Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: 1/2010/0348 Residential Development to provide five dwellings FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : (Resubmission) NAME OF APPLICANT : Mr T McGiven Land to the north of 8-10 Watergate Road ADDRESS : Castleside ELECTORAL DIVISION : Lanchester Steve France Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : Telephone: 0191 3872263 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site comprises a privately owned unmaintained triangle of rough grassland to the rear (southwest) of Castleside Working Mens Club (WMC). The Club faces onto Rowley Bank, the main A68, as it passes through Castleside. The Club consists at the front of a traditional single storey stone built element, with slate roof, attached to a two-storey dwelling of similar construction. The rear part of the club is a high single storey flat-roofed, brick built building encompassing the main function rooms. Large windows take advantage of the expansive views of the countryside to the south-west.

2. The application site is accessed from the main road through the Club car park, which runs alongside and to the rear of behind the building – the car park extending around 18m from the rear of the main single storey element. Existing private garages are accessed from the club car-park at either end. The application site, triangular in shape, is otherwise enclosed on it’s three sides by residential properties, which back onto the site. The site, approximately 0.7 acres in area, falls steeply from the car-park north-east to an apex at the south-west. There is a small gap between the residential properties on the southern boundary of the site, where an electrical sub-station within a small compound is sited. Boundaries consist of a post and rail fence towards the north east of the site, a mixture of fencing and hedging forming the boundary with properties to the south and a low stone wall forming the boundary with properties on Church Street.

3. To the south of the site are the rear gardens of mainly two storey detached brick properties facing onto Watergate Road, these including a two-storey dwelling with a garage beneath taking advantage of the topography, and a bungalow with a similar parking arrangement. The dwellings in Watergate Road are a mix of post- war buildings. These modern properties extend around the corner onto Church Street. To the west of the site are the 1 ½ - 2 storey small, traditional stone terraced properties fronting Church Street. The gardens of these properties are an extension of the lower slopes below the site, with the rear accesses into the dwellings cut into the slope, the gardens therefore at a higher level, terraced by retaining walls. A larger two storey property is sited at the north-west corner of the site, with rendered and stone terraced properties facing the A68 on Rowley Bank, below the club. In between these properties and the site are the aforementioned detached garages, accessed through the club car park. With a similar arrangement to the east of the site behind semi-detached properties located on Watergate Road, at the edge of the club car park.

4. The site is visible in long distance views of Castleside from , to the south-west, but short distance views are restricted in aspect to those properties surrounding the land.

The Proposal

5. Detailed planning permission is sought for the erection of five bungalows, consisting of three 2-bed units and 2 one-bed units in order to provide retirement homes. The site would be accessed through the existing club car park into a small courtyard parking area of eight parking spaces. The dwellings would be laid around this, one detached dwelling on each side of the entrance with a row of three terraced dwellings sloping down the site, in a westerly direction. There would be good sized gardens provided around the dwellings. A 1.2m high stonewall would be erected to the sites northeast boundary with the club car park. Boundaries between properties would consist of landscaping, with the existing timber fences and stonewalls to be retained. Landscaping would be placed around the site, adjacent the car parking area as well as within front and rear gardens as appropriate. Revised details show that landscaping has been removed from the site boundary adjacent Church Street to prevent loss of light.

6. The dwellings would be constructed in materials appropriate to the traditional local vernacular. Painted timber sash windows, sandstone water tables, chimneys and quoins are design features of the dwellings. There would be four solar panels to the rear roof slope of the dwellings. The terraced dwellings would have gable-ended roofs apart from the end-terraced property closest to existing properties on Church Street which would have a hipped roof. This would measure 7.5m at ridge and 3.5m at eaves. The group of properties would measure 29m in length and 8.6m in width. The two detached dwellings would measure 9m and 10m in length and 12.6m and 8.8m in width. The height of plot 5 to the north of the site is 4m at eaves and 8m at ridge.

7. The previously proposed installation of a pumping/storage tank station to the northwest of the site which would allow both surface water and foul water to be taken up to the main combined sewer on Rowley Bank has been replaced with a system to take all foul and surface drainage off site through a gravity fed system in the gap between properties on Watergate Road.

8. This application was originally reported to planning committee due to the principle of development on this site having been rejected by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal in 2009, and is reported again following a deferral of the decision in October 2010. The decision was deferred for more detailed information on drainage issues, and further consideration of the effect on residential amenity.

