Agenda item

Proposed residential development of four dwellings (as amended 21.12.2020)

Land South Of Centurion Way , Centurion Way, Heddon-On-The-Wall, NE15 0BY

Proposed residential development of four dwellings (as amended 21.12.2020) 

Land South Of Centurion Way , Centurion Way, Heddon-On-The-Wall, NE15 0BY

R Laughton, Senior Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation.   Members were advised that a late representation had been received in objection to the application which did not raise any additional issues but reiterated objections in respect of the height of the proposed dwellings and the justifiable need for additional housing in Heddon.

L Twizell addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application on behalf of residents.  Her comments included the following:-

·       She lived opposite the proposed development and was speaking on behalf of other residents as she felt so passionate about this development and the effect it would have.

·       The village had been phased to spill down, keeping roof lines one under another affording residents wonderful views over the Tyne Valley. This could be achieved on this development, however the developers had decided to ignore this option and had chosen to build two storey dwellings which they attempted to disguise by saying there were single storey from the road with a pitched roof making it almost double the height

·       Previous applications which had been granted all had been restricted to 1m roof level below the road and she asked why had this not been required on this application which would have a bigger impact.

·       The village would loose precious open space feeling and it was not just the loss of view which was an issue.

·       The benches on either side of the site were left by the Mining Institute for the people of Heddon to enjoy the view and were part of the cultural heritage of the area.  The benches were used by the local nursery, provided respite for a local family who came to enjoy watching the birds of prey, were used for social occasions such as firework displays, New Years Eve celebrations or just by residents to enjoy the sunset.

·       The houses if constructed would totally take away the view and feeling of openness which would be replaced by tarmac drives and the view into the windows of new properties.

·       A possible extra 16 vehicles would have a detrimental effect on noise levels, pollution and road safety, with the safety of children who ride their cycles and skateboard down the hill at great speed and play in the street at risk. 

·       Traffic problems already existed with large delivery vehicles required to reverse the length of the bending road when they couldn’t get through with cars already being damaged by passing vehicles as the road was so narrow.

·       After being asked at the site visit would she prefer these dwellings or a barn, not that it should be a choice between the two, she advised she would prefer the barn as a garage would be constructed 15m away from her and her neighbour’s front window, with even less distance to the garden boundary.  The light and openness would change with just bricks and mortar to look at rather than greenery.

·       There was no need for this type of development as 50,000 new homes had been built within a radius of 6 miles, with plenty of this type of dwelling already available within the village and nearby Darras Hall. Any development should be extraordinary, eco friendly and use innovative green heating and water. 

·       Residents understood that others wished to come and live in the area and the developer wished to get a good return, however there should be more consideration given to the decision given the lifechanging effects this would have on residents.  The Committee were requested to refuse the application.

J Ridgeon, Agent on behalf of the application addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·          Hamilton & Willis were a locally based small scale developer, who were from the North East and employed local staff.

·          Policies supported infill developments within settlement boundaries and this development would provide high quality homes within the settlement boundary.

·          Members had the opportunity to visit the site and gain and insight into how it would fit into Heddon.  To address concerns regarding density raised at the previous meeting, additional information had been provided and information on how the development was appropriate and fit into the special character was provided in the report.

·          Additional details had also been provided on car parking arrangements with sufficient space for existing and new residents and a visitor space provided on Centurion Way.

·          From visualisations when viewed from Centurion Way the new buildings would appear as single storey bungalows and use the slope to provide 2 storey aspect to the south in keeping with other properties along Heddon Banks.

·          The applicant had worked with the Case Officer and any design changes requested had been made and the application was acceptable for all consultees.

·          The view through the development would be retained along with the views from the benches, which had been restricted due to vegetation growth. 

·          If this application was approved then a S106 legal agreement would ensure that the approved agricultural building, which would have a significant impact would not be built.

·          A construction management plan would control the route of construction traffic to the site which would predominately come from the south through the field.

·          The development would provide 4 properties of an exceptional design in a sustainable location.  Concerns had been mitigated and the development would fit in with the surrounding street scene and landscape without impacting on the Green Belt, in line with the NPPF and the emerging Local Plan.

·          The separate distance from the front of the house to the garages was 23m. 

·          The proposal accorded with all planning policy and Members were requested to approve the application.

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

·       The car parking arrangements for each property had been changed in order to provide 4 spaces for each and the Highways Officers were satisfied with these arrangements. Parking had previously been a reserved matter, however following concerns expressed at the previous Committee more information had been provided which Highways had checked and confirmed that the proposals were deliverable and achievable.

·       The eaves of the proposed properties would be 2.3m with a ridge height of 4.5m from the street level. The neighbouring properties had access to the side of dwellings and were able to be set lower however these required access from Centurion Way.  There were mixed styles and characters of properties in Heddon and it was considered the proposed properties fit into the character of the village.

·       There was strong policy support for development of the site for residential use and an assumption that development would take place on the land as applications had been approved in the past. It was the case that people in one property had no right to a view through another piece of land and Members should not place weight on this.  Members were required to consider if the development of the site be carried out in such a way that it would be incongruous or an unnatural aspect to the landscape in such that it would cause harm in terms of design/ scale/ massing.  Members were advised to place more weight on those issues /merits of the scheme rather than a fall back position of the agricultural building.

Councillor Jackson proposed that the application be refused as the building had to be appropriate to the community and the setting.  There would be harm to the community amenity and visual amenity, he considered that it was overdevelopment on the site due to the access from Centurion Way which was generally down to one lane with large and emergency vehicles having trouble accessing.  Lower height restrictions had been imposed on previous applications and this application would have been acceptable had that been the case. The character of Heddon-on-the-Wall was based on terraces with the full benefit for the community of the special location. There was harm to the character of the area and community and the houses did not fit in. This was seconded by Councillor Jones.

During discussion of the application, some Members expressed surprise that Highways had not objected to the application and were advised that guidance in the NPPF provided that applications should only be refused on highways grounds if a severe impact could be demonstrated. Highways had looked at this application at length and judged it against other schemes and this did not meet the criteria of a demonstrable severe impact.  The developer had satisfied all that had been required from a Highways perspective. 

Advice was provided that if Members felt that the design of the scheme was wrong for the area, i.e. that the scale/materials/massing did not fit in with the terraced character of Heddon-on-the-Wall, then whilst it would be difficult to defend at Appeal, refusal on highways grounds would be almost impossible to defend. 

Councillor Jackson clarified that he did not wish to refuse the application on highways grounds, but he did advise that there was a considerable loss of community amenity and the design of the houses did not fit in with the terraced character of Heddon-on-the-Wall.  

The Solicitor asked that clarification of the reason for refusal be provided.

Councillor Jackson proposed refusal for the reason of its impact on the local area and the local community, the design and character of the application did not fit within the street scene of Heddon-on-the-Wall with the precise wording of the reason for refusal to be delegated to the Director of Planning and the Vice-Chair (Planning), which was seconded by Councillor Jones.   A vote was taken as follows:- FOR 6; AGAINST 4; ABSTENTIONS 0.  One Member did not vote.

The application was REFUSED due to its impact on the local area and the local community, the design and character did not fit within the street scene of Heddon-on-the-Wall with delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Vice-Chair (Planning) to provide the precise wording of the reason for refusal.

5.50 pm Councillor Sanderson left the meeting.