50 affordable homes at Redworth Road, Shildon

What was proposed

Full permission was sought for 50 affordable homes, including bungalows and houses, with access, parking, landscaping and drainage works.

“Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 50 dwellings with associated works on a greenfield site to the south of the built-up area of Shildon. The site is not allocated for housing in the County Durham Plan (CDP). At the time the CDP was adopted (2020), the southern parcel of the site was treated as a ‘housing commitment’ in recognition that it benefitted from a full planning permission for 40 Units (DM/17/02818/FPA). This permission has now lapsed.”

“Significant social and economic benefits through the provision of 50no. affordable housing units, including 9no. accessible bungalows to meet specific needs, in excess of the requirements of CDP Policy 15 (5no. affordable housing units and 5 bungalows).”

Officer report

The site

The 1.79-hectare site is unused grassland with trees and hedgerows on Shildon’s southern edge, accessed from Redworth Road.

“The site measures 1.79ha and lies to the north east of the A6072 on the southern edge of Shildon, with the main access from Redworth Road.”

“The site is bounded to the south by the A6072, a petrol filling station and kiosk, and a two storey office. To the east lies Redworth Road. To the north, the site is bounded by the rear of properties fronting Royal George Close and to the north / north west by a vicarage and a cemetery associated with the nearby All Saints Church. Further to the west the site is bound by a Public Right of Way (Footpath No.42).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable, with housing, affordable homes and open-space benefits outweighing the identified harms under the tilted balance.

“(currently estimated at 4.4 years), the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF applies, reducing the weight of CDP Policies 6 and 10. In this context, the identified harm does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, which include:”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council and residents raised concerns, while statutory and specialist consultees generally raised no objections subject to conditions, mitigation and contributions.

“Shildon Town Council – objected to the originally submitted 53no. scheme following the removal of a hedgerow on the site and consequential impact on wildlife, ground instability, the risk of flooding and concerns relating to the speed of traffic on the A6072. Following amendments reducing the scheme to 50no.”

“Natural England – At the time of writing final comments on the HRA have not been received but in principle no objections are raised subject to appropriate mitigation being secured, relating to the impact on the integrity of Teesmouth & Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

The 15 objections mainly concerned traffic, landscape and hedgerow loss, infrastructure, overlooking and noise, flooding, contamination and underground mines.

“- Loss of hedgerow prior to the application being submitted. • - SuDs scheme will attract litter.”

“- Impact on underground mines and potential land contamination on site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the proposal, while the agent and applicant spoke in support of the affordable housing scheme.

Members’ discussion

Members asked about the housing mix, construction hours and solar panels, and considered the site suitable for much-needed affordable and social housing.

“The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it was conditioned that the applicant installed solar panels and construction would not commence before 7.30am. He added that members could also decide on any further amendments.”

“Councillor M Stead seconded the motion to go with officer recommendation for approval. He was disappointed that two ward members for the area had not stayed to make comments. He could not see any issues with the application and it ticked every box with much needed affordable housing.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously supported being minded to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

“Councillor D Bellingham advised that she had attended the site visit and it looked like the perfect place to build affordable and social houses with existing facilities which was what was needed. It was shown that the applicant had listened since the last application and she moved the motion to go with officer recommendation to approve the application.”

“L Ackermann, Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) explained that when voting Members could only be minded to approve the application as the final confirmation from Natural England regarding the nutrient neutrality was still outstanding.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was minded for approval subject to nutrient neutrality credits being confirmed, conditions and the Section 106 agreement.

“That the application be MINDED to be APPROVED subject to confirmation of nutrient neutrality credits being purchased and conditions and the Section106 agreement as detailed in the report.”

Minutes

Conditions and agreement

The proposed approval included affordable housing, financial contributions, biodiversity and nutrient mitigation, retaining-wall maintenance and planning conditions.

“Members of the committee are recommended that the application is APPROVED. This is subject to final agreement of the Nutrient Neutrality mitigation strategy in consultation with Natural England, the conditions detailed at the end of this report, and to entering into a legal agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure:”

“The securing of an ongoing Maintenance Plan in relation to the proposed retaining wall to the rear of proposed properties backing onto the A6072;”

Officer report