Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor J Foster, Vice-Chair Planning, in the Chair for the planning items, advised that as she would have to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in items 8 and 13 on the agenda the meeting would become inquorate for those items and therefore a decision had been made to withdraw them and they would be rescheduled for future meetings.  She apologised to the members of public in attendance for these those items and allowed a short recess to allow them to leave if they so wished.

Members were reminded of the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Darwin, Dunn,  Dickinson, Jones, Towns and Wearmouth.

Minutes of the meetings of the Castle Morpeth Local Area Councils held on Monday 9 May 2022 and Monday 13 June 2022, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings of the Castle Morpeth Local Area Council held on Monday 9 May 2022 and 13 June 2022, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record and be signed by the Chair.

Unless already entered in the Council’s Register of Members’ interests, members are required where a matter arises at a meeting; 

1. Which directly relates to Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (‘DPI’) as set out in Appendix B, Table 1 of the Code of Conduct, to disclose the interest, not participate in any discussion or vote and not to remain in room. Where members have a DPI or if the matter concerns an executive function and is being considered by a Cabinet Member with a DPI they must notify the Monitoring Officer and arrange for somebody else to deal with the matter.

2. Which directly relates to the financial interest or well being of a Other Registrable Interest as set out in Appendix B, Table 2 of the Code of Conduct to disclose the interest and only speak on the matter if members of the public are also allowed to speak at the meeting but otherwise must not take part in any discussion  or vote on the matter and must not remain the room.

3. Which directly relates to their financial interest or well-being  (and is not  DPI) or the financial well being of a relative or close associate, to declare the interest and members may only speak on the matter if members of the public are also allowed to speak. Otherwise, the member must not take part in discussion or vote on the matter and must leave the room.

4. Which affects the financial well-being of the member, a relative or close associate or a body included under the Other Registrable Interests column in Table 2, to disclose the interest and apply the test set out at paragraph 9 of Appendix B before deciding whether they may remain in the meeting.

5. Where Members have or a Cabinet Member has an Other Registerable Interest or Non Registerable Interest in a matter being considered in exercise of their executive function, they must notify the Monitoring Officer and arrange for somebody else to deal with it. 

NB Any member needing clarification must contact monitoringofficer@northumberland.gov.uk.  Members are referred to the Code of Conduct which contains the matters above in full. Please refer to the guidance on disclosures at the rear of this agenda letter.

Councillor Foster advised that she had a personal and prejudicial interest in item 8, planning application 22/00075/FUL as a close personal friend lived in a property affected by this application and whilst the issue had not been discussed she felt it best to withdraw for this item.  In respect of item 13, appointments to outside bodies and the nominees to the Stakeford and Bomarsund Welfare Committee she advise that she was the Chair of Trustees and was also on the Parish Council, therefore she also had a personal and prejudicial interest and would need to withdraw for that item.

Councillor Murphy also advised that she was a Trustee of the Stakeford and Bomarsund Welfare Committee and therefore had a personal and prejudicial interest and would also need to withdraw for item 13.

To request the committee to decide the planning applications attached to this report using the powers delegated to it. 

Please note that printed letters of objection/support are not circulated with the agenda but are available on the Council’s website at  http://www.northumberland.gov.uk/Planning.aspx

The report requested the Committee to decide the planning applications attached to the report using the powers delegated to it.  Members were reminded of the principles which should govern their consideration of the applications, the procedure for handling representations, the requirement of conditions and the need for justifiable reasons for the granting of permission or refusal of planning applications.

Full planning application for change of use of existing agricultural field for forestry and community education uses including creation of planting amphitheatre and associated infrastructure

Land to The North of Eland Lane, Ponteland, Northumberland

Full planning application for change of use of existing agricultural field for forestry and community education uses including creation of planting amphitheatre and associated infrastructure

Land to The North of Eland Lane, Ponteland, Northumberland

R Soulsby, Planning Officer provided an introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation.  Members were informed that a late representation from Ponteland Town Council had been received which read as follows:

“The Council has concerns over access; parking on a narrow country lane; blocking a road that is used regularly by the neighbouring farm and residents; litter; safety with such a proximity to the river; vandalism; the risk of antisocial behaviour; the remoteness of this facility and the risk that it could become a 'hangout' area for youths resulting in antisocial behaviour.”

The Planning Officer advised that whilst objectors had raised concerns regarding the site potentially resulting in an increase in antisocial behaviour and litter within the area, these were not material planning considerations.

Mr C Jackson addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       This was a retrospective application for previously productive agricultural land and it was incomprehensible that Bellway continued to develop and change the use when it could be productive agricultural land.

·       There was no reference to the current condition of the land.

·       The proposal was unnecessary.

·       No educational body had been consulted or expressed a need for this facility.

·       The developer had based this on the Miyawaki method which was particularly suitable for urban areas and this was not an urban area, and therefore there was no basis to support the application.

·       The placement of the trees 2 to 3 metres apart was inconsistent with the size site as a much larger site would be required for the number of trees and therefore the proposals were inappropriate.

