Agenda and draft minutes

Members were reminded of the procedure to be followed at the meeting.  The Chair advised that the agenda would be reordered to allow those planning applications with public speaking to be heard first.  Therefore the two applications for South Hall, Ingoe would be moved down the agenda and whilst there would only be one presentation from the Officer each application would be the subject of a separate vote.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bawn, Beynon, Foster and Murphy.

(a)    Minutes of the meeting of the Castle Morpeth Local Area Council held on Monday 11July 2022, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

(b)    Minutes of the meeting of the Castle Morpeth Local Area Council held on Monday 8 August 2022, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

(a) 11 July 2022

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Castle Morpeth Local Area Council held on Monday 11 July 2022, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record and be signed by the Chair.

(b) 8 August 2022

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Castle Morpeth Local Area Council held on Monday 8 August 2022, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record and be signed by the Chair.

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

Members were reminded of the procedure to be followed at the meeting.  The Chair advised that the agenda would be reordered to allow those planning applications with public speaking to be heard first.  Therefore the two applications for South Hall, Ingoe would be moved down the agenda and whilst there would only be one presentation from the Officer each application would be the subject of a separate vote.

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

Construction of two residential properties, including new vehicular access, with associated drainage and infrastructure

Land North West of Garden Cottage, Front Street, Ellington, Northumberland

Construction of two residential properties, including new vehicular access, with associated drainage and infrastructure

Land North West of Garden Cottage, Front Street, Ellington, Northumberland

An introduction to the report was provided by R Soulsby, Planning Officer with the aid of a power point presentation.  There were no updates provided.

Mr Pattison addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application on behalf of Mr Bramwell.  His comments included the following:-

·       The plan did not show the correct boundary. 

·       There was concern regarding the access into the field as it was too near the main roundabout and appeared to be very close to his property.

·       The decibel check was invalid as it was carried out during the Covid pandemic when traffic was much lighter and with the proposed access right next to his window the noise levels would be much higher.

·       It had been stated incorrectly in documentation that his property was a two storey dwelling and in fact it was a single storey dwelling.

·       The septic tank which was used by Garden Cottage had not been mentioned and the reliance on the field drainage for his property had also not been mentioned.

·       The well on the property had been filled in using the rubble from the demolition of an old blacksmiths tool shed.

·       The two supporters of the proposal had a vested interest in the application.

·       He questioned whether the traffic calming measures which had been installed would remain as there had been a significant rise in the amount of traffic. 

·       The application would be detrimental to many of the amenities in the village and he asked that careful consideration be given to the application.

M Hepburn, Agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The report fully assessed all the relevant issues and recommended that permission should be granted.  The applicant’s team had worked with officers to ensure the best scheme for the site and the proposals would create two new high quality homes within the village of Ellington.

·       The comments from the Parish Council had been taken into account when they presented material considerations. The proposals were policy compliant and all technical matters had been addressed and there were no material considerations which outweighed the benefits of the proposal.

·       Robust technical assessments had been undertaken which demonstrated that the proposed development was technically sound and deliverable. There were no outstanding objections from any of the Council’s internal consultees and a number of conditions have been agreed between the applicant and Council officers.

·       In response to comments received from Council consultees there had been a reduction in the scale and massing of the houses and there had been a revision to the access arrangements to the site with the new access arrangement following the exact specification requested by the Highways Department.

·       The development had evolved over the course of the application in response to comments received and the result would be a sustainable high quality development which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Installation of a 30m x 3.65m fully carpeted single bay practice facility and fully enclosed single bay cricket cage with heavy duty galvanized tubular uprights and netting. Single pedestrian gate. White netting added behind bowler to act as a sight screen and install three protective sheets around each side of the batting end.

Ulgham Playing Field, Ulgham Lane, Ulgham, Northumberland

NE61 3BG

Installation of a 30m x 3.65m fully carpeted single bay practice facility and fully enclosed single bay cricket cage with heavy duty galvanized tubular uprights and netting. Single pedestrian gate. White netting added behind bowler to act as a sight screen and install three protective sheets around each side of the batting end.

