Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Oliver.

Minutes of the following meetings of the Tynedale Local Area Council, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

a)         14 December 2021

b)         11 January 2022

The Chair reported that the minutes from the meeting on 11 January 2022 should be numbered from 73 to 81.

Minute No: 78

Northumberland Fire and Rescue Service: Community Risk Management Plan 2022-26 Consultation

The sixth bullet point should be amended to include the words ‘on wet winter days’ and read as follows:

‘Information was to be checked from the Met Office in the Flooding and Water Rescue section on page 23.  It was believed that more information should be included, as whilst there was expected to be fewer rainy days in summer, the amount of rain that fell on wet winter days would increase by approximately 14% under a 2oc warming scenario and 28% under a 4oc warming scenario.

Minute No. 79

Local Area Council Work Programme

It be minuted that a request for inclusion of an item in the work programme on the Borderlands development work in Hexham was declined.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the following meetings of Tynedale Local Area Council, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair, subject to the above amendments:

a)      14 December 2021

b)      11 January 2022

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.

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

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 athttp://www.northumberland.gov.uk/Planning.aspx

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.

Development of 9 no. residential dwellings (100% affordable) including associated access, car parking, landscaping and all other ancillary works (amended layout and housing mix)

Land North of Piper Road, Piper Road, Ovingham, Northumberland

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and reported that an additional objection had been received which strongly opposed the development on the grounds of:

·        Environmental destruction to a well-established old hedgerow, including impact on nesting birds.

·        The impact of the noise, disruption and heavy goods relating to these works with such close proximity to local houses was dangerous and effected residents' health and was unacceptable.

Neville Gray spoke on behalf of Ovingham Parish Council and made the following comments:-

·        House building in the Green belt was a contentious issue.  References to it being a ‘rural exception site’ which at 9 dwellings was one dwelling less than the maximum allowed.  There were already 22 dwelling to the west and other land was available to the east and that possible disaggregation of development to circumvent the NPPF could result in 40 dwellings being built in the Green Belt.

·        Conditions 4 to 8 were welcomed but showed that further loss of existing habitat if approval was granted.  New hedgerow would take a considerable time to develop and likely ‘manicured’ and inferior in ecological terms.

·        It was recognised that there were fundamental drainage issues on the site and houses fronting Piper Road needed to be raised above the actual site level.  The drainage statement from consultants CK21 stated that invert levels had been assumed and that the existing sewer would need to be exposed to confirm the invert level which would determine the finished floor levels.  Invert levels had been assumed and the properties fronting Piper Road would be elevated.

·        Conditions No. 2 and 28 confirmed that the final elevation of the houses was not currently known.  The Parish Council were of the view that the work identified in the CK21 report, and any changes required to drawings and the site plan should have been undertaken in the 17-month period following submission of the application and prior to consideration by committee.

·        Detailed technical survey information cast doubt on the JDDK architect’s cross sections and showed that the new 2 storey dwellings fronting Piper Road would be significantly elevated and higher than existing houses opposite and to the west.  For this reason, they had objected to the site layout and had requested that only bungalows should front Piper Road on the south side.

·        Mobility issues and access to properties raised above street level had not been addressed within the officer’s report.

·        The height of the 2-storey houses would be out of keeping with the street scene viewed from the road and footpaths.

·        They did not agree with the comment in paragraph 7.47 of the report that heights would be satisfactory under policy GD2.

·        These matters could only be properly addressed when the actual site and floor levels were known.  Making condition no 28 retrospective removed the ability of the committee to properly scrutinise the application and should not be approved.

·        Careful thought should be given to the location and access to the site compound as this was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Construction of a first floor rear garden room extension with balcony and external staircase

Saxby House, Station Road, Corbridge, NE45 5AY

The Development Management Area Manager (West) introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and advised that there were no updates following publication of the report.

Mrs. M. Williams, the applicant, spoke in support of the application and made the following comments:-

·        At the previous meeting Members had agreed that there were very special circumstances in relation to their situation.  The house needed to be made more resilient to flooding to provide space upstairs for them to live and ensure that they were not displaced, as had happened in the last 2 floods.

·        Officers were still recommending refusal.  A request to meet and discuss proposals on site and explain why it could not be accommodated elsewhere had been refused.

·        The reference in paragraph 7.14 which stated that an alternative location for the extension would not be considered by the applicant was untrue.  The planner’s suggestion that it would be better accommodated at the other side of the house, would be less visible from the approach and no problems with overlooking, if there were no windows.  Photographs had been sent to show the impact on neighbours.  This would have resulted in the access looking directly into the neighbour’s kitchen windows and would have been a violation of their privacy.  They had spoken to their neighbours who had confirmed that they would have objected.  The neighbours had no objections to the current proposal, neither did the parish council.

·        Two different designs had been sent to the officers, but they had not liked either.  The design which matched the rest of the property’s traditional stone exterior and character had been submitted.

·        Conditions for one way glass and installation of blinds to reduce light pollution would be accepted.

·        They disagreed with the content of the officer’s email which suggested that from Members comments at the last meeting, they would not want to see any openings on the end elevation.  This email had inferred that they could build along the lines proposed if the design was right i.e. no windows on the field side.  Plans had been drawn but had looked ugly and closed in and had not been a good design.

·        The committee were reminded of the reason for the extension, namely that the applicants wished to live in it if they flooded.  Flooding had a profound effect on mental health, increased anxiety and clinical depression.  Themselves and their neighbours had suffered from despair and misery with 30% of the community suffering from PTSD after the second flood in 2015.  From experience they would need to live in the extension for a year at a time as it had taken that long to reinstate the house on the previous occasions.