PLANNING HISTORY

9. An outline planning application for ten houses was refused in 2004.

10. A planning application for the erection of three three-storey dwellings was refused in March 2009 and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in December 2009 on the grounds that the site is greenfield which if developed ahead of available previously developed land would represent a less than sustainable form of development. This was deemed to be contrary to the sequential approach required by PPS1 and PPS3. The Inspector also concluded that the three storey scheme would cause serious harm to the living conditions of the residents of Church Street in respect of dominating overlooking of rear bedrooms and gardens, having an unpleasantly overbearing and dominating visual impact upon their residents contrary to policies HO5 and GDP1 of the Local Plan.

11. A planning application for five dwellings was withdrawn in June 2010

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY :

12. In March 2012 the Government consolidated all planning policy statements, circulars and guidance into a single policy statement, termed the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message from the Framework is that planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core principles’ that should underpin both plan-making and decision taking, these being; empowering local people to shape their surroundings, proactively drive and support economic development, ensure a high standard of design, respect existing roles and character, support a low carbon future, conserve the natural environment, encourage re-use of previously developed land, promote mixed use developments, conserve heritage assets, manage future patterns of growth and take account of and support local strategies relating to health, social and cultural well-being.

NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. Notes the importance of transport policies in facilitating sustainable development and contributing to wider sustainability and health issues. Local parking standards should take account of the accessibility of the development, its type, mix and use, the availability of public transport, levels of local car ownership and the need to reduce the use of high- emission vehicles.

NPPF Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes. Housing applications should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities. Policies should be put in place to resist the inappropriate development of residential of residential gardens where development would cause harm to the local area.

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

NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. The planning system is considered to play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Planning decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, ensuring that existing facilities are able to develop and modernize in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community. The advice further states that existing open space should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken that shows it is surplus to requirements. This leads through to a potential for Local Green Space designation which can be used where the area is ‘demonstrably special to the local community.for example because of it’s beauty, historic significance or recreational value, tranquility or richness of wildlife’.

REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY :

13. In July 2008 the RSS set out the broad spatial development strategy for the North East region for the period of 2004 to 2021. The RSS sets out the region's housing provision and the priorities in economic development, retail growth, transport investment, the environment, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Some policies have an end date of 2021 but the overall vision, strategy, and general policies will guide development over a longer timescale.

In July 2010 the Local Government Secretary signalled his intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect, and that this was to be treated as a material consideration in subsequent planning decisions. This was successfully challenged in the High Court in November 2010, thus for the moment reinstating the RSS. However, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies when Orders have been made under section 109 of the Localism Act 2011, an d weight can now be attached to this intention. The following policies are considered relevant to the application, but as strategic Policies represent general advice rather than detailed development management tools:

Policy 2 - Sustainable Development (essentially requiring new development proposals to meet the aim of promoting sustainable patterns of development).

Policy 4 – Sequential Approach to Development – Requires a sequential approach to development giving priority to previously developed sites in sustainable locations.

Policy 8 - Protecting and Enhancing the Environment (which requires new development to maintain local distinctiveness).

Policy 24 - Delivering Sustainable Communities - all development within the Region should be designed and located to deliver sustainable communities. Proposals should assess the suitability of land for development and the contribution that can be made by design in relation to 16 detailed criteria, including concentrating development in urban locations, reducing need to travel, proximity to infrastructure, health and well-being, biodiversity and crime prevention/community safety.

Policy 30 – Improving Inclusivity and Affordability

Policy 38 – Sustainable Construction – planning proposals should seek to encourage sustainable design of new buildings and facilitate the generation of at least 10% of the Region‘s consumption of electricity from renewable sources.

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

14. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles – is an overarching policy which aims to ensure that all developments incorporate a high standard of design, conserve energy and are energy efficient, protect the existing landscape and natural and historic features, protect and manage the ecology of the area, protect valuable open land, provide adequate landscaping, incorporate crime prevention measures and improve personal safety, protect amenity, provide adequate drainage, protect flood risk areas and protect the water resource from pollution.

Policy TR2 – Development and Highway Safety – relates to the provision of safe vehicular access, adequate provision for service vehicle manoeuvring, etc.

Policy HO5 – Housing Development on Small Sites – Housing development on small sites will only be allowed in named settlements. Development must be appropriate to the existing pattern and form of development; must not extend beyond the existing built up area; represents acceptable backland or tandem development; and should not exceed 0.4 hectares when taken together with an adjoining site.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/durham/text/00cont.htm .

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

15. Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison officer): Makes comments and detailed recommendations based on the principles of Secured by Design.

16. Environment Agency: The proposals fall within the scope of the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Standing Advice and therefore the Agency should not have been consulted on this application.

17. The Coal Authority: The application site falls within the coalfield area as defined by the Coal Authority. They do not have any specific comments to make on this non- EIA proposal. If the proposals are granted planning permission it would be necessary to include the Council Authority’s revised standing advice within the decision notice as an informative note to the applicant in the interests of public health and safety.

