Five homes and SUDS pond at Land To The West Of 14 St Gregory Close, Staindrop

What was proposed

Five detached homes, with access, parking, garages, gardens, a SUDS pond and habitat area, were proposed on land west of St Gregory Close.

“The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 5 No. detached houses with access, parking, garages and gardens. No. house types are proposed, which are described as:-”

“Within the southern part of the site, a SUDS basin is proposed, accompanied by a habitat area with an amenity path running around its perimeter. The land would be enhanced via the planting of trees, wildflower species and aquatic vegetation adjacent to the SUDS basin.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The grassed paddock lies between Moor Lane and the A688, beside existing housing, and is within an Area of Higher Landscape Value.

“To the east of the site lies an established housing estate, St Gregory Close, constructed during the 1970’s, with the wider settlement of Staindrop extending beyond. To the northwest are Barnfield Cottage and Hereford House, both historic properties, the former identifiable on the first edition OS map and the latter appearing on the second edition. Immediately to the south of these properties is open paddock land.”

“In terms of constraints, the site lies within an Area of Higher Landscape Value (AHLV) as defined by the County Durham Plan, the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area/Ramsar and a woodland and water buffer zone…”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the application site.

“There is no relevant planning history relating to the application site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was sustainable, housing benefits were significant, and those benefits outweighed limited landscape harm.

“The proposals and supporting information have been fully assessed by relevant consultees. Although the site is located outside the built-up area of the settlement, it is visually and physically well-related to Staindrop and represents a sustainable location for new housing. The Landscape Officer has raised concerns over the impact of the development on the special qualities of the Area of Higher Landscape Value. This harm is assessed as limited.”

“While the development plan retains statutory primacy, the NPPF is a key material planning consideration. Given the absence of a five-year housing land supply (currently estimated at approximately 4 years), the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF applies, reducing the weight of CDP Policies 6 and 10.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and residents objected, while Natural England, highways, trees, ecology, archaeology and drainage consultees raised no objections subject to requirements.

“Natural England – No objections raised, subject to appropriate mitigation being secured by condition.”

“Highways Authority – No objections raised, subject to the inclusion of the relevant conditions and informatives.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Objectors cited urban sprawl, landscape and amenity impacts, flooding, wildlife, infrastructure pressure and lack of affordable housing; the applicant highlighted local housing and economic benefits.

“Principle of Development • The development would represent urban sprawl and would contribute to coalescence with the neighbouring dwellings. • The impact of homes recently approved/under construction in the village is not yet known. These schemes represent a significant uplift in the housing stock and concerns are raised that additional housing would negatively impact the Conservation Area and result in Staindrop becoming an urban town.”

“Impact upon trees and hedgerows and concerns regarding the quality of the information submitted within the Tree reports provided. • The scheme would result in the loss of medieval ridge and furrow. Environmental Issues • Concerns regarding the information contained within the ecology and drainage reports submitted in support of the application. • Impact upon wildlife. • Risk of flooding and the impact of surface water runoff.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the proposal, while the applicant spoke in favour and planning officers responded to points about affordable housing, ecology and landscape.

Members’ debate

Councillor Campbell was satisfied that views would not be greatly harmed, and Councillor Shulman supported approval because local tradespeople would be used.

“Councillor J Campbell stated that she only had the one concern which she did not think it was going to be massively impactful in a harmful way on the views from within the village outwards or from the main road and was satisfied.”

“Councillor A Shulman stated that given that the developer was using all local tradesmen to develop this site he was minded to go with officer recommendation and moved the application for approval.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members unanimously approved the application subject to the report’s conditions and Section 106 agreement.

“That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions and the Section 106 agreement as detailed in the report.”

Minutes