1

Middleton St George Parish Council

www.middleton-st-george.org.uk

msgclerk@aol.com

5, Whitebridge Drive,

Whinfield Park, Darlington,

DL1 3TY

13th February, 2018. Adrian Hobbs – Planning Case Officer Planning Department The Town Hall Darlington DL1 5QT Dear Adrian, Re: 17/01151/RM1

Reserved Matters relating to details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, for residential development of up to 198 no. dwellings pursuant to outline planning permission 15/00976/OUT dated 01 July 2016. Land at rear of High Stell, MIDDLETON ST GEORGE, DARLINGTON

OBJECTION We are commenting on this Application as it stands as at the date of the amended Consultation (11th January 2018) based on amended plans, (which was subsequent to an initial Consultation letter dated 20th December 2017). We note, however, that although amended plans have now been submitted which show two access points, there has been no amended Planning Statement providing further information. Therefore, the only Planning Statement available to us for reference is the one accompanying the initial plans containing a single access point. Middleton St George Parish Council strongly objects to this application on the following grounds: Context - Site Planning History Outline Planning Permission Was Granted on the Basis of Two access points, not one.

The original outline application which proposed one access only via Grendon Gardens/The Greenway (15/00041/OUT) was refused for the following reasons in May 2015: (From Planning Officer’s Report – note Point 2)

2

“RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The local primary school is currently close to capacity and projections indicate that if the development

were to proceed the pupil yield would mean that the demand for school places in the village would

considerably outstrip supply, taking into account the already approved development at Sadberge Road.

The resultant need to transport Primary School children away from the local village to schools elsewhere is

not considered to be in conformity with Paragraph 38 of the NPPF which indicates that key facilities such as

Primary Schools should where practical be within walking distance of most properties in large scale

developments.

2. The public highway leading to the application site includes two right angled bends / junctions , which

whilst being at the limits of acceptable width in highway safety terms will be likely to result in unacceptable

noise and disturbance to local residents from the passage and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the

proposed development. The access to the site itself runs close between two existing dwellings which will

suffer increases in noise and disturbance from the proposed development.

Furthermore, in the short term there will be similar issues associated with construction traffic negotiating

the existing estate roads described above. These impacts will be exacerbated by the nature and scale of the

traffic likely to be generated by the building out of the development if approved. This is considered to be in

conflict with the environmental sustainability requirements of the NPPF.”

Subsequently, a revised outline application was submitted (15/00976/OUT) which proposed an additional access via High Stell (where access to development would be equally split) in order to ease the traffic problems and resident amenity. Permission was granted in February 2016 on this basis. Page 1 and Page 6 of the Planning Officer’s Report to the Planning Application Committee on 17th February 2016 for 15/00976/OUT, makes a case for why, with the two access points in points instead of one, the applicant sought to address the issues above. Planning permission was granted by the Planning Applications Committee in February 2016 on the basis of the two access points. A Section 106 Agreement was made on 29th June 2016. The Planning Decision was subsequently signed and issued on 1st July 2016. The Outline Application (15/00976/OUT), granted permission by the Planning Applications Committee on 17th February 2016, was as follows: “Erection of up to 200 dwellings including landscaping, open space, highway improvements and associated works (Revised Application)” The Outline Application was not made, or granted permission, “With All Matters Reserved”. Page 8 of the Planning Statement for Application 15/00976/OUT (3.1) states: “The application is submitted in outline, with all matters of detail reserved save for means of access from the public highway”. In other words, access was determined at the outline stage, and agreed at the Planning Applications Committee on 17th February 2016, and this constituted grounds on which planning permission was granted. However, it remains that there are substantial grounds why this application should be refused, as detailed below.

3

Outside the Development Limits Weight must be given to the Saved Policies within the Local Plan. The site of this proposed housing is outside the Development Limits, and is therefore contrary to Policy E2. Access Introduction The Parish Council note that there are a number of significant issues with regard to the issue of access. There is no evidence that the Applicant has ownership of the two access points to the proposed development site, since it appears to be owned by someone else. Therefore, there is no guarantee that access will be possible as the Applicant may not control those access points. This would mean that the site cannot be considered sufficiently available to count towards the five year supply requirement. The initial outline application failed, in part, because the proffered access conflicted with the environmental requirements of the NPPF. In this application, as with the outline application granted permission, an assumption is made that traffic would be equally divided between The Greenway/Grendon Gardens and High Stell. This approach would be belied by any observation of the greater ease of access into High Stell from Station Road, and the implications for traffic congestion at the Station Road/The Greenway junction, particularly at the busier times of day. Further, the Planning Officer’s report relating to the initial outline application (refused) drew reference to the difficulty which construction traffic would experience accessing the subject land via the “doglegs” of The Greenway/Grendon Gardens. The overwhelming likelihood is that High Stell will form the principal access and egress for such traffic. The Parish Council strongly believes that the same consideration should be given to the residents of High Stell in this application as was given to the residents of Grendon Gardens/The Greenway in the dismissal of the previous application. Any other conclusion would be perverse. This issue is not one of quantity – it is one of pollution vs. good health, noise vs. tranquillity, and quality of life. Whilst it may be that, as stated by the Borough Council, minimum recommended access standards can be met (although this is not accepted by the Parish Council as we have conducted our own measurements), the adverse impacts of this proposal cannot be mitigated. Controls over construction traffic and impact during the development phase can be introduced, but the build period is likely to be lengthy and the long-term impact of the proposal is one that can only be alleviated by significant changes to the access streets – an obvious impossibility. The impact on the value of the properties in the residential streets which will facilitate these accesses may not be a planning matter, but the anxiety which will be created for owners by difficulties in sale (and the potential blight on the houses at the direct entries into the new development in particular) as well as the direct physical discomfort, are matters which will impact on the health of present residents, particularly those in poor health, or elderly or infirm. The Parish Council considers that inadequate access is a matter of great importance within the tenets of the NPPF, and the application should therefore fail. Transport, Travel and Access Problems with the information provided by the Applicant The Applicant’s own Transport Assessment, provided for the Outline Application, is inaccurate on a number of points:

