Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cessford, Fairless-Aitken and Kennedy.

Minutes of the meeting of the Tynedale Local Area Council, held on 12 July 2022, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record, and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Waddell reported a typographical error with the spelling of her surname at the end of the first paragraph on page 7 of the minutes.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Tynedale Local Area Council held on 12 July 2022, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair, subject to the above amendment.

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 at http://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.

Proposed conversion of existing redundant farm building into single dwelling

Low Hall Farmhouse, Haydon Bridge, Hexham, Northumberland, NE47 6AF

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

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

·       The refusal reason had been updated to include reference to policies QOP1, QOP2 and ENV1.  The recommendation for refusal should now read:

“The proposed design, scale and increase in height would fail to preserve the special interest of the host building which is a non-designated heritage asset and the wider Haydon Bridge Conservation Area.  The proposed increase in height would alter the historic relationship between buildings on the farm steading.  The proposed works would be unsympathetic to the character of the original building and would be visible from the Conservation Area and would change the appearance of the site from the public domain.  It is not considered that there are sufficient public benefits resulting from the development that would outweigh the identified harm. Therefore, the proposal fails to accord with Policies QOP1, QOP2, ENV1, ENV7 and ENV9 of the Northumberland Local Plan and the NPPF in this respect.”

Councillor Brian Howard spoke on behalf of Haydon Bridge Parish Council and made reference to the following comments when the parish council had discussed the application:-

·       The repurposing of a redundant derelict farm store would be beneficial as it would utilise raw materials already on site and help to reduce the carbon footprint of a residential property.

·       Maintaining the original footprint of the store would be advantageous for a working farm whilst adapting it to modern needs.

·       It would provide much needed accommodation within Haydon Bridge for a young family pivotal for the continuity of a family business.

·       Living on site would reduce travel time and the impact on the environment from commuting to a job that traditionally kept extremely long antisocial hours with 14-16 hour shifts.

·       The proximity to the family home would help enhance and strengthen family values and social interaction between generations as the parents could help look after grandchildren

·       Utilising an existing resource on a brown field site would assist in the reduction of the environmental impact of house building.

·       The building was of vernacular design and common place in the local area.  It had no significant or unique architectural features.

·       The proposed increase in ridge height would be largely consistent with surrounding buildings.

·       The unanimous view of the Parish Council was to support the application.

Keith Butler, of Butler Haig Associates, spoke in support of the application.  He highlighted the following:

·       The building proposed for conversion did not exist on the first edition Ordnance Survey map.  It had been a later addition to the steading which set it apart from the historic original buildings which were more prominent.

·       The building was on the edge of the Conservation area, could not be described as landmark.  In in their view, it was also difficult to describe it as a non-designated heritage asset.

·       Reference was made to the nearby modern shed viewed on the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Conversion of existing barn to 1 dwelling

Land To East of Edgewell House Farm House, EdgewellHouse Road, Prudhoe, Northumberland, NE42 5PD

The Chair reported that the application had been withdrawn from the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  She provided the following update:

·        Further comments and documents submitted by the objector had been circulated to all members prior to the committee meeting.  The comments and documents were in addition to previous comments the objector had made which were discussed in the committee report.  The further comments from the objector reiterated some of the points raised within their initial comments regarding why the applicant wished to undertake works to trees within the grounds of their property.  The reasons included:

-       for maintenance purposes,

-       to improve access to the property and

-       to reduce shading to the garden.

·        The objector had sought further comments from Dendra Consulting Ltd who had concluded that only the trees which were identified as "definitely" meriting a Tree Preservation Order should form part of the provisional Tree Preservation Order and not the trees which were identified as "possibly" meriting a Tree Preservation Order.

·        There were also some disagreements regarding the scoring.  The further comments from the objector had been reviewed by the Arboricultural Consultant of Tilia Tree Consultancy Services, who had undertaken the assessment on behalf of the Council.  However, these additional comments did not change the overall recommendation to confirm the Tree Preservation Order subject to modifications.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that whilst the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) had been for the whole area, it was proposed that this be modified to 25 individually specified trees and 5 groups of trees within this site.

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

·        The modification of the TPO would exclude shrubs and other vegetation on the site.

·        It was necessary to seek permission for work to prune or remove trees in a Conservation Area.  However, a TPO also enabled replacement planting to be secured.

·        Whilst some of the groups of trees included Cypress and were described as possibly meriting a TPO, they played an important role in the setting of the public realm and contributed significantly to the amenity of the wider area and.  A TPO would enable additional planting to be secured for a more diverse range of trees.

·        The planning application which had led to the assessment had proposed that 32 trees be felled and pruning of two others.  This would have been a loss of approximately one third of the trees on the site and the application had been refused.

·        There was no fee to make an application or give notice to prune or remove a tree protected by a TPO.

·        Members were required to confirm the order or refuse it.  The order could not be amended at this stage to only include some of the identified trees or groups and exclude others.  If the TPO was not confirmed and members requested that the order be reviewed, the trees would not be protected.

Councillor Hutchinson moved the recommendation to confirm provisional order 2022 (No. 02 of 2022) subject to modifications to protect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

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.

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, 13 September 2022.

The next meeting would be held on Tuesday 13 September 2022 at 4.00 p.m.