Agenda item

Variation of Conditions 2 (approved plans) pursuant to planning approval 19/03479/VARYCO in order to allow reduction in garage sizes plots 1,4,6,7; fenestration amendments to rear elevations; addition of natural stone quoins to all elevations.  Amendment of Condition 3 (Materials) pursuant to planning permission 19/03479/VARYCO to allow for discharge of details of materials. (Amended Description 16.02.2021). 

Farm Buildings East Of North Farm, Rennington Village, Rennington, Northumberland 

Members were advised that items 5 & 6 on the agenda were going to be a merged presentation but separate voting.

V. Cartmell - Planning Area Manager, introduced the application with the aid of a power point presentation.

An update was provided from Rennington Parish Council clarifying their comments on this application as follows:

·       The parish council strongly objected to the VARYCO orders of building materials at North Farm, Rennington and believed the materials they were planning to use should be refused.

·       The developer had continued with construction despite earlier comments having been drawn to the attention of the planning officer

·       The slate used appeared to be a blue Spanish slate of uniform colour which was not consistent with the character of the buildings in the surrounding area, contrary to the planning conditions.

·       The stone being used was of a yellow colour and was being laid in a single layer course, this was not consistent with other buildings in the village.

V. Cartmell also provided an update from paragraph 7.2 in the report, to confirm that the proposal also included an amendment to the materials condition as this was missing from paragraph 7.2.

S. Baggot addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the two applications. His comments included the following information:

·