4

-Bus service is out of date (only one service, circular going one way, every hour, and not in the evenings or on Sundays) -GP Surgery is much further away from the proposed development (now 1.2 miles away, whereas the recommended distance is 1m, and which would take 24 minutes on foot) Number of vehicles, access, road and pavements inadequacy The aforementioned Transport Assessment goes on to state: “5.14.5. High Stell and The Greenway have carriageway widths of 5.5 metres. In 2020 with the proposed development in place, in the weekday peak hour with the greater predominant flow (the pm peak hour), High Stell would have a predominant flow of 81 vehicles and The Greenway would have a predominant flow of 87 vehicles.” The above statement is problematic for a number of reasons:

- The numbers of vehicles and the number of trips are severely underestimated for a development of

this size. 198 dwellings would produce at least double the number of cars, if not triple them. It would not be unreasonable to consider a low estimate of 400 vehicles using the access points.

- The number of vehicles from the proposed development must then be added to those of the existing number houses along the approach roads.

“Linking Roads which in total give access to more than 200 dwellings (up to a maximum of 300) [in terms of

forward visibility on bends] should have an Overall Width of at least 10.75m, a Carriageway Width of at

least 6.75m, and Footway Widths on both sides of at least 2m” (Design GuideSZa Page 22 Paragraph 6.4,

Transport Advice Portal).

“6.5 Access Roads

6.5.1 Road Widths and Alignment In the light of problems experienced with 4.5 metre wide access roads, particularly with regard to gaining access to drives and the inability to pass parked vehicles, all access roads must be a minimum of 5.5 metres wide, in accordance with the recommendation contained in paragraph 3.15 and 3.16 Design Bulletin 32. Cul de sac (or loop road), a maximum of 200 metres long, giving access to up to 150 dwellings from any point along its length. Carriageway Width 5.5m. Footpath Widths 2m (Design GuideSZa Page 24, Transport Advice Portal). 6.5.4 In order to keep traffic speeds to 15 mph or less a variety of measures shall be used, as indicated in paras. 3.1.5 and 3.1.6. Straight or gently curved sections of carriageway shall be no longer than 40 metres between bends. The definition of a bend in this context shall be where a vehicle changes direction by not less than 70 degrees within a distance of 32 metres (i.e. a bend with a radius of 26 metres (Design GuideSZa Page 24, Transport Advice Portal).

“There is no maximum width stipulated for a footway, however 2m is the minimum width and this should

be measured between restraints. Footways must be provided on both sides of the carriageway unless it is a

single sided development where a 2m highway verge may be provided in lieu of the footway fronting the

open area. Independent footpaths are to be a minimum of 1.5m wide measured between restraints.

Additional widths will be required outside shopping centres, schools, etc. where people congregate and

adjacent to heavily trafficked carriageways.” (Page 35, Tees Valley Design Guide & Specification:

Residential and Industrial (2009))

5

If we are asked to consider the Application as presented to us, with access via Grendon Gardens and The

Greenway, and via High Stell, there will be at least 341 houses (198 proposed, plus existing 79 at The

Greenway and 64 at High Stell). This number of houses could easily, of course, mean double the amount

of vehicles.

The Parish Council has undertaken its own measuring of Grendon Gardens and The Greenway. The road directly on entering The Greenway measures 5.46 metres. At 3 points further along (before the right hand turn towards Grendon) there are 3 different widths: 5.50 m, 5.49m and 5.49m. The final measurement after turning right towards Grendon, near the proposed site entrance was 5.50 m, which is considered to be the absolute minimum width for the purpose proposed. Furthermore, the approach footpath at Grendon Gardens is, in fact, 0.9m (90cm). The length is 25m.