·       There had been no engagement with community groups and the educational aspect was not valid.

·       The application failed to consider or meet the objectives set out in Northumberland's Local Plan (NLP)- Policy STP1, in particular sub bullet g;  Policy STP3;  Policy STP4; Policy STP5, bullet 2, in particular sub bullets, a, f and g and extracts of the NLP  were read out to the Committee.

·       In respect of Policy STP6 the land was already well maintained farm land and there was no attempt to meet any of the planning objectives outlined in the report.  Agricultural use on the site was already well managed and there would be no net biodiversity gain, but in fact there would be a net loss.

·       The clear ecological benefit had not been outlined.

·       The developer had rubbished the concerns from residents in relation to fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour on the site.

·       STP5 stated that you must not create an area which does not promote,  support and enhance the health and wellbeing of communities and must support the wider issue of public safety and the Police have not endorsed this development.

Eilidh Paul, Agent on behalf of the applicant addressed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

New vehicular access to serve four permitted dwellings

Land North of Southcroft Stables, The Croft, Ulgham, Northumberland

New vehicular access to serve four permitted dwellings

Land North of Southcroft Stables, The Croft, Ulgham, Northumberland

R Soulsby, Planning Officer provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation. 

Councillor J Scott, Chair of Ulgham Parish Council addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The Parish council wished to object on the grounds of unnecessary development in the Green Belt.

·       There was no justification for a new access as the existing access to the site was perfectly adequate, within the 30 mph limit and had approximately 75m clear view in either direction.

·       Any new entrance could have only one purpose which would be to allow access for a future large scale development. An application for which had already been refused.

·       The proposed new access was well outside the line of the brownfield site which already had permission for four dwellings.

·       The Highways report, which was fully supported, went into far more detail and left no doubt that the application should be refused.

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

·       In terms of the Green Belt and the NPPF, this was an acceptable form of development within the Green Belt and would not impact on the openness of the area. Highways had no objection to the application on highway safety grounds, subject to the imposition of conditions. 

·       The road was public highway and as part of a Section 78 agreement must be approved to a certain standard.

·       There was an application for the development of houses, however this was refused and all Members had to consider today was the actual access being proposed. The site and surrounding area was outside of the settlement boundary for Ulgham and within designated Green Belt therefore there was not policy support for residential development within this area. 

Councillor Dodd proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Murphy.   A vote was taken on the proposal and it was unanimously:

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.

A short recess was held at this point, and Councillor J Beynon took the Chair when the meeting recommenced.

To reply to any questions received from members of the public which have been submitted in writing in advance of the meeting. Questions can be asked about issues for which the Council has a responsibility. (Public question times take place on a bimonthly basis at Local Area Council meetings: in January, March, May, July, September and November each year.)

As agreed by the County Council in February 2012, the management of local public question times is at the discretion of the chair of the committee.

Please note however that a question may possibly be rejected if it requires the disclosure of any categories of confidential or exempt information, namely information:

1. relating to any individual;
2. which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual;
3. relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person
4. relating to any labour relations matters/negotiations;
5. restricted to legal proceedings
6. about enforcement/enacting legal orders
7. relating to the prevention, investigation of prosecution of crime.
   
   

And/or:

?      is defamatory, frivolous or offensive;

?      it is substantially the same as a question which has been put at a meeting of this or another County Council committee in the past six months;

?      the request repeats an identical or very similar question from the same person;

?      the cost of providing an answer is disproportionate;

?      it is being separately addressed through the Council's complaints process;

?      it is not about a matter for which the Council has a responsibility or which affects the county;

?      it relates to planning, licensing and/or other regulatory applications

?      it is a question that town/parish councils would normally be expected to raise through other channels.

If the Chair is of the opinion that a question is one which for whatever reason, cannot properly be asked in an area meeting, he/she will disallow it and inform the resident of his/her decision.

Copies of any written answers (without individuals' personal contact details) will be provided for members after the meeting and also be publicly available.

Democratic Services will confirm the status of the progress on any previously requested written answers and follow up any related actions requested by the Local Area Council.

No questions had been submitted.

This item is to:

(a)    Receive any new petitions: to receive any new petitions. The lead petitioner is  entitled to briefly introduce their petition by providing a statement in writing, and a response to any petitions received will then be organised for a future meeting;

(b)  Consider reports on petitions previously received:

(i) Request for a footpath / cycleway to connect Red Row Drive to Barrington Road in Bedlington Station – report attached.

(c) Receive any updates on petitions for which a report was previously considered: any updates will be verbally reported at the meeting.

(a) Receive New Petitions – no new petitions had been received.

(b) Petitions Previously Received – Request for footpath/cycleway connecting Red Row Drive to Barrington Road, Bedlington Station

A report had been provided responding to the paper and e-petition and the lead petitioner, Mrs M Trotter had been invited to attend and provide a response.   Her comments included the following:-

·       The body of the report deviated towards the existing pedestrian access to Bedlington Station over the Welwyn Bridge and via Stakeford Road, with statements made suggesting that the bridge was not fit for purpose. This was an objective assessment where it had been identified as unsuitable but mitigated by adding traffic lights.

