAPERS
° Submitted application form, plans and supporting information ° National Planning Policy Framework ° Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) ° County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) ° County Durham Minerals Local Plan (2000) ° Statutory, internal and public consultation responses
Page 212
DM/14/00464/WAS Proposed change of use from quarry to area for recycling of road planings and road base Planning Services at Heights Quarry, Eastgate, Durham This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date July 2014 Scale Not to scale
Page 213 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 214 Agenda Item 4g Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00465/WAS Change of use from quarry to recycling of road planings FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : and road base NAME OF APPLICANT : Aggregate Industries ADDRESS : Hulands Quarry, nr Bowes, Durham ELECTORAL DIVISION : Barnard Castle West Chris Shields, Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000261394 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
Site
1. Hulands Quarry is an established carboniferous limestone quarry (site area of 52.9 Ha) situated between roads A66(T) and A67, 2 km to the east of Bowes and 4 km to the south west of Barnard Castle. It is a regionally important producer of coated roadstone, single sized and blended aggregates, agricultural lime and rock armour.
2. There are several isolated properties close by the quarry. Two farms to the east and south of the proposed extension area are owned by Aggregate Industries (Northside West and Bowes Cross Farm). A further property, Northside East lies to the east and two properties (Hulands Farm and High Broats Farm) are located to the north west and west of the existing quarry.
3. The application site is an area of the existing worked out quarry floor within Hulands Quarry covering an area of 2.2 hectares. This area is currently occupied by aggregate stockpiles of various grades. The application site is screened by the quarry faces on all sides.
Proposal
4. It is proposed to recycle up to 75,000 tonnes per annum of road planings and road base. Although the actual level is likely to be significantly less than this, the maximum figure has been provided to match the standard rules Environmental Permit. An Environmental Permit is required to allow the operator to store and sort waste material.
5. The road planings and road base would be imported from road maintenance and construction projects supplied by the company. In many cases the vehicles delivering coated roadstone to the project would be able use their return journey to take the road planings or road base to the site to minimise vehicle movements. Road planings and road base would be stockpiled within the application area until a mass of 3 - 4000 tonnes has accumulated and at this point a mobile screen and crusher would be
Page 215 brought on to site to process the material into graded stockpiles of aggregate in the sizes <8mm, 10-20mm and 20mm+. None of the stockpiles would have a height exceeding 5 metres. The recycled road planings and road base can be incorporated into new coated roadstone at a ratio of 1:4 (20%) and so the stockpiles would be gradually used in this manner.
6. Due to the continued operation of the quarry it may not always be possible for the stockpiles of road planings and road base, and mobile plant to always be in the same place. The overall activity would typically not require an area of more than 1 hectare and therefore the application area of 2.2 hectares is intended to allow a degree of flexibility.
7. Importation of road planings and road base would largely take place during the day but would also be brought back at night if there was an overnight road resurfacing project being carried out. The mobile plant would have the capacity to process approximately 200 tonnes per hour and would be on site for 2-3 days at a time. The mobile plant would have its own environmental permit and would be operated within the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturday. If the recycling operation were to reach the 75,000 tonnes per annum then the mobile plant would be on site for approximately 50 days per year.
8. The access for the quarry is off the A689 road. It is proposed that the vehicle movements associated with the proposed development would utilise this access. There would be an average of 12 HVGVs per day, assuming that 50% of the imported material is backhauled.
9. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee because it represents a proposal for a major waste development.
PLANNING HISTORY
10. Limestone extraction at the site dates from the 1850’s. Planning permission was first granted for its continued use as a quarry by the North Riding of Yorkshire Joint Planning Board Scheme in 1947. In March 1991 planning permission was granted for various alterations to the quarry’s infrastructure, including provision of a coated roadstone plant, concrete batching and screening and crushing plant. In 1998 an extension to the existing quarry and infill with inert waste was granted planning permission with an accompanying Section 106 Agreement. Elements of this scheme modified the restoration proposals and removal of the waste importation.