The Disability Discrimination Act recommends a clear width of 2m, allowing two wheelchairs to pass one another comfortably. This should be regarded as the minimum under normal circumstances. The maximum length of restricted width should be 6 metres. Regarding the approach road bends, it will be recalled that in the Planning Officer’s Report to the original outline application (15/00041/OUT) which was refused: “The public highway leading to the application site includes two right angled bends / junctions , which whilst being at the limits of acceptable width in highway safety terms will be likely to result in unacceptable noise and disturbance to local residents from the passage and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development. The access to the site itself runs close between two existing dwellings which will suffer increases in noise and disturbance from the proposed development. Furthermore, in the short term there will be similar issues associated with construction traffic negotiating the existing estate roads described above. These impacts will be exacerbated by the nature and scale of the traffic likely to be generated by the building out of the development if approved. This is considered to be in conflict with the environmental sustainability requirements of the NPPF.” The road on The Greenway is also concrete, and is therefore unsuitable for the proposed amount of

traffic.

With regard to the High Stell approach and access point, the existing width is only 9.1m, yet the overall total width required is 9.5m. And required path widths should be 2m on both sides, but are currently only existing only 1.7m or 1.75m. Again, this is in contravention of the Disability Discrimination Act. High Stell is also not in any way suitable for construction traffic. Traffic outflow from High Stell, being immediately opposite the Middleton St. George children’s playground and onto the busy, narrow Station Road, with a bus stop on one corner, will also increase safety hazards. We must point out that there are school bus pickups and drop offs all along that stretch of Station Road from High Stell to the Railway Bridge. Accident record and road safety being impacted further – the cumulative impact This same Transport Assessment mentions 4 accidents in the Station Road/Yarm Road/Middleton Road area between 1st August 2010 to 31st July 2015. It would be pertinent to take into consideration updated accident figures (there have been traffic incidents since in that area ).

Whilst the applicant’s transport assessment may state there have not been any personal injury accidents in 11 years up to November 2014, local feeling is that the situation is an “accident waiting to happen”, and that any further traffic will exacerbate that.

6

Having two access points to this proposed development in order to filter the traffic does not negate the existing issues with those access points and approach roads, and the ongoing impact on the centre of the village. One proposed access to this development is through the most dangerous and gridlocked areas of the

village: the Greenway/Grendon Gardens, and the junction onto Belle View Terrace where the Pharmacy is

located, which leads south to over the railway bridge to Middleton Lane, and the junction with Neasham

Road, and north to The Square, Station Road and the junction with Yarm Road. Due to the layout of the

village, there are already various bottlenecks in the centre caused by narrow roads, problems with

parking/delivery for people using the shops/businesses, railway station and school, and volumes of traffic

already cause congestion and tailbacks at busy times, over the railway bridge and mini-roundabout at The

Square. The proposed exit from The Greenway onto Belle Vue Terrace is mostly a single lane road due to

all the parked cars along Belle Vue Terrace that are ALWAYS there. Account must also be taken of the

number of coaches transporting pupils to and from Hurworth secondary school daily. This existing situation

already adds to the increased traffic and congestion through the village.

The current circumstances already cause safety issues for children walking to school, elderly pedestrians and their carers (of whom there are quite a number along The Greenway and Grendon Gardens), cyclists and motorists. The school run is already a nightmare, with cars blocking up the narrow road outside it, causing hazards. At The Greenway, some of the many specific, typical, regular occurrences include the following:

- Some vehicles reverse around the corner from the main road onto The Greenway, thus causing danger to children crossing the road

- Vehicles parked on double yellow lines on corners, thus obstructing dropped kerbs - Because of the dropped kerbs being blocked at the entrance to The Greenway, people with

pushchairs have to cross right next to the main road with the hazard of traffic turning. - At busy times of the day the traffic is single lane only (at The Greenway and on Belle Vue Terrace

and Middleton Lane), causing a build-up of traffic - As off-road parking is no longer permitted at Dinsdale Station, train passengers must leave their

cars parked on the road, thus contributing to the congestion and hazards An increase in vehicles wanting to access the main road from Grendon Gardens and The Greenway would be almost impossible, as well as highly dangerous, for people with pushchairs or in wheelchairs.

A development of 198 dwellings houses would mean an increase of at least 400 cars, if not more, trying to get in and out of already dangerous junctions. The risk to pedestrians, many of whom are children and elderly residents, would be severely raised. The people living in The Greenway and Grendon Gardens will not be able to get out. Account should also be taken of the fact that The Greenway is a narrow, concreted road in poor condition, where drives are short and so residents have to park on both sides of the road. This causes access and manoeuvre difficulties for vehicles as it is, not to mention refuse lorries, and already emergency vehicles such as ambulances cannot gain access at certain times of the day. The issue of the right-angled bends has already been mentioned above. Adding potentially hundreds more cars into the centre of the village would be catastrophic. Not only will access of emergency vehicles and HGVs continue to be a problem, but it will be impossible for big construction vehicles and lorries with large loads of construction materials to negotiate these approach roads without creating more safety hazards. And there will be nowhere for them to park. There have been ongoing problems with the Sadberge Road development (and now, in addition, the Neasham Road