Ulgham Playing Field, Ulgham Lane, Ulgham, Northumberland

NE61 3BG

An introduction to the report was provided by R Soulsby, Planning Officer with the aid of a power point presentation.  There were no updates provided.

S Miles of 3 Manor Court, Ulgham addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of her husband and herself in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       It was not shown on the plan how close the structure would be to their home as whilst it showed the whole boundary of number 6 Manor Court it did not identify their property which was closest.  The proposed facility would only a matter of feet away from their boundary and approximately 48’ from their conservatory and would infringe on their quality of life and privacy.

·       A garden seating area, which was used on a regular basis, was only feet from where the structure would be sited.

·       There would be a constant noise of “bat on ball” during practice sessions.

·       The size of the structure would be approximately 6’6” higher than their hedge and 12’ wide only a matter of feet from their boundary and would be visible from anywhere in their garden and all rear windows of their home and would greatly impact on their outlook 365 days per year.

·       The cricket club had been there when they had bought their property 27 years ago and up until now they had not had any cause to complain about the normal matches or any of the other activities and functions held on the play field area.

·       The structure could affect the resale value of their property.

·       They appreciated that the cricket club was trying to involve younger players to get involved in the sport, but the majority of supporters of the scheme did not live in the Village let alone have the prospect of a structure this size almost in their back garden.  They did not object to the installation of a practice net but asked that it be relocated somewhere else, possibly where the old practice net had been stored.  If the structure was erected in that location then the existing band of trees would muffle the noise and it would not have any visual effect from their home.

·       The report gave the impression that there were existing trees that would shield the structure from their view, however currently there were no trees that would shield the view.  The applicant had previously stated to them that some of the trees on the boundary would be removed to facilitate the structure and therefore the outlook from their garden would be of a steel netted structure not trees and greenery.  He had also advised that some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Proposed construction of detached standalone garden room to rear garden area.

Hepscott Hall, Side Lane, Hepscott, Morpeth Northumberland

NE61 6LT

Proposed construction of detached standalone garden room to rear garden area.

Hepscott Hall, Side Lane, Hepscott, Morpeth Northumberland

NE61 6LT

R Campbell, Senior Planning Officer provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation.  There were no updates.

A Elliott-Robertson addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       She lived at Hepscott Hall Cottage and had been devastated by the notification that her neighbour was to build a garden room on the site which was only 26 inches away from her dining room and small patio.

·       The development would be the size of a double garage and was the entire width of the patio and would be 848mm above the boundary wall with a window which would overlook her property.

·       The close proximity and nature of the development would have a profound detrimental impact and invade her privacy.

·       Friends and family of the applicant would congregate at the garden room which would be on the site where a shed now stood and as it would be in such close proximity to her property she would be able to hear every conversation word for word and it would become a real noise issue day and night. 

·       The proposed development would be modern and ugly and would not be in keeping with the Grade II listed building.

·       If the proposal had been for the garden room to have been erected on the large grass area then she would have had no objection, but the location was only 26 inches from her boundary wall.

Councillor D Cowens addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Hepscott Parish Council.  It was accepted that the proposed building design and appearance agreed with the Listed Monuments National Planning Guidance for the Grade II listed monument and the applicant’s huge improvement to the south side of the listed building was acknowledged.  However the Parish Council supported the very near neighbour’s objection to the unfortunate siting of the development so near to their property and the intrusive height which would spoil the vista and be detrimental to their amenity. It would be of benefit if the proposed development could be moved behind another, very nearby existing screening wall, or if the base could be lowered Italian sunken garden style, so that it would be hidden by the party wall.

S McNicoll, applicant, addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       Despite the objections that had been raised, the building did not overlook the garden next door from the side window it would in fact look into the fence.

·       The building would be set two metres away from the boundary.

·       The objections from the neighbour and Parish Council were not based on what had been submitted and were not based on what would actually be done on the site.

·       The building would be part of a domestic garden, which already had a pool area, and objections on the grounds of noise had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Conversion of outbuildings to two holiday lets, repair/reconfiguring of third outbuilding for storage ancillary to Hall and landscaping including new car park and main entrance to south elevation of Hall

South Hall, Ingoe, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland, NE20 0SR

Conversion of outbuildings to two holiday lets, repair/reconfiguring of third outbuilding for storage ancillary to Hall and landscaping including new car park and main entrance to south elevation of Hall

South Hall, Ingoe, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland, NE20 0SR

R Campbell, Senior Planning Officer provided a joint introduction to this application and application 21/0441/LBC with the aid of a power point presentation.  The applications would be subject to a separate vote and no updates were provided.