11. Planning permission was granted in 2009 for an eastern extension to Hulands Quarry and consolidation of the previous planning permissions (6/90/341CM and 6/96/199CM) with quarrying due to cease in September 2024 and final restoration due 18 months following cessation of operations.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY :
12. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should 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. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in Page 216 the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
13. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:
14. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies, since national waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. However, the NPPF requires local authorities preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in the NPPF so far as relevant.
15. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.
16. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land. Part 11 states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes.
17. NPPF Part 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals – paragraph 144 sets out the considerations in determining planning applications for minerals development. These include ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health, taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality, and providing through condition for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. Further advice is provided in the accompanying Technical Guidance of the NPPF.
18. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sets out the Government's policy to be taken into account by waste planning authorities and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK. PPS10 is still extant until it is replaced by national waste policy.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
County Durham Minerals Local Plan (2000)
19. Policy M4 – Waste and recycled materials – encourages and supports the use of recycled and waste materials in place of newly won minerals.
Page 217 20. Policy M5 – Construction/demolition waste recycling facilities – permits proposals to develop construction and demolition wastes at active quarries and landfill sites for a temporary period not exceeding the life of the site of the quarry or landfill site provided that: any existing adverse impacts on the environment or local community are not significantly increased; the operation or restoration of the site is not prejudiced or significantly delayed.
21. Policy M46– Restoration conditions– provide advice in relation to proposals for the after use of mineral sites. The Policies` states that conditions will be imposed, and planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover the matters necessary to ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site.
County Durham Waste Local Plan 2005
22. Policy W2 – Need – requires the demonstration of need for a particular development which cannot be met by an alternative solution higher up the waste hierarchy.
23. Policy W3 – Environmental Protection – states that proposals for new development will be required to demonstrate that the natural and built environment and the living conditions of local communities will be protected and where possible enhanced.
24. Policy W4 – Location of waste management facilities – states that proposals for new waste management facilities will be determined having regard to protection of the environment and local amenity, traffic impacts, opportunities to integrate with other facilities or developments which will benefit from the recovery of materials and to extend or develop existing waste management facilities.
25. Policy W7 – Landscape - concerns the character of the landscape and requires the waste planning authority to have regard to the potential of developments to restore or enhance landscape character. PPS10 paragraph 36 also requires waste facilities to be well designed and contribute positively to their surroundings.
26. Policy W29 – Modes of transport – requires that waste development incorporate measures to minimise transportation of waste.
27. Policy W31 – Environmental impact of road traffic – states that waste development will only be permitted if traffic estimated to be generated by the development can be accommodated safely on the highway network, the amenity of roadside communities is protected, the strategic highway network can be safely and conveniently accessed and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.
28. Policy W32 – Planning obligations for controlling environmental impact – states that in granting planning permission for waste development, planning conditions be imposed to cover, in addition to other issues, the prevention of the transfer of mud, dust, or litter onto the public highway by measures including the provision of wheel cleaning facilities, suitably metalled access roads and the sheeting of laden vehicles.
29. Policy W33 – Protecting local amenity – requires that suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into proposals to ensure that any harmful impacts from noise, odour, litter, vermin, birds, dust, mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport and subsidence and landslip are kept to an acceptable level.
30. Policy W39 – Waste recycling – states that proposals for the recovery and recycling of inert waste materials, including construction and demolition waste, will be permitted, provided that they can be satisfactorily located at existing waste transfer stations, on Page 218 land identified for general industrial use or on previously developed land in sustainable locations.