7

end of the Middleton Lane development) due to the construction traffic parking on the existing narrow roads obstructing traffic and causing hazards. In the transport assessment which accompanied the outline planning application, the application maintained that “Middleton Lane/The Greenway priority junction, and the Station Road/Yarm Road/Middleton Lane/shop access mini-roundabout would each operate significantly under capacity well beyond 2020 with the proposed development in place.” This is a projection based on a brief analysis of the current situation and does not, by any means, convey the exact, full, comprehensive situation (evidenced by residents through their submissions to this as well as the previous applications for this site) and likely outcomes of not only current trends of vehicle use, but the likely outcome of other proposed developments. The projections can be said to highly underestimated, and not a true reflection of the current circumstances. Furthermore, it is the Applicant’s opinion, and one definitely not shared by the everyday experience of residents who live in the village, that the predicted increase in traffic that the development would bring, would have a negligible effect. Roads that are simply not designed to carry this much traffic will become clogged with additional vehicles. At peak times, school collection and pick up times in particular, this will undoubtedly increase noise pollution and create an increased and unnecessary road traffic accident risk. There is already an issue with vehicles speeding along the main arteries to the village that has been looked into by the local PACT (Police and Community Together) Meetings. This group are constantly dealing with this issue. The current development application would add more traffic in terms of use by car, and therefore is not acceptable. Mention must also be made of the fact that the GP Surgery has relocated (at least temporarily, if not permanently) to over a mile away, so many people will be using their cars to access these services, adding more trips. The proposed development site is not within approved walking distance of bus stops. The Borough Council’s Sustainable Travel Officer, commenting on the Travel Plan prepared at the Outline stage, draws reference to the fact that “less than 50% of the site is within 400m walking distance of [the] bus stops. The supplementary planning document requires that at least 80% of the site is within a 400m walking distance.” This photo, although not taken recently, is typical of what happens regularly on a current basis. Emergency vehicles have the same problem. In fact, a fire engine could not access Grendon Gardens during the first week in January 2018, and so had to turn back. Photographic evidence from a resident in The Greenway: The photo was taken at 10.30am on 21st July 2015 – a non-school day, and a “quiet” time of the day. A reasonably small lorry trying to negotiate The Greenway - cars parked, trees overhanging. Poor driver struggled and ripped off his wing mirror. The resident, who was driving along, had a choice to block the road by the chemists or tuck in behind the lorry, the driver of which wanted to reverse and try avoiding the tree. In the 5 minutes ‘ “ quiet time" that he struggled, three cars coming down The Greenway added to the melee. Let's just imagine bigger lorries, school time and more traffic shall we?

8

This Google map shows how unacceptable access would be to this proposed development (by the opening at the top left of the image between the two houses). Vehicles from the development, plus the vehicles from the existing houses in Grendon Gardens and The Greenway would have to negotiate the inappropriate roads and add to the congestion the junction with Middleton Lane (which to the south has traffic to and from the station, the school, and all the way down to Middleton One Row, and to the North the rest of the village) and Yarm Road (which has traffic to and from the East of the village and beyond). The absence of enforcement action by the authorities against illegally parked of vehicles on footways in residential estate roads suggests that they acknowledge that the carriageways are already too narrow to deal with existing traffic, let alone the future increase from additional dwellings.

To the existing traffic putting pressure on the centre of the village, and on the Grendon Gardens/The Greenway/Middleton Lane junction in particular, we can add the numbers of vehicles from the homes already granted permission (726 homes). With this one, it would bring the total to 924 homes. How many vehicles would that generate? At least double, i.e. 1,848 vehicles putting pressure on that area of the village in addition to what exists now. The cumulative impact of all the extra houses, together with the accompanying vehicles (both household and visitor) must be seriously taken into consideration and weighed against the (minimal, in our view) benefits proposed by this application: Permission Granted:

- 13/00940/OUT Up to 250 dwellings, Sadberge Road (under construction) - 16/00578/OUT 350 dwellings and local services at Durham Tees Valley Airport - 16/00396/OUT – 55 Houses Lancaster House at Durham Tees Valley Airport - 16/00972/FUL 27 dwellings off Middleton Lane - 17/00847/FUL – 44 houses Yarm Road

Total: 726 - 15/00976/OUT (prior to this application 17/01151/RM1) – 198 dwellings Grendon Gardens

+ 198 __________

924

9

We haven’t even added in the potential number of vehicles from the applications that are pending and expected: Pending:

- 16/00976/OUT Up to 226 dwellings and primary school, Station Road - 17/00911/FUL 10 houses plus convenience store, Yarm Road

An additional: 236 Other Applications which are expected:

- 430 houses plus school and supermarket - 67 houses Yarm Road - All the remaining sites on the “Call for Sites” List

An additional: 497+

Cumulative Total of houses: 1,657 (which would mean at least 3, 314 vehicles (an underestimate)

+ 2 convenience stores (with extra private and commercial vehicles)