18. Northumbrian Water: Have offered no objection on the current scheme to date – the developer having discussed and developed the latest proposals direct with them.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

19. County Highways: Sight visibility from the existing A68 junction is satisfactory. Parking provision for the new dwellings is also acceptable. The proposal will remove two parking spaces from the existing car park capacity. Accepts that the deletion of this number is unlikely to make a material change to car parking arrangements for Club users. There are existing garaging facilities leading from the car park but overall it is envisaged traffic movements will remain, as now, relatively low. The dropped kerb at the A68 access junction needs to be extended to the north, to also cover the Club's disabled parking space. This matter should either be included in an amended plan for approval or conditioned.

20. County Senior Landscape Architect: Would like to see a fully detailed planting scheme that labels each planting group with planting numbers and densities. Details should also be included of the specification for the plants and their planting.

21. County Finance Department: - The club has been making financial losses over the last two years. The company effectively has no financial reserves. The financial and liquidity position of the club appears weak. Having undertaken workings on the financial analysis, in summary: the current ratio of 0.98:1 is well below the ideal of 2:1 indicating that the clubs assets do not cover their liabilities. In 2008/9 the ratio was 1.16:1 which although not good was slightly better than 2009/10. The acid test of 0.76:1 is also below the ideal of 1:1 indicating that the clubs assets do not cover their liabilities and that their assets are not easily converted into cash. In 2008/09 the acid test ratio was 1:65:1 which was above the ideal of 1:1 and better than 2009/10. The clubs three officials have not drawn their Honorarium since March 2009 and are currently owed approximately £2,300 collectively. There is no entry for this as a creditor on the balance sheet. It seems as if the club is relying on the sale of the land to keep the club going.

22. Council Rights of Way Officer: There are no registered Public Rights of Way lying across the area of land included in the proposals. The Definitive Map is only a record of known Public Rights of Way. Other rights can be acquired on the basis of usage or documentary evidence or by the actions of a landowner. No objections or further comments to make.

23. Council Drainage Engineer: In response to the latest drainage proposals for what is a Greenfield site, no surface water storage is proposed to limit the discharge from the site to Greenfield run off rates, with no attempt made to use SUDS for surface water drainage. On this basis the application is recommended refused or conditions added to an approval that full surface water drainage details must be approved by the LA before commencement on site.

24. Low carbon Officer: Generally supportive if renewable technologies are installed as suggested. Recommendation to build to Code for Sustainable Homes level 3.

25. Environmental Health request a number of conditions covering site working hours and practices.

26. Planning Policy: Considers that the key planning policy issues arising from this proposal which require due consideration in the determination of this case include; the principle of the development and the supporting justification, provision of housing for older persons, design and sustainability.

27. The scheme would accord with the objectives of Policies GDP1 and with the general aims of HO5 of the Local Plan, insofar as the site is located within the built up extent of the settlement, close to facilities and would represent acceptable infilling in principle (notwithstanding the greenfield status of the land, when the advice was given). The proposed design of the scheme appears well-detailed and suitable for the site and character of the local area. Materials are reflective of the local vernacular, while it is considered the scale and layout would create a modest, enclosed, safe and attractive environment for residents.

28. PPS3 was relevant when the application was submitted, promoted sustainable residential development on sites located within settlements that have access to a range of services and facilities with good (public and non-car based) transport links. PPS3 sought to direct new residential development on to brownfield sites ahead of greenfield land; the previous RSS set a target for County Durham of 65% of development to be located on brownfield sites. Recent figures with the County Durham Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2008/09 show that 79% of residential development was directed onto brownfield sites for the former Derwentside area - 82% brownfield for the whole of the County.

29. The Annual Monitoring Report also demonstrated that there was an adequate supply of land available within the former district area, in accordance with the then guidance contained in PPS3, and as such there was no need to consider greenfield sites for new housing unless there are material considerations to justify development. The submitted supporting statement may be read as a special case, or material consideration, to justify the development - i.e. the development would support the continued existence of the WMC, which it is argued is an important facility within the settlement, supporting a range of group meetings and functions.

30. A further consideration in relation to the proposal is the tenure of the scheme. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2008) demonstrates that growth of 35% is expected in the population of retirement age persons between 2006-21, with 27,500 additional single person households of retirement age expected. Although the SHMA does not establish targets, or specific locations for additional houses for older persons, it does suggest that the decisions of older households will influence the supply of housing available for other groups. Opportunities should be exploited to support some older households to downsize to release supply of larger family homes for other groups, while Durham’s Sub-Regional Housing Strategy and consultation with estate agents and other stakeholders within the SHMA has indicated a particular demand from older households in County Durham for bungalows (particularly 2+ bed bungalows). The application site is reasonably well-served in terms of access to local transport, facilities and amenities aiding accessibility and social inclusion. In the current Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) the land is not identified as suitable for development, but with a caveat that this assessment may be revised.