EMERGING POLICY:
31. 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. To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
32. Policy 52 – Sustainable Minerals and Waste Resource Management - states that the Council will promote, encourage and facilitate wherever possible the efficient use of minerals and waste and the development of a sustainable resource economy in County Durham by: a. Managing waste in line with the Waste Hierachy and encouraging the prevention, recycling or use of waste as a resource. Proposals which would help to prepare waste for re-use will be supported where they are acceptable in all other respects. b. Requiring all new built development proposals to use mineral resources as efficiently as possible; to reduce, re-use and recover the waste they produce during construction and demolition through on site re-use recycling or by processing at other aggregate recycling facilities; and to maximise the use of recycled and secondary materials within the development in place of primary aggregates. e. Permitting proposals for aggregate recycling facilities which help maintain and expand the Countys existing network of aggregate recycling facilities including at locations suitable for permanent waste management facilties and at active quarries and landfill sites (provided they are for a temporary period not exceeding the permitted life of the quarry or landfill site) and provided that the operation or restoration of the site is not prejudiced or significantly delayed and the overall proposal remains acceptable and does not have a unacceptable adverse impact on both the environment and amenity of local communities.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
33. Environment Agency – has raised no objections to the proposed development but has stated that the applicant would require either a Standard Rules Permit or a Bespoke Permit.
34. County Highways Authority – has raised no objections to the proposal.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
35. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – has raised no objections to the proposal noting that additional vehicle movements and crushing activities should not affect the existing noise climate. It is stated that dust emissions would be controlled through Environmental Permitting Regulations and there may be a requirement to vary the existing Environmental Permit for quarrying and roadstone coating processes.
Page 219 Officers have also recommended two informatives in relation to environmental permitting for the coating processes and mobile crusher.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
36. The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. No representations have been received.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
37. Aggregate Industries UK Ltd is seeking to increase the use of recycled materials in their coated roadstone products as part of overall proposals to increase the sustainability of the company’s operations and minimise the use of primary aggregate
38. There are existing asphalt plants at Heights and Hulands Quarries. In order to increase the use of recycled materials in the plants Aggregate Industries would like to establish a low key recycling operation for road planings and road base adjacent to the asphalt plants. This development would provide a number of benefits:-
• It would increase recycling and reduce the dependence on primary aggregates. Up to 20% of the throughput of the asphalt plant could be recycled materials; • The project represents a logical and sustainable extension to the activities already carried out at the site; • Lorries delivering material from the quarries could return with a load of excavated road material for recycling thereby minimising vehicle movements; • The recycling operation would be sited within an existing quarry, in an area that is already disturbed by existing quarry operations; • The proposed site is located on the quarry floor in a well screened location and would barely be visible from outside of the quarry; • The crushing and screening operations would only take place during limited daytime hours and for around 25 days per annum; • Both sites benefit from direct access to the main highway network; • The developments would help maintain the competitive advantage of the existing quarries; • The sites are remote from residential receptors. At Heights Quarry the closest property is 800m from the site, and at Hulands Quarry the closest property is over 150m from the proposed recycling operation. In both cases the properties are screened by the quarry rim; • The development is consistent with national policy and the development plan. The Draft County Durham Local Plan identifies Heights and Hulands Quarries as ‘Safeguarded Mineral Sites and Infrastructure’. Heights Quarry is also allocated as a strategic minerals allocation. Policy M5 of the Mineral Plan provides active support for the establishment of recycling operations at existing active quarries.
39. Overall the developments would enable the recycling of aggregates within existing approved and safeguarded quarries that are well screened and remote from sensitive receptors. The development is consistent with national and local policy. Bearing in mind the presumption in favour of sustainable development we would urge you to approve the applications.
Page 220 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
40. 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, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity, highway safety and the restoration of the site.