In the Outline Planning Application’s Planning Statement, the Applicant quotes Paragraph 32 of the Planning Guidelines on Transport under his Point 4.8. He quotes “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.” It is clear, from the evidence presented herein, and from residents in the village, that the cumulative impacts would indeed be severe, and therefore the application should be rejected on this basis. (Taken from Planning Officer’s Report for refusal – 15/00041/OUT, of Summer 2015 [when this single access was proposed – and refused]) “Environmental role The Framework at paragraph 49 seeks to ensure that the need for housing does not take second place to other policy considerations. Nevertheless, that does not mean that those other considerations, including the protection of the amenities of local residents, should be disregarded. Paragraph 14 of the Framework states that in presuming in favour of sustainable development, permission should be granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits ……”. Mention has been made above about the numbers of new dwellings to be served by the Grendon Gardens/Greenway route onto Station Road. 75 existing dwellings and 200 proposed dwellings remains below the threshold of 300 dwellings which guidance suggests is acceptable for the width of the Grendon Garden/Greenway route. The Highways Engineer expressed concerns that the increase in traffic would be likely to result in amenity problems for existing residents, but could not object on highway safety grounds. Site inspection reveals that the alignment of the highway leading to the site is such that local residents are likely to suffer from considerable amenity impacts from the passage of additional traffic generated by 200 dwellings from the application site.

10

There are two right angled bends / junctions on the route, which whilst being at the limits of acceptable width in highway safety terms will be likely to result in unacceptable noise and disturbance to local residents from the passage and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development. A less contorted route would be likely to reduce these impacts. Similarly the access to the site itself runs close between two existing dwellings which will suffer increases in noise and disturbance from the proposed development. The provision of a scheme of acoustic barriers in this locality was considered but because of the close proximity of the receptors to the traffic, they would not be a practical solution and would not be likely to be effective. The above impacts are in the long term – in the shorter term there will be further similar issues associated with construction traffic negotiating the existing estate roads described above. These impacts will be exacerbated by the nature and scale of the traffic likely to be generated by the building out of the development if approved. A Travel Plan has been prepared which includes a number of initiatives supported by the Sustainable Transport Officer, however it is considered that these will not reduce car borne traffic to such an extent as to alleviate the amenity problems referred to above.” Further, there is no evidence that the applicant has considered the impact of • On-street parking (both residential and commercial) in Station Road and the north end of Middleton Lane • The increase in pedestrian traffic (coupled with the Gladman development at Sadberge Road – builders Miller Homes and Story Homes) and the increased risks which that brings for pedestrian safety combined with an acknowledged traffic increase • The on-street parking within The Greenway in particular, and the effect on residents of construction traffic having to pass through the roads of residential streets to access and exit the development site for a period of five years or more, on the assumption that no separate site access and exit facilities have been identified. The Applicant has not met Conditions of the Outline Planning Permission Condition 7 of the Planning Permission of 15/00976/OUT, states: “No development shall be carried out unless and until vehicle swept path analysis has been undertaken to support the movement framework for emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles and service vehicles for the internal network and, where appropriate, in respect of the off-site highway proposals, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.” REASON – In the interests of highway safety In his response dated 25th January, the Highways Officer also highlights the fact that the Applicant has not submitted this information. Condition 6 of the Planning Permission of 15/00976/OUT, states: “Prior to the commencement of the development precise details of the internal highways layout and site access junction including parking numbers and details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.” REASON – In the interests of highway safety In his response dated 25th January, the Highways Officer states: The junction arrangement for the southern access via Grendon Gardens lacks sufficient detail. We would like to see a detailed drawing for that area showing detail of the road and footway widths , swept paths and visibility splays…”

11

In the view of the Parish Council, the applicant has not addressed the above issues in the current reserved matters application. The Design and Layout of the Development Itself

1. Lack of sufficient parking spaces The Architectural Liaison Officer at Durham Constabulary has raised concerns in his Response: “As this will be a dormitory estate with householders commuting to work, the ratio of car ownership per dwelling will be high, with families aspiring to own at least two cars. The street scene outside plots 65-74 and 184-191 is liable to be cluttered with parked cars as there appears to be one space per dwelling. The image shows householders parking directly outside their homes despite it being on a junction, this is a common problem on modern housing estates where road widths are narrow to reduce vehicle speeds and where there is insufficient parking provision.” We can add to this concern that householders rarely use their garages because they are too small, as well as the fact that garages are not counted towards the provision of car parking spaces unless they are large enough to house a car as well as some storage. In his response dated 25th January, the Highways Officer makes reference to Condition 6 of the Outline Planning Permission relating to the requirement for specific internal layout details. He states: “Shared drives should be 6m wide with an additional 0.5m wide hardening strip, where separate carriageways and footways become shared space, the footways should terminate past the ramps to provide smooth transition for wheelchair users, etc.” He also makes reference to Condition 8, concerning requirement for details of vehicle storage provision, stating: “…we would prefer to see an additional [car parking] space per dwelling to reduce parking on the highway. The proposed layout shows visitor parking within the adopted highway. This is not something we should accept, and it should be removed. We would always ask that parking is allocated to individual properties.”

2. Disregard for Public Rights of Way (PROW) There is an existing PROW which runs centrally north/south across the proposed site. However, in the proposed development plan this is obstructed by two SUDS and two roads. There is also an existing PROW which runs across the proposed site diagonally south west. This, too, has been omitted , being buried under the houses in the plan. Under the Highways Act 1980, any proposals to extinguish or divert a PROW by the making of an Order to do so, must be subject to consultation by Parish Councils, other concerned bodies and groups (Ramblers’ Association, British Horse Society, Byways & Bridleways Trust etc.), and members of the public. The minimum period for making such an Order and allowing for the Procedure being six months. Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle— (a)on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or (b)on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, he is guilty of an offence. (Road Traffic Act 1988)

12

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 is used in the current Highway Code. Rule 145 states: "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency." Para 75 of the NPPF: “Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.” By putting SuDS and roads across an existing PROW, the applicant is obstructing the historic PROW and access to the Water Park. PROWs on the proposed development site are used daily by the majority of residents in Middleton St George, and therefore any proposed diversion or distinguishing of PROWs due to this housing development is extremely detrimental to the members of the public. We are concerned about the PROW running centrally across as well as to the one running diagonally south west. We are also concerned that existing PROWs need to be maintained and linked both to the Water Park and to other existing PROWs in the surrounding fields. The Parish Council therefore require the Borough Council to draft Orders and carry out the corresponding public consultation process on any such proposal to divert or extinguish said PROWs.

3. Roman Road – Architectural Mitigation Strategy Planning Condition 15 of the Outline Planning Permission (15/00976/OUT) dated 01/01/2016 states as follows: No development shall take place until an archaeological mitigation strategy has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To comply with Policy CS14 (E) (12) of Borough of Darlington Core Strategy Document (2011) as the site may potentially contain features of local archaeological importance, and para. 135 and 141 of the NPPF. In the Applicant’s Planning Statement (para. 6.21 on page 17) it states that Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd has been commissioned to carry out a Written Statement of Investigation (WSI). However, the applicant has not yet made this available for consultation by members of the public or other statutory consultees. An important Roman Road (Cade’s Road) runs south north along the Eastern edge of the proposed development site. The Parish Council needs assurance that the appropriate steps will be undertaken to protect this important archaeological artefact, but as this required document has not been available to view, we cannot be sure that this will happen. We note that Durham Archaeology have been requested to respond, but not Darlington Borough Council Conservation Officer.

4. Housing Mix The application proposes a mix of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings. The majority of these, however, is for the larger houses (107 4 bedroom). We would have preferred to have seen the inclusion of bungalows (at least 10%), as this would meet the needs of the village population. It is also important to point out that larger, executive-type homes are proving difficult to sell (going by the current experience of the Sadberge Road site, which may take years to build out). In the Parish Council’s consultation with residents during the course of working with DBC on the Local Plan in the context of Middleton St George, one of the concerns was that we ensure a mix of properties for all demographics from starter homes to bungalows for the elderly and/or infirm.

13

Proximity to Water Park Reservoirs The proposed development would be right next door to the Water Park, which has 3 reservoir ponds. The risk to safety has been monitored by assessment (last carried out in January 2015). The risk was rated as “High” with regard to proximity to existing housing. With the new development proposed to be sited alongside the Water Park, this risk would be elevated to “Very High”. The Parish Council questions whether the Applicant has carried out a risk assessment with regard to the building of family homes in such close proximity to the reservoirs, and whether he has proposed stringent safety and mitigation measures. In any case, RoSPA recommends that prior to any planning permission for close proximity housing being granted, the Local Planning Authority carry out a risk assessment. The Parish Council requests that this be undertaken as a matter of priority.

Housing Numbers and “Sustainable Village”

As mentioned above, if this development was added to the total number of houses granted permission

since and including “Gladman”, it would bring the figure up to 924, which would mean at least double the

number of vehicles (and if those that are coming through the planning process are granted permission, the

figure would come to 1,657 +, which would mean at least 3,314 vehicles (an underestimate) + 2

convenience stores (with extra private and commercial vehicles)).

Darlington Borough Council’s estimated housing target is 492 per year. Middleton St George has already

supplied almost two years’ worth of the housing supply for the whole of Darlington since Gladman. If the

all of the housing developments coming through the planning process are granted permission (i.e. 1,657+),

the village will have supplied well over three years’ supply for the whole of Darlington. This, whilst,

according to CPRE calculations, only 493 (one year’s supply) have been granted permission over the same

period in the rest of Darlington.

Two of the Key Sustainability Factors for Middleton St George are no longer valid (ref. Darlington Borough

Council’s 2016 Interim Planning Position Statement); the GP Surgery is no longer located within 1km of the

centre of the village (in fact it is 1.3 miles from the centre of the proposed development site), and the bus

service, as well as only being an hourly service weekdays until 6pm, does not serve the GP Surgery in its

new location (we continually request an improved bus service, but so far in vain). We need , in order of

priority (a) an improved route to take in the GP Surgery, (b) restoration of evening and Sunday service (c)

restoration of half-hourly service, and (d) route linking other villages and Yarm.

The Parish Council consider that it is extremely unjust to expect Middleton St George to supply three times

as many houses as the rest of Darlington, especially given the fact that, now that the Council has published

its Brown Field Land Register, there is the potential for developing that land prior to doing so on greenfield

sites, as recommended by the Government, and also taking account of the fact that Middleton St George

now fails two of the “sustainable village” criteria.

Drains and Sewerage System

With regard to the drains, the village is built on a Victorian sewer system. Modern estates feed back into

the same small Victorian sewers that feed through the village. When the system is put under pressure, it

14

backs up into houses and through the centre of the village. Raw sewage runs down Middleton Lane and St

Georges Gate, with or without heavy rain, and householders themselves have to sort it out as well as

Council workmen and Northumbrian Water. Many houses, and also businesses in the village, have been

flooded, some having to deal with it at their own expense. More houses mean more pressure mean more

overflowing drains. New development will cause further problems, as waste water has to flow through

these areas to get to the main sewage treatment plant.

Any wastewater drainage into sewers in Grendon Gardens should be advised against, as they would not be

able to cope. Sewage regularly comes up in resident’s properties. The Victorian system that runs through

the village was not designed to cope with the numbers and types of houses proposed in the current and

future years. Not only will it not be able to cope with regard to capacity and function, the additional traffic

produced by the new development will but additional stress on the structure, not to mention the pressure

caused by heavy construction vehicles during the build.

Also, it would not be advisable for water to flow to water courses in the west of the proposed

development, as these also flood during periods of heavy rain.

Ongoing Infringement of Planning Conditions from existing developments

We have already mentioned to the Planning Applications Committee the fact that villagers experience

ongoing problems from the Sadberge Road development site (13/00940/OUT) as building progresses.

Continual infringements of conditions are reported to every single monthly Parish Council meeting. These

breaches of conditions vary from out of hours working, dangerous condition of the main road, lorries using

the road going past St Georges Gate rather than coming into the site straight from the A67 roundabout,

litter on the verge and in the trees, to light pollution (the light on the site next to the nature reserve is on

very long hours - sometimes it is all night affecting the wildlife and people living nearby). The Enforcement

Officer has taken every step he can, short of formal legal action. But the contractors continue to flout

these conditions, making a misery for residents and the village. This is now starting to happen as the

Neasham Road side of the Middleton Lane development is built (Ref. 16/00972/FUL - 27 dwellings off

Middleton Lane). None of the builders are members of a recognised building association or indeed

members of the “Considerate Constructors” Scheme. We should not have to endure this. Therefore, we

would urge that no further developments be granted approval until those already given permission are

built out.

Summary and Conclusion It is well documented that as a result of the Gladman appeal the Borough Council

a) Must accelerate the adoption of new policy, even on an interim basis, and

b) Until then must determine applications on the basis of the NPPF

However, we submit that this does not mean taking the three dimensions in para. 7 of the NPPF as a tick-

box test. “So sustainable development is about positive growth – making economic, environmental and

social progress for this and future generations. The planning system is about helping to make this happen.”

It may not therefore be sustainable to allow – or encourage – developers to use the void created by the

absence of a new local planning policy where to do so would be to negate the proposition that

“neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right

types of development for their community. (NPPF para 184) The ambition of the neighbourhood should be

aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area.” The local planning authority should

be enabled to pay full attention to the strength of local feeling against this development where it is

expressed on rational grounds, and to the fact that the emergent neighbourhood development plan is

15

unable to be progressed pending new local policies being developed against which the NDP can be

aligned. The approval of this application, which demonstrably uses one of the largest remaining land areas

at the edge of the village, will negate future opportunities for constructive neighbourhood planning within

Middleton St George. That is a clear demonstration of non-sustainability, and one does not need to look

further than the way in which the social role is expressed in NPPF para 7.

Weight must still be given to saved policies. The proposed site is outside the Development Limits, and as

such is contrary to Policy E2.

Access, Transport, Travel, Safety and Environmental Impact:

a) Ownership of Access Points

b) Number of vehicles, access, road and pavements inadequacy, and

c) Accident record and road safety being impacted further – the cumulative impact

d) Adverse impact on environmental amenity of residents

The Parish Council calls into question whether the Applicant does, in fact, have access to the development,

and would therefore urge the Borough Council to provide confirmation of ownership of these areas.

Leaving aside the undoubted ill-effects of a five- or six-year development period, even if suitably regulated

and controlled, there is no realistic prospect of creating any robust long-term traffic management in the

village centre. Rather, it will get progressively worse due to the fact that more planning permissions have

been granted, as detailed above. It may be that, as stated in the transport assessment at the outline

planning stage, there is little evidence of accidents having occurred in the past, but the traffic movement

associated with a further 198 homes which have to enter and exit through two “pinch points” will inevitably

increase risk. There are no opportunities for road widening, junction improvement, removing on-street

parking (as residents and businesses on the main thoroughfares have little facility for convenient off-street

parking), extending “no-waiting” zones, or even pavement widening. Villagers are well aware of the

present difficulties in parking and visiting village centre premises, and the fact that there are frequent

infringements of parking regulations.

Less than 50% of the site is within 400m walking distance of the bus stops. The size of the development

is unsustainable and non-compliant in this regard. Greater, rather than lesser car use by residents of the

new development, will be inevitable, especially given the fact that we still have a poor bus service.