·        The back of our house faced east, and they lost the sun at midday.  An extension on the north gable with no windows would be very dark, especially in winter when light was limited and would not be helpful to their stress and mental health trying to sort the house.  Good daylight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Councillor Horncastle left the meeting at 5.50 p.m.

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.

The report provided information on the progress of planning appeals.

In answer to a question, the Development Management Area Manager (West) agreed to obtain an update on the enforcement appeals at Whittonstall.

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

On the conclusion of the above items, Councillor Scott vacated the Chair.  Councillor Cessford returned to the Chair and continued the meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 6.00 p.m.

The report sets out the details of the draft Local Transport Plan (LTP) programme for 2022-23 for consideration and comment by the Local Area Council, prior to final approval of the programme by the Interim Executive Director of Planning and Local Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Local Services.

The Local Area Council received a report which set out the draft Local Transport Plan (LTP) programme for 2022-23 for consideration and comment prior to final approval of the programme by the Interim Executive Director of Planning and Local Services in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Environment and Local Services.  (A copy of the report is enclosed with the signed minutes).

The Service Director – Local Services reported that final confirmation from Department for Transport funding was awaited; but a programme totalling nearly £23.5 million had been assumed, based on the allocation received the previous year and an informal indication.

The programme was split across four keys areas and had been devised following a review of the maintenance needs of the highways asset, identified road safety issues, potential improvements to the highway and transport network, and following consultation with Town and Parish Councils along with Local Ward Members, to identify local priorities.  Appendices A – D set out the details of the programme. This included:

£1.3 million Walking and Cycling

£2.1 million Safety Improvements

£15.275 million Road Maintenance

£4.7 million Bridges, Structures and Landslips

He highlighted the following:

·        The walking and cycling allocation was split between improvements for crossings, footways, bus stop waiting areas and maintenance of footways, cycleways and the rights of way network.  An additional £1.5 million was proposed within the capital programme for the development and delivery of cycling and walking schemes within the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans which covered the main towns.  Suggestions which were beyond the LTP programme had been captured separately and would be considered in the future if sources of funding became available.

·        The Integrated Transport Improvement Funding concentrated on safety at high-risk sites and included traffic management activity, speed reduction schemes and completion of the 20mph school programme.  107 out of 161 of the 20mph schemes had been implemented to date, 10 issued for construction and 44 at the design stage.  Other works included replacement of signs and road markings, road maintenance and capital repairs to the infrastructure.  An additional £2million had been proposed within the capital programme for investment in U and C roads and footways.

·        Strengthening bridges in Tynedale included C279 at Blue Gables, C205 at Middleburn and U8177 at Garden House and 2 landslips schemes at U5034 Blindburn and A686 north of Lightburks.  A major scheme of £9.3 million over the next 2 financial years was proposed to resolve the longstanding landslip at Todstead.

The following information was provided in response to questions:

·        It was confirmed that the £1.5 million proposed in the capital programme for the delivery of cycling and walking schemes was in addition to the £1.3 million LTP allocation.

·        20 mph flashing signs were advisory where implemented for 1-hour periods for school opening and closures and could not be enforced by the police.  Permanent limits were enforceable.

Members made the following comments:

·        It was important that cycling and walking infrastructure was improved across the county, not just the main towns.

·        There was disappointment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

To inform the Committee of the Inspector’s recommendations as to whether the application to register land at Bewick Green, Mickley Square should be granted and for Members to determine if the application to register the land should be rejected.

The report informed the Committee of the Inspector’s recommendations as to whether the application to register land at Bewick Green, Mickley Square should be granted and confirmed that it was for Members to determine if the application to register the land should be rejected, as was recommended by the Inspector.

The Senior Manager - Legal Services explained the Council’s obligations as a Commons Registration Authority which had been required to process an application received from Mr George Hepburn OBE on 7 January 2019 for the registration of land and Bewick Green, Mickley Square Stocksfield as Village Green.

She reported that a single representation from the Highways Authority had been received and withdrawn when the applicant had agreed to exclude the highway from the application land.

A virtual non statutory Public Inquiry had been held on 3 March 2021 to examine the issues.  The burden of proof lay with the applicant and the standard was on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant had not demonstrated sufficient quality of user as the main users were:

·        Children playing in the immediate vicinity constituted a limited pool and the use had not been heavy as there were other larger spaces available within the village.

·        Dog walkers used the land as a stop off area not as a destination.

·        An annual barbeque did not add weight to the sufficiency of user.

The Inspector had concluded that the application must fail because the criteria within Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 had not been met in that a significant number of local inhabitants had not indulged in lawful sports and pastimes on the land during the relevant 20-year period.

Members supported the recommendation of the Inspector and the intensity of use required to assign Village Green status.  It was noted that the area was relatively small.

In answer to a question on the length of the report and duplication, the Senior Manager - Legal Services reported that the Inspector had recommended that the Inquiry bundle be attached to the report.  The Democratic Services Officer also confirmed that only participants present at the meeting had been provided with the full set of agenda papers.

Councillor Kennedy moved acceptance of the Inspector’s recommendation that the application to register land at Bewick Green, Mickley Square, Stocksfield as Town or Village Green, be rejected.  This was seconded by Councillor Stewart and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED that the recommendations of the Inspector, Mr James Marwick, be accepted; namely that the application to register land at Bewick Green, Mickley Square, Stocksfield as Town or Village Green, be rejected.

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 4.00 p.m.

The next meeting would be held on Tuesday 15 March 2022 at 4.00 p.m.