Principle of the development
41. The Government announced in Waste Strategy 2007 that it was considering, in conjunction with the construction industry, a target to halve the amount of construction, demolition and excavation wastes going to landfill by 2012, as a result of waste reduction, re-use and recycling. Final targets were set out in the Strategy for Sustainable Construction (BERR, 2008), and include: by 2012 a 50% reduction of construction, demolition and excavation waste to landfill compared to 2008; and by 2009 setting an overall target of diversion of demolition waste to landfill. The Government in June 2011 published its Waste Policy Review. The Policy Review notes that the existing halving waste to landfill commitment is on track to meet its 2012 target and highlights that the Waste Framework Directive target is to recovery at least 70% of construction and demolition waste by 2020. The Policy Review acknowledges that there will be some wastes for which landfill remains the best or least worst option which are likely to include some inert materials and wastes to restore quarries and mineral workings .
42. The Government’s policy direction with the Waste Hierarchy is clear that preparation for re-use and recycling should come before final disposal of waste. This is reflected in County Durham Waste Local Plan (WLP) Policy W2, County Durham Mineral Local Plan (MLP) Policies M4 and M5, and emerging County Durham Plan Policy 52 and the supporting text, which require developments to demonstrate an established need for the facility and to show that they would make a contribution to the County’s sustainable waste strategy and achieve overall environmental benefits, and move waste up the Waste Hierarchy.
43. The proposed recycling area would occupy a relatively small area within the existing quarry. The change of use would allow waste material to be processed and re-used as a secondary aggregate for construction projects in accordance with the waste hierarchy and would avoid the material being sent landfill for disposal. The impact of the proposed operation on lorry movements is unlikely to be significant given the small scale of operations proposed and the likelihood that wastes will be brought as "backloads" in lorries already visiting to load up with aggregate. The proposal would not impact upon the restoration of the site and a condition would be imposed to ensure that operations cease in line with the cessation of quarrying. The principle of the development is therefore considered to meet the objectives of National and Local Policy and specifically meets the criteria set out in WLP Policies W2 and W4.
Landscape and visual impact
44. The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) shows the site as lying within the Dales Fringe County Character Area which forms part of the larger Pennine Dales Fringe National Character Area. It lies in an area belonging to the Gritstone Upland Fringe Broad Landscape Type in the Bowes Broad Character Area.
Page 221 45. Hulands Quarry is located on an area of undulating pasture land between the A66 road and A67 road. The site is not visible from the A66, save for the site entrance, due to the topography and is only partially visible from the A67. The proposed waste recycling area would be located at a low elevation on the floor of the quarry and would be fully screened from view by the quarry faces. The overall effect on the character of the local landscape would be negligible. It is therefore considered that the proposed recycling activity would not have a significant impact upon the landscape or visual amenity of the area in accordance with WLP Policy W33.
Residential Amenity
46. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed development are Hulands Farm 225 metres to the north west of the site, High Groats Farm 360 metres to the west of the site and Park House 1.1km to the south of the site. The current conditions for the quarry in terms of general noise and dust require all plant, machinery and vehicles used to be effectively silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations and best practical means being employed to ensure that all operations carried out on the site do not give rise to undue dust or wind-blown material being carried onto adjacent properties.
47. The proposed recycling operation would involve the use of a mobile crusher and screen to process and sort waste material, which has the potential to generate noise and dust. Noise and dust conditions would be imposed for this development in order to ensure alignment with the current site planning permission. Notwithstanding this, the proposed mobile plant would only be used intermittently and would be covered by an Environmental Permit and would be well contained with the base of the quarry. The Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Team has assessed the application and consider that due to the site being used as a quarry and coating plant the additional activities would not affect the noise climate of the area. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to only crush and screen the road planings and road base between the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon residential amenity in accordance with WLP Policy W33. .
Highway Safety
48. The current conditions for the quarry do not restrict vehicle movement numbers. It has been suggested by the applicant that the quarry currently generates approximately 110 lorry movements per day based on an annual output of 300,000tpa. The proposed development would result in an additional 12 vehicle movements (6 in and 6 out) per day, representing a very minor increase when measured against the currently daily average for the quarry. This is achieved by backhauling approximately 50% of the material on lorries that were already destined for the site, thus minimising the transportation of waste. It is not considered that there would be significant transport implications as a result of the proposal. The traffic generated by the proposal would be safely accommodated on the A66 road which is easily accessible from the site. It is considered that the impact of the traffic generated would be acceptable with no adverse impacts upon local amenity. The recycling operation would be limited by the Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency to 75,000 tonnes per annum as a result it is not considered necessary to impose a condition controlling vehicle movements associated with the proposed development. The Highways Authority has raised no objections to the proposal and it is considered that the proposal would accord with WLP Policies W29 and W31.