Councillor Wearmouth proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Darwin.  Councillor Jones, Ward Councillor advised that she would not be voting on the proposal.  A vote was taken as follows: FOR 6; AGAINST 0; ABSTAIN 1.

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

Listed building consent for conversion of outbuildings to two holiday lets, repair/reconfiguring of third outbuilding for storage ancillary to Hall and landscaping including new car park and main entrance to south elevation of Hall

South Hall, Ingoe, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland, NE20 0SR

Listed building consent for conversion of outbuildings to two holiday lets, repair/reconfiguring of third outbuilding for storage ancillary to Hall and landscaping including new car park and main entrance to south elevation of Hall

South Hall, Ingoe, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland, NE20 0SR

An introduction to the report had been provided by R Campbell, Senior Planning Officer as part of the previous agenda item. 

It was clarified that Listed Building Consent was not dealt with retrospectively and was classified as unauthorised works.  The works which had already been undertaken were mainly re-roofing works to the outbuildings and work on the boundary walls, however the boundary walls were not listed.

Councillor Wearmouth proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Darwin.  A vote was taken as follows:- FOR 7; AGAINST 0; ABSTAIN 1.

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 to allow officers to join the meeting.  Councillors Sanderson and Dickson left the meeting at this point.

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:

-       Petition Against On-Going Planning Issues And Environmental Destruction On Land To The South Of St Mary’s Park, Stannington - 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 – Report provided on the petition against on-going planning issues and environmental destruction on land to the south of St Mary’s Park, Stannington.

The report acknowledged the petition received from residents of St Mary’s Park in respect of on-going planning issues and requested Members to agree the Council’s response.   An introduction to the report was provided by R Campbell, Senior Planning Officer who advised that since the planning permission had been granted in 2007 there had been a series of subsequent planning applications had been received and determined in response to alterations of house-types, layout and other material changes.   Slides were also shown as part of the introduction.

She stated in response to the petition, that the Council fully accepted the residents’ upset and dissatisfaction at Bellway’s lack of compliance with these conditions and advised that the planning department had been working with Bellway for around 3 years now to resolve all of the outstanding matters. This had been a very complex and lengthy process due to the number of applications and variations of plans to consider. Paragraph 11 of the report detailed a change in circumstances since planning permission was granted with regards to the pavilion, which had resulted in Bellway being unable to meet the requirements of condition no. 10. This had impacted on the future development of the landscape and recreational areas of the site.

With regards to the SuDS area, the Lead Local Flood Authority had looked closely at the submitted plans and what was on site. They were satisfied that the expected requirements had been met with a small number of changes around some overgrown earth/grass being removed, which has been relayed to Bellway.

To address the matters of landscaping and the pavilion, planning officers and enforcement officers had continued discussions with Bellway and it had been agreed that they would submit two further applications,  one to vary the wording of condition no. 10 to allow for a restoration scheme and/or the provision of playing fields; and two, a new application for the provision of a playing field, including pitch drainage and landscaping viewing mounds. Since compiling the report, those two applications had been received and validated and were open to public consultation.  The planning department were working closely with the Council’s Ecologist to ensure the residents’ views were considered and the right outcome of these proposals by Bellway would be achieved. Both applications would be brought before Members in due course.

D Flounders, the lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee.  His comments included the following:-

·       He clarified that he lived in the village and did not live in a Bellway home.

·       The playing field area had been superseded by planning application 22/02923/FUL about which some residents had received letters.  The new application negated the requirement for Bellway to reconstruct  the pavilion it demolished, as well as install sports-grade drainage. It also removed the requirement to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

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.

Neighbourhood Services

P. Lowes, Neighbourhood Services Area Manager advised that the residual, recycling and garden waste collections continued to operate well with income from garden waste exceeding targets.  Income from commercial waste and bulk collection had also exceeded targets.   Bottle recycling facilities continued to receive extra collections due to increased use.  There had been increased demand for bulky collections and domestic waste tonnages remained higher than normal and whilst operational adjustments had been made the situation remained challenging.

