Agenda and draft minutes

Tynedale Local Area Council - Tuesday, 10th August, 2021 4.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 1, County Hall, Morpeth, NE61 2EF

Contact: Nichola Turnbull 

Note: Due to Covid restrictions only those who have registered and are actively participating will be allowed access to the meeting. Any member of the press or public may view the proceedings of this meeting live on our YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/NorthumberlandTV. 

Items
No. Item

27.

PROCEDURE AT PLANNING MEETINGS pdf icon PDF 224 KB

Minutes:

The Chair advised members of the procedure which would be followed at the meeting.

28.

MINUTES

Minutes of the meeting of the Tynedale Local Area Council held on 13 July 2021, will be submitted to the September meeting.

Minutes:

The minutes of the Tynedale Local Area Council held on 13 July 2021 were to be submitted to the September meeting.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Councillor Cessford then vacated the Chair, for Planning Vice-Chair Councillor Scott to chair the development control section of the agenda, as was the arrangement for all Local Area Councils.

29.

DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS pdf icon PDF 113 KB

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

 

Minutes:

The committee was requested 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.

30.

20/02417/FUL pdf icon PDF 291 KB

Residential development of 9 detached and semi-detached dwellings, single and two storey, plus associated infrastructure (amended description).

Land North of Lonkley Lodge, Lonkley Head Allendale

Minutes:

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and reported the following:

 

An additional condition from the Lead Local Flood Authority was recommended:

 

“Any land drainage found on site during construction shall be diverted and reconnected accordingly.  Where additional land drainage is installed, this shall connect to the existing underground storage tank.

 

REASON: to ensure the effective drainage and passage of ground water to offsite sources in accordance with Tynedale Core Strategy Policy GD5 and the NNPF.”

 

Mr. T. Sparke and Mr. P. Barber spoke in objection to the application.  They represented other residents and owners that lived around the site and raised the following concerns:

 

·         Proximity - Only plots 8 and 9 had a rear garden of at least 10 metres, if the gardens facing the road were considered to be rear gardens, in accordance with policy H32(e) of the Tynedale Local Plan.

·         Policy H32(f) required 25 metres between opposing rear walls of 2 storey properties.  The distances between plots 3 to 5 and properties in Dale Park ranged between 13 – 15 metres whilst there was only 7 metres between Plot 8 and Lonkley Lodge.

·         The pond was to be built up so ground level would be level with the top of existing dry-stone wall of Almora and would overlook gardens and upstairs windows of several properties.

·         The distance to habitable rooms at Lonkley Lodge was less than 7 metres and not in line with policy H32(f) which set out minimum guidelines to avoid overlooking and ensure privacy for all parties.

·         Given the rural setting, too much was proposed for the site.  The layout of the scheme needed to be reviewed to reduce the impact on privacy and density of the development.

·         They objected on the grounds that the proposals did not meet the criteria of policy H32.

·         Flood risk was a significant concern.  Locally there was known to be significant amounts of underground water on the site as it flooded at the bottom end on a regular basis.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the lack of investigations at the site as it appeared the reports were based on desktop exercises by experts located elsewhere who had not visited the site.

·         No account has been taken of existing ground water in the proposals and what existed on site.

·         Work that had been carried out had located 1 of 2 underground tanks and drainage within the field.

·         There was a lot of underground water along the bank behind the Shilburn Road and Allenfields estate.

·         Information had come from the previous landowner who had closely supervised access over the field to ensure the existing drainage was not disturbed and flooding caused further down the hill.

·         The development presented a significant flood risk without a full account being taken of existing underground water.

·         The additional LLFA condition was welcomed but it did not go far enough and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

31.

21/00826/FUL pdf icon PDF 312 KB

Proposed development of rural worker’s dwelling

Land to south and east of North Side Farm, Harlow Hill

Minutes:

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

 

The West DM Area Manager introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and provided the following update:

 

·        The objection received for the application at Northside Farm was to be disregarded as the objector’s address had been unable to be verified.

 

Mrs. Lockey, the applicant and owner, addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application.  She stated:

 

·        In 2010 the farm had been diversified to include a wedding venue, glamping pods and cottage in addition to the farm, livestock had recently been introduced.

·        The business had grown and expanded following reinvestment over the years.  However, as it grew the demands and requirements on site had increased making it more difficult when not on site.

·        The lack of on-site presence was putting a strain on the family and business.

·        There was a greater security risk with livestock on the farm and an essential need to live on site.

·        They had withstood an 18-month closure due to the pandemic but to operate effectively, it was essential they lived on site.

·        They had followed advice of the original case officer and had withdrawn the original application submitted in 2019 and had resubmitted when the livestock were on the farm.  They were frustrated with inconsistencies and new issues being raised by the second case officer, such as Section 106 financial contributions.

·        The application sought permission for the development of a rural workers dwelling in the Green Belt.  There was a genuine essential need for a dwelling on site which would amount to very special circumstances.  This type of development was supported by the NPPF which seeks to support a prosperous rural economy and promote the development of land based rural businesses.  The principle of development was acceptable as the essential need to be on site had been demonstrated and confirmed within Alan Jackson’s report.  The proposal should therefore be looked at positively.

·        Permission was not being sought for a standalone dwelling, if approved it would satisfy a genuine essential need.

·        The NPPF enabled the provision of homes where there was an essential need for a rural worker; the development was needed to ensure animal health and welfare, deal with emergencies, ensure security on the farm, daily livestock management and manage up to 270 guests and staff as part of the wedding business.  They believed there was no other suitable accommodation which could accommodate their family and requirement to be on site.

·        The essential need to be on site had been demonstrated by the Council’s independent surveyor and evidence presented to the case officer illustrated the development was in accordance with relevant planning policy.

·        The case officer did not support their application as he did not deem there to be an essential need to live on site, just a functional need.  This was against the advisor’s findings and recommendations.  They did not understand the difference and asked for clarification of the definitions.

·        They  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

32.

PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE pdf icon PDF 165 KB

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.

Minutes:

The report provided information on the progress of planning appeals.

 

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

33.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 4.00 p.m.

Minutes:

The next meeting would be held on Tuesday 14 September 2021 at 4.00 p.m.