158 homes at Land To The South Of Cockhouse Lane, Ushaw Moor

What was proposed

The application proposed 158 homes, including bungalows and affordable homes, with landscaping, infrastructure, parking, access, paths, drainage and a play area.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 158 dwellings, and associated landscaping and infrastructure. The development proposes the following mix of dwellings:”

“The application submits the following Affordable Housing provision, to be secured under a legal agreement:”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site comprises two agricultural fields beside Ushaw Moor, with housing to the north and east, woodland to the south and farmland to the west.

“The application site comprises two agricultural fields measuring a total of 8.55 hectares (ha) in area. The site is located directly to the west of the settlement of Ushaw Moor. To the west of the site lies agricultural land. To the north lies Cockhouse Lane with a residential area beyond. To the northeast lies allotments, with the centre of Ushaw Moor beyond. To the east lies a row of residential dwellings with Station Road beyond.”

“There are no ecological designations within the site, though the Deerness Valley Local Wildlife Site is located immediately to the south, along the route of the River Deerness. The nearest designated Ancient Woodland is located approximately 370m to the east, further along the Deerness Valley. The nearest recorded pond is located approximately 250m to the south, beyond the River Deerness.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier outline proposal for up to 210 homes was refused in 2019 because of highway, access and landscape concerns.

“Application reference DM/18/02982/OUT sought outline consent for up to 210 dwellings at the current application site, with all matters reserved except for access. That application was refused by the County Planning Committee in September 2019 in line with officer recommendation to refuse. The reasons for refusal were as follows:”

“Impact on capacity of junctions on the A690 and on the A167; Unsafe access onto Cockhouse Lane; and 3. Encroachment into the surrounding countryside resulting in harmful landscape impacts.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was considered sustainable and well related to Ushaw Moor, while the benefits outweighed limited identified harm.

“The site is not allocated for housing in the County Durham Plan and is in the open countryside. However, officers note that the site is in a sustainable location, which is well related to the settlement of Ushaw Moor. Taking into account the detailed design considerations it is considered that the principle of developing this site for housing is acceptable in accordance with Policies 6, 10 and 21 of the County Durham Plan.”

“Further to the above a number of site-specific and proposal-specific off-site measures have been agreed in an effort to address identified highway capacity and sustainability concerns. A contribution of £300,000 is sought toward transport related measures to seek to alleviate congestion and improve journey times between the site at Cockhouse Lane, Ushaw Moor and the A690/A167 Nevilles Cross junction.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, drainage, ecology, coal, water and other consultees raised no objection subject to contributions or conditions, while landscape officers sought further planting details.

“Ecology – Have not raised any objection in respect of the adjacent designated local wildlife site to the south of the site, or in respect of protected species subject to conditions. In respect of Biodiversity Net Gain, it is noted that the application is not able to provide 10% BNG using on-site measures, and that reliance on credits is required. This is acceptable subject to standard conditions securing further details.”

“Landscape – Refer to advice on layout and landscaping provided as part of Design Review comments and provide further separate advice on layout and landscaping. Whilst raising some concern at the lack of a 20m wide woodland buffer along the western edge of the site, they do not object to the application subject to conditions securing further details of soft and hard landscaping within the site.”

Officer report

What residents said

Objectors raised concerns about the unallocated countryside site, highway safety, congestion, transport, schools, services, drainage, landscape, ecology and housing mix.

“The site is not allocated for housing in the County Durham Plan • Highway safety concerns with proposed access onto Cockhouse Lane • Siting of a pedestrian crossing point in front an existing dwelling on Cockhouse Lane • Impact on local road network, including Ushaw Moor, Bear Park, A690, and A167 • Insufficient public transport • Sustainability of the site, contributing to traffic generated by the development and subsequent impact on the local road network • Insufficient…”

“Concerns have been raised over the loss of land in the Green Belt, however the site is not located in the Green Belt. Concerns have also been raised in respect of de-”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident and another objector spoke against the application, while the planning agent spoke for it and described its benefits and consultation.

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the listed conditions and a Section 106 agreement securing affordable housing, infrastructure contributions and biodiversity measures.

“That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report and completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure:”

“10% of Affordable housing on-site comprising 4 Discount Market Sale units, and 12 Affordable Rent units. • £194,447 contribution toward increasing Nursery/Early Years capacity at schools across the County; • £134,368 contribution toward increasing capacity at SEND schools across the County; • £76,314 contribution toward increasing NHS GP surgery capacity; • £233,934 contribution toward improving public open spaces; • £300,000 toward transport related measures to seek to…”

Minutes