31. The site has been used for grazing horses and has little obvious amenity or landscape value. The County Durham Open Space Needs Assessment suggests there is sufficient open space within the general area.

32. Given the above considerations, provided the scheme is constructed as in accordance with submitted plans (conditional upon design, materials, quality and intended tenure of the development) it is considered that the benefits of developing the site for the future viability of the WMC and the amenity benefits of improving the general appearance of the site as it exists would outweigh the desire to protect greenfield land by directing development to brownfield sites.

PUBLIC RESPONSES : 33. Healeyfield Parish Council: The members of the Parish Council did not have any objections to the proposed developed development and were pleased to see the amended plans however, the Parish Council were keen to know whether this application would be subject to a 106 agreement in lieu of play provision for the area of Castleside.

34. Fourteen letters of objection had been received from local residents when the application was last considered by Committee, the details of which were summarised as below:

35. The development is variously considered of high visual impact, detrimental to area, not to enhance village, and a blot on landscape. The green spaces within built up areas should be maintained, it being inappropriate to change grassland into bricks and mortar. The previous rejection at appeal on basis of being a greenfield site makes this site unsuitable for development, there being an adequate supply of brownfield land in area available for housing. The site has been identified in Derwentside Open Space Strategy (2007) as a valuable area of open space. The Local Planning Authority should maintain a level of consistency given the valid issues that previously warranted refusal and rejection by Planning Inspectorate – this decision should not be ignored, and the application should not even be considered.

36. The site is elevated above Church Street. Buildings very close to gardens/properties and plans deceiving with no measurements - the plans do not correlate. Proposed trees would undermine fence and block light as well as producing waste. Northumbrian Water has stated that the present system is full to capacity. Septic tank could cause unpleasantness.

37. The club won’t consider selling land to local people to extend their gardens even though they are in financial difficulty. Only the club would benefit and this would be temporary. Negative impact on residents outweighs clubs financial difficulties. Lots of newly built houses standing empty/reduced in price to sell. Loss of amenity, privacy, light, overlooking, visual intrusion due to closeness, elevated aspect and high roofline are all unacceptable, with the relationship between existing and proposed dwellings not clear on plans exuberated given proposed rise in level of garden further increasing elevation. Houses would be 4m higher than existing properties on Church Street when built up to overcome sloping ground. Windows of existing houses have been heightened to show houses on Church Street higher than in reality in an attempt to reduce potential adverse effect. Properties on Church Street already have reduced daylight because of raised garden levels which would be exasperated by the loss of sunlight and shadow cast by the new houses especially in the autumn/winter when the sun rise is low across the field through the trees.

38. The future of the WMC does rely on this development, the Committee have not explored other avenues to save the club. If the Club were an important local facility it would not be running at a loss every week, and it is not the Council’s role to prop up a failing business.

39. The scheme will generate extra traffic and noise.

40. As the application has progressed since being deferred by members, a number of re- consultation exercises have been undertaken, and it is reasonable to take into account that to some degree ‘consultation fatigue’ will have effected correspondents, as the proposals have changed by degree. There were responses from eleven dwellings in the latest consultation, with many correspondents wishing to restate their previous concerns, with the daylight assessment and the accuracy of the plans an ongoing and repeated concern. Again reference was made to the overbearing nature of the development, the previous appeal decision, the greenfield nature of the site, the history of the site and the potential effect of excavations on existing buildings. Detailed assessment of the distances and daylight implications are again made, with detailed challenges to the supporting information, justifications and methodologies used by the applicants.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

41. Castleside Club is one of two focal points in the village providing facilities for the community. It is used for larger events where a staffed drinks bar is required. Various groups and organisations use the facilities on a regular basis. There are seven members of staff. It is trading at a loss and failing as a business caused by bad business decisions/short sightedness of the previous management board.

42. The current management board has made inroads with dealing with the negative cash flow by making changes to the running of the club and financial savings via tighter budgetary control, cost efficiencies and better purchase decisions. However even with cost cutting measures and efficiencies may not break even which would not fund essential repairs, refurbishments. Without selling this land the facilities as well as job provision would be lost. The management committee have many ideas regarding the way forward which centre around using the concert room to full potential which have been discussed with their business bank manager. Money from the potential sale would fund necessary work to the club and concert room in particular to put ideas into practice, including internal and external refurbishment work, pay off loans, allowing the negotiation of better prices from beer suppliers