There had been some staffing issues in relation to grass cutting but the core standard had been achieved.  Work was now commencing on winter work schedules and early requests would be welcomed from Members.  Normal schedules were continuing in relation to street sweeping however this would move to leaf hot spots shortly.  Verge cutting had been completed county wide on target, however the kerbside food waste trial had been delayed due to supply chain issues in relation to vehicles, but was now scheduled to start in November.

In response to issues raised by Members, the following would be looked at:

Sun Inn/War Memorial

Road from Sun Inn to County Hall – debris in the middle of the road

Litter following verge cutting on Alcan Road

Highways

M King, Highways Area Manager advised that all Covid restrictions had been removed however some rules remained to ensure good practice and protect  frontline operatives. Reactive maintenance teams were continuing with Cat 1 works and were reported as up to date.  Routine Inspections were ongoing and reported as on target by the end of October.  Reactive third party requests were still running higher than any other areas and the backlog of works continued to be reduced.

Training had been completed for gully wagon drivers and productivity had seen an increase and should continue to rise. All drainage works identified and this year’s programme should be ready to go by the end of October 2022.

The minor patching programme had been completed, with minor structural patching also completed across the Castle Morpeth Area.  Details would be circulated to Members outside of the meeting. 

A number or vacancies had become available, however as with other services within the County it was difficult to attract the level of skills set to ensure that a quality service could be delivered.

In relation to winter services grit bin were being filled and final preparations on going. Routes had been confirmed and teams fully trained and prepared to deliver the same quality service as previous years

Councillor Dodd raised the issue of road markings at the roundabout to join the A69 from Ponteland and also highlighted potential problems with Ash die back and how this could impact on the county’s highways and would be requesting a plan on how this could be tackled at Council in November.

Councillor Towns advised that Ulgham Parish Council were continually reporting issues with road signs.  He also reminded Officers of a issue at Colliery Row where a meeting had been held prior to Covid but had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Members are asked to confirm if they wish to remain as appointees to the outside bodies which were agreed by the Castle Morpeth Local Area Council in July 2022 as follows:-

Choppington Education Foundation – M Murphy 

Druridge Bay Regeneration Partnership – S Dickinson 

Friends of Morpeth Museum – D Bawn 

Greater Morpeth Development Trust – R Wearmouth 

Linton Village Hall Management Committee – L Dunn 

Lynemouth Welfare Management Committee – L Dunn 

Stakeford/Bomarsund Social Welfare Centre – J Foster and M Murphy 

A report is also attached appraising members of the nomination rights of the Council to the Stakeford and Bomarsund Sports and Social Welfare Centre (the Centre) and suggest nominations for members to consider.

Members were asked to confirm if they were happy to continue as the representatives of organisations as outlined on the agenda.  H Lancaster, Senior Manager, Legal Services was also in attendance to present the report on the proposed appointments to the Stakeford and Bomarsund Sports and Social Welfare Centre.  Councillor Wearmouth proposed acceptance of the recommendation as outlined in this report which was seconded by Councillor Dodd. 

RESOLVED that:

1.    County Councillors continued appointments on outside bodies as follows:

Choppington Education Foundation – M Murphy

Druridge Bay Regeneration Partnership – S Dickinson

Friends of Morpeth Museum – D Bawn

Greater Morpeth Development Trust – R Wearmouth

Linton Village Hall Management Committee – L Dunn

Lynemouth Welfare Management committee – L Dunn

Stakeford/Bomarsund Social Welfare Centre – J Foster and M Murphy

2.   The following Parish Councillors be appointed to the Stakeford and Bomarsund Social Welfare Centre in addition to the two County Councillors above:

Councillor Paul S Vaughan

Councillor Hillary Allsopp

Councillor Arthur Iley

Councillor Graham Huntley

Details of the Members Local Improvement Schemes for the Castle Morpeth area are provided for information.

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

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 full meeting of the Local Area Council was scheduled for 4.00 pm on Monday 14 November.