Page 222 Ecology
49. The site is not located within any ecological designations but there are records of Great Crested Newts in the ponds 180 metres to the north of the application area. However, Ecology officers consider that due to the current disturbance levels on site, together with a lack of suitable habitat, and the scale of the quarry face, the likely risk of disturbance to the species is negligible.
Restoration
50. The approved restoration plan for Hulands Quarry is for wildlife conservation, agriculture and forestry with associated land management. The proposed development would occupy an area of the quarry that would eventually require restoring in accordance with the approved restoration plan. It is therefore recommended that the proposed development have a time limit condition to ensure that it does not impede the restoration of the site in accordance with MLP Policy M46.
CONCLUSION
51. The recycling proposal for incoming inert waste lies within an existing quarry working and is itself distant from residential properties. Development Plan policies and Government policy, which seeks to concentrate on waste as a valuable resource and its disposal to landfill only as a last resort, are generally supportive of proposals that help to recycle waste. The proposal represents an opportunity to produce useful secondary aggregate in the context of an existing quarry without additional visual impact or significantly increasing the scale of operations.
52. Given the distance from residential properties and the current permitted activities the additional impact of the proposal upon residential amenity would be minimal. Any environmental impacts in terms of noise and dust these can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions.
53. The proposed development is considered to broadly accord with the relevant policies of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan and County Durham Waste Local Plan, meets the aims of national planning guidance contained within the relevant sections of the NPPF and would be consistent with the direction of the emerging County Durham Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions;
1. The development hereby approved must be begun no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Page 223 Site Ownership Plan Application Boundary Plan Drawing No. HUR2/2 ‘Application Drawing’ Drawing No. HUR2/3 ‘Site Layout’
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents.
3. The recycling operation hereby approved must be discontinued upon cessation of quarrying or by 14 September 2024, whichever is the earlier, the associated equipment removed, and the area of land used for the development restored in accordance with the restoration requirements of Planning Permission No. CMA/6/36 or subsequently approved planning permission relating to Hulands Quarry.
Reason: To ensure that site is properly restored (County Durham Minerals Local Plan Policy M46)
4. No crushing or screening of road planings or road base shall occur outside the hours of: • 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday • 07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays No operations shall occur at any time on Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33).
5. The noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dB(A) Leq (1hour) (free field) Daytime 0700 – 1900 hours as measured at noise sensitive properties identified in the Noise Monitoring Scheme agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 3(a) of Planning Permission CMA/6/36.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33).
6. The Dust Action Plan agreed in accordance with Condition 3(b) of Planning Permission CMA/6/36 shall be adhered to at all times. The dust control equipment installed shall be used at all times to suppress dust on the site arising from all operations including vehicular movements. At such times when the equipment provided and the provisions in the Dust Action Plan are not sufficient to suppress dust arising from the site, operations shall cease until additional equipment is provided and found to be adequate
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33).
7. Stockpiles of imported road base and road planings and subsequently processed material shall not exceed 5 metres in height.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W7).
Page 224
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
° Submitted application form, plans and supporting information ° National Planning Policy Framework ° Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) ° County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) ° County Durham Minerals Local Plan (2000) ° Statutory, internal and public consultation responses
Page 225
DM/14/00465/WAS Proposed change of use from quarry to area for recycling of road planings and road base Planning Services at Hulands Quarry, Bowes, Durham This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date July 2014 Scale Not to scale
Page 226