Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Foster, Vice-Chair (Planning) (in the Chair) outlined the procedure which would be followed at the meeting and of the changes to the public speaking protocol

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 the monitoring officer by email at monitoringofficer@northumberland.gov.uk. Please refer to the guidance on disclosures at the rear of this agenda letter.

Councillor Darwin advised an interest in item 5 of the agenda, and that he would be speaking on the application during the public speaking slot but would then leave during debate and the vote.

Councillor Dodd expressed a personal but non-prejudicial interest in item 5.

Councillor Dickinson advised of a non-prejudicial interest in item 7 of the agenda as it resides in their ward.

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 no longer 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. 

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

The chair advised that the appeals update would be heard before the planning applications to allow Councillor Jones to join the meeting who was on her way.

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 appeals update be noted.

The meeting was adjourned to allow time for Councillor Jones to arrive and reconvened at 4.06 pm.

Part-Retrospective: Change of use of detached garage and pre-school nursery to Granny Annexe (amended description)

Former Garage South East of Kirkley Mill Farm House, Kirkley Mill, Kirkley, Northumberland

Part-Retrospective: Change of use of detached garage and pre-school nursey to Granny Annexe (amended description)
Former Garage South East of Kirkley Mill Farm House, Kirkley Mill, Kirkley, Northumberland

It was confirmed that members had watched the site videos circulated in advance of the meeting.

R. Campbell – Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation and it was noted that there had been no updates since the report was finalised.

Councillor K. Woodrow – Ponteland Town Council, addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.
Comments included the following: -

·       Ponteland Town Council initially made a “No Comment” in January 2021

·       The amended plan showed the location on a larger scale and there was concerns from neighbours about what was happening at the site.

·       The Town Council had felt mislead from the original planning permission of an agricultural shed, but it had been built from stone with a slate roof.

·       The Town Council asked the Committee that the building should remain as an Annexe in perpetuity, and a condition to be placed to prevent confusion and no further development be allowed on the site.

·       The site sits within the Green Belt, which placed a blanket ban on future development in the area.

·       The Town Council Planning Committee had seen small hamlet locations become over-developed and wished to prevent that from happening in the future.

Councillor L. Darwin also addressed the Committee as the ward Councillor.
Comments were as follows: -

·       There were no enforcement issues related to this building, which had been mentioned by a neighbouring objector.

·       Councillor Darwin endeavoured to protect the Green Belt and did not wish to see overdevelopment; however, he did not see Kirkley Mill Farm becoming a mini development site.

·       Councillor Darwin asked the committee that the building remained as an Annex in perpetuity.

Councillor Darwin left the room.

P. Elwell addressed the committee in support of the application.
Comments include: -

·       The comment uploaded from Ponteland Town Council regarding the application for “change of use” was unreasonable and a matter that would be appealed if made a condition.

·       There was no sound planning reason or legislation to place a blanket ban on development as each application should be considered on its own merit and the planning rules in force at the time of the application.

The Chair clarified for the Committee that any enforcement issues on a separate property, not included in this application, were to be disregarded and to be treat as an independent application.

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

·       There was an exception in the legislation that allowed retrospective applications.

·       The application accorded with planning policy and green belt policy.

·       It was not recommended to put a planning perpetuity clause into the conditions, however there was a condition already in the application (Condition 3) stating it had to be used as accommodation ancillary to the main dwelling house.

·       If the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

The Committee is asked to give consideration to all the relevant evidence gathered in support and rebuttal of a proposal to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a number of public rights of way in South Broomhill, east of St John’s Estate.

Councillor Wearmouth arrived at 4.45pm and did not participate in the vote.

D. Brookes – Infrastructure Records Manager, explained to the Committee about Rights of Way and the procedure regarding determination of an item.

D. Brookes then introduced the above report in which members were asked to consider all the relevant evidence gathered in support and rebuttal of a proposal to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a number of public rights of way in South Broomhill, east of St John’s Estate.

Background information was provided in the report.

Councillor Foster moved the recommendation as set out in the report. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was unanimously agreed, and it was:

RESOLVED that:

                          i.         There is sufficient evidence to justify that public rights of way have been reasonably alleged to exist over the claimed routes.

                        ii.         The routes be included in a future Definite Map Modification Order as Public Footpaths.

The Council is asked to give consideration to all the relevant evidence gathered in support and rebuttal of a proposal to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a public bridleway from the B6309 road immediately south-west of Burnside Lodge in a general easterly direction for a distance of 2700 metres to join Public Bridleway No 10, 235 metres south of the Belsay Estate Office.

D. Brookes introduced the above report in which members were asked to consider all the relevant evidence gathered in support and rebuttal of the proposal to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a public bridleway from the B6309 road immediately south-west of Burnside Lodge in a general easterly direction for a distance of 2700 metres to join Public Bridleway No 10, 235 metres south of the Belsay Estate Office.

Background information was provided in the report, including documentary evidence of a diversion to another road. In the light of this evidence, public bridle rights had not been reasonably alleged to exist over the route and members were advised that they should disregard this application and the Council would not make any modification order to record any rights of way over it.

Councillor Foster moved the recommendation as set out in the report. A vote was taken as follows: - FOR 6; AGAINST 0; ABSTENTIONS 1. 

RESOLVED that:

In light of the evidence submitted it appears that public bridleway/restricted byway rights have not been reasonably alleged to exist over the route.

The Committee thanked David for his years of hard work and offered their congratulations on his retirement.