·       It is not defensible to state that no accidents had occurred so it cannot be justified. Near misses were not recorded, therefore it was not that there was no risk, it was just that the risk was not recorded.

·       An accident in which she had been involved happened on the bridge in December 2019 which resulted in her receiving a fractured wrist. The Council were informed of this accident and whilst no one contacted her in respect of this, the cause of the accident was removed the following week. 

·       One of the primary objectives as a local authority was a duty of care and to take proactive action to minimise risk to life, therefore was this an appropriate alternative route to allow children to ride their bikes safely; expect less able and wheelchair users to attempt the route; and allow parents with pushchairs to experience difficulties crossing.

·       Residents needed to be able to travel to access local amenities and link communities together and were not always walking towards Bedlington Station, but trying to access a wider range of activities in the opposite direction.

·       The request for a pavement/cycleway was to allow children to safely ride their bikes to schools, parks and leisure facilities; minimise the risk to the travelling public; strengthen inclusion by improving the highway and broadening outdoor opportunities for those less able and wheelchair users; link communities to the new rail link rather than them having to use the Welwyn Bridge, with its increased traffic heading to the station car parks; and allow residents the choice of a safer route.

·       A supporting statement from Steve Patterson, Managing Director of Remondis was read out to the Committee in which, as a local employer, he advised that he strongly supported the scheme and had pledged a contribution of £1500 towards the cost of a scheme to should it be approved.

Officers advised that they appreciated the concerns and supported a scheme being put forward in the next round of the LTP,  however it might still be difficult to prioritise this over other schemes, but it would be submitted and go through the normal process.

Councillor Foster advised that she would also be happy for this to be put forward for consideration as part of the LTP and make a contribution to any costs should it be successful.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

To receive a verbal update from the Area Managers from Technical Services and Neighbourhood Services in attendance about any key recent, ongoing and/or future planned Local Services work for the attention of members of the Local Area Council, who will also then have the opportunity to raise issues with the Area Managers.

The Area Managers have principal responsibility for highway services and environmental services, such as refuse collection, street cleansing and grounds maintenance, within the geographic boundaries of the Local Area Council.

M King, Highways Delivery Area Manager provided an update which included the following information:

·       There was still a backlog in category 1 repairs following the winter storms, however routine work was now on schedule.  Reactive third party requests continued to rise in the Castle Morpeth area and the reason for this would be investigated as it impacted on the category 1 work.

·       A  new hot box was now in use for the Castle Morpeth area and the impact on the backlog would be seen shortly.

·       A large amount of work in relation to drainage had been identified and it was hoped that work would commence in August.

·       New gulley maintenance vehicles had arrived and a review of systems and new routes would be created.

·       Minor patching work was ongoing with schemes being extended if possible.

·       A large patching scheme was being undertaken at Lancaster Park in Morpeth. 

·       Other work being undertaken included footpath work in Heddon, signage repaired or removed and verge safety work. It was hoped to commence work on the footpath in Lynemouth the following week.

·       Work at Goosehill car park was going well, however there was an issue with a change of sub-contractor and it was likely the completion date would need to be extended with Members kept advised of any changes. 

·       There had been new staff recruited to join the Castle Morpeth team but difficulties in recruiting the right staff to deliver the best service were highlighted.

In response to questions from Members, the following information was provided:-

·       Temporary lighting at the Goosehill site would be looked at.

·       It was not thought there would be any impact on road surfaces in the County due to the level of heat expected, however if the level was raised to three, then there may be some impact on materials and the situation would be monitored.  Staff who had to wear full protective equipment had been advised to take extra breaks, wear sun-tan lotion and keep hydrated and therefore a small dip in output might occur.

·       N Snowdon would check the progress of the junction of Thornhill Road and North Road in Ponteland and report back to Councillor Dodd.

·       In relation to the speed signs for Belsay guidance would be provided on what assistance the Parish Council could provide.

·       In respect of signage requested for the roundabout at the junction beside the A69 requested by Councillor Dodd, this would be looked at again to determine if it was within Northumberland or Newcastle.

·       N Snowdon advised that an update would be provided to Councillor Foster regarding the possibility of lighting being installed at the chicane on the C403 which had been replaced the previous week, and the team would also report back on whether works on Riverbank had been included in the U-roads schemes.

·       The reporting process for the LTP schemes was currently being looked at in relation to how information was to be presented and how often, including the dates of any planned schemes.

·       Councillor Dodd advised that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To note the latest version of agreed items for future Local Area Council meetings (any suggestions for new agenda items will require confirmation by the Business Chair after the meeting).

The Chair advised that the work programme was for information and should Members wish to ask for any items to be added to the agenda, then they contact either himself or Democratic Services.

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

The next meeting (Planning only) will be held on Monday, 8 August 2022.

The next meeting was scheduled for Monday 8 August 2022 and would be planning only.