Agenda and minutes

Ashington and Blyth Local Area Council - Wednesday, 13th October, 2021 4.00 pm

Venue: Meeting Space, Block 1, Floor 2, County Hall, Morpeth, NE61 2EF

Contact: Rebecca Greally 

No. Item




Apologies were received from C. Humprey and W. Ploszaj




Councillor Gallacher, Vice-Chair (Planning) (in the Chair) outlined the procedure which would be followed at the meeting. 



Unless already entered in the Council’s Register of Members’ interests, members are required to disclose any personal interest (which includes any disclosable pecuniary interest) they may have in any of the items included on the agenda for the meeting in accordance with the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council on 4 July 2012, and are reminded that if they have any personal interests of a prejudicial nature (as defined under paragraph 17 of the Code Conduct) they must not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must leave the room. NB Any member needing clarification must contact Legal Services by email at Please refer to the guidance on disclosures at the rear of this agenda letter.


Councillor B Gallacher disclosed an interest in the planning application on item 6 as he had already expressed his opinion on the application and agreed that he would leave the room during the item. 


21/03198/CCD pdf icon PDF 309 KB

Proposal to increase the fencing to 2.1m in height freestanding, and 2.1m above the dwarf walls to improve the overall security of site. Proposals will bring together the mismatch style of the fencing/gates and standardise to improve the external aesthetics of the school.


Croftway Primary Academy, William Street, Blyth, NE24 2HP


J Murphy, Planning Area Manager, introduced the planning application to the committee with the aid of a power point presentation. It was noted that there were no updates since the report was finalised. 


In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was?noted: -? 


  • The application was brought to the committee as it was a school and was felt that it was of public interest. It was added to the referral list to bring to member’s attention and the Chair felt it was worthy to be brought to the committee.   
  • The new fence would be the same colour all the way around which was an unpainted steel colour. 
  • Members agreed the new fence would look better than the mismatch fences that were in situ.  
  • There was one objection against the application however the officers had spoken to the objector and satisfied their concerns. 


Councillor Parry proposed acceptance of the recommendations to approve the application as outlined in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Reid. A vote was taken, and it was unanimously agreed.  


RESOLVED that the application be?GRANTED?for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report. 




For Members’ information to report the progress of planning appeals.  This is a monthly report and relates to appeals throughout all 5 Local Area Council Planning Committee areas and covers appeals of Strategic Planning Committee.


RESOLVED that the information be noted . 



Councillor Gallacher left the room. Councillor D Carr chaired the next planning item.  



20/03203/FUL pdf icon PDF 216 KB

Part Retrospective - Change of use from utility room to hair salon and erection of a fence to the side of property, adjacent to footpath?


2?Houndslow?Drive, Fallowfield, Ashington, NE63 8LZ?


W Laing, Planning Officer, introduced the application with the aid of powerpoint presentation. 


D Thompson addressed the committee speaking in opposition of the application. Her comments were as follows: - 


  • Under planning policies GP1 the application failed to demonstrate sequential testing and the re-use of buildings in the area.  
  • Policy STP3.E the application failed to minimize the impact on local amenities for new or existing residents.  
  • Policy ECN11 the application failed to fully address highways, access and amenity for point (b) whilst restricted convenance were not a planning consideration these had been highlighted as part of the objection as the estate was legally protected. 
  • Under principles of development the applicant states only one customer a day and no customers waiting. Inaccurate responses had been provided throughout this application process for example providing the number of bedrooms the household had. If they were inaccurate on the number of bedroom they may have been inaccurate on the number of customers. 
  • A similar application nearby was refused on the grounds that it could have led to other applications of a similar nature being submitted. It was rejected as it was recognized that it was a residential estate. Changing the house from C3 use to C3 + A1/E1 could have resulted in other applications for professional services and retail within the residential area.  
  • The application had a detrimental affect on the residential area as well as the Town Centre and existing commercial premises as it drew trade and footfall away from the area. 
  • There was a suggestion that restrictions could have been applied to the application but it was questioned how the Authority would enforce the restrictions. 
  • Increased traffic, noise and general disturbances were detrimental to the residential area. 
  • When 60% of the residents in the local area had objected it was questioned how the application could be approved. Of all the public responses that were submitted 90% were objections. 
  • Fallowfield was a desirable area to live in with a low turnover of residents. Changing the character and amenity of the area could have deterred new people moving into the area. 
  • The extension was granted with a door and window originally as part of the residential home. If the application was granted the privacy of neighbouring properties would have been lost as customers who entered or left the salon would have looked directly into the rear garden of neighbouring properties. The window and door had not been built in the location that was originally granted.  
  • Under regulations the property was required to have 3 parking spaces as it was a four-bedroom house. The property would require an additional parking space for the salon if it was granted. Highways had stated that the lack of one parking space would not have substantiated a refusal on highway safety grounds as the salon was only to have one customer at a time.  
  • Highways suggested parking could have been across the drive however this would have meant parking on the pavement which would have restricted pedestrians. The property  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.



The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 10 November 2021


It was noted that the next meeting, would take place on Wednesday, 10 November 2021, time to be confirmed.