The unsuitability of the approach roads has been examined and evidenced clearly above, in terms of the measurements of the roads and pavements (especially being in contravention of the Disability Discrimination Act), road surface, angle of the bends, access for refuse and emergency vehicles (currently and in the future) number of vehicles parking (existing and proposed) with accompanying problems, as well as unsuitability of the approach roads to cope with the amount of proposed dwellings and their vehicles. We have also detailed the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the residents of the existing houses in Grendon Gardens and The Greenway, as well as the village as a whole, in terms of risks to safety, increasing bottlenecks and congestion. The village cannot cope with any more traffic, and speeding is a constant problem, meaning safety (especially children’s) is a major issue. The development will mean approx. 400 extra cars, which will add to increased hazards, noise, disturbance and pollution, and public transport is not sustainable enough since

16

the bus service is currently not viable. The development would bring about an adverse effect on health and quality of life (Paragraph 123 of the NPPF). There is nothing within this proposal which (borrowing words from paragraphs 28 and 29 of the NPPF) “promotes the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages” and “contributes to wider sustainability and health objectives.” The Planning Applications Committee refused the initial outline planning application via this one access on environmental sustainability grounds and quotes Paragraph 14 of the Framework states that in presuming in favour of sustainable development, permission should be granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits ……”. (see above). The environmental impact needs to be weighed against the sustainability presumption. Paragraph 32 of the Planning Guidelines on Transport states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”. It has been shown above that the residual cumulative impacts of the development would be severe. Paragraph 32 also states that “All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment”. The Applicant has not met the requirement of Condition 7 of the Planning Permission of 15/00976/OUT, and with regard to a vehicle swept path analysis to be undertaken to support the movement framework for emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles and service vehicles for the internal network and, where appropriate, in respect of the off-site highway proposals. Design and Layout of the Site Itself

a) Lack of parking spaces b) Disregard for existing PROWs, and requirement to consult on any proposed diversions or

extinguishments c) Roman Road d) Housing Mix

We have cited above the Architectural Liaison Officer’s concern regarding the lack of parking provision within the development itself. We have also detailed our concerns regarding the Applicant’s disregard for existing PROWs; they do not comply with the current laws, and any proposals to change them require an Order to be made, with the corresponding consultation periods. We are making the strong case that the existing PROWs should remain, as they are walked by villagers every day, and have been for at least the past 50 years. Should the Committee be minded to grant permission for the development, however, we insist the Borough Council make appropriate Orders as requested above. The majority of houses on the proposed development would be 4-bedroomed. However, we have evidenced that this type of housing is not selling in the village, and therefore they are not needed. A proportion of bungalows would be the preferred option. Housing numbers, “sustainable village”, existing drainage problems, close proximity to the reservoirs, and ongoing building site problems We have provided reasons above why Middleton St George cannot be regarded as sustainable, and consequently should not be expected the take on the number of houses targeted for the village.

17

The ongoing building site problems add to the environmental factors for villagers – one of the reasons why the initial outline planning application was refused. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that large-scale development in Middleton St. George will contribute to its economic sustainability. All the comments in the Application are speculation. In Gladman the inspector accepted that many of the residents of new housing would be travelling away from the village to work. The same likelihood applies to the development proposed for the Application Site. In the absence of a resolution of the housing need figures, no judgment can be made as to whether “new” village residents are more likely to find work in Darlington, or in Teesside; but it is unlikely to be in the village. Therefore, the Parish Council do not believe that there can be any economic benefit to the village from the development of the Application Site, or that even if there were some marginal improvement to the village, that that can outweigh the significant environmental disadvantages which the village will suffer. Below are 3 of the Objectives, together with some relevant sections of the draft NDP, which we would want to see maintained and considered. We would welcome further consultation with Darlington Borough Council on how these may be implemented. Objective 1: Ensure that new developments are sustainable and make a contribution to the quality of life and quality of local services for the people who live or work in Middleton St George. Objective 2: Maintain, protect and enhance green spaces and ensure that these are of a high quality and allow the community to use them for health and well-being. In pursuit of this ensure that the landscape character is maintained and enhanced and that the coalescence of Middleton St George with adjacent settlements is prevented. Objective 3: Maintain and enhance local distinctiveness including village character through the protection or restoration of the built and natural heritage of Middleton St George. The strategic priorities for the Neighbourhood Development Plan set by the community are to (i) retain a village character for Middleton St George, (ii) maintain and where possible improve the quality of life for existing residents and (iii), maintain and where possible improve local services and infrastructure. Judging by consultation, the quality and accessibility of the environment in is an important consideration to the quality of life of residents. Hence environmental protection and improvements are to be sought through the Neighbourhood Development Plan. Middleton St George Parish Council are of the opinion, based on the grounds detailed above, that any adverse impacts of granting permission for this application would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework (NPPF). Therefore, permission should be refused. We would also recommend that a number of site visits are carried out by members of the Planning Applications Committee as a matter of urgency, and preferably at peak times. Yours sincerely, Alan Macnab, Clerk to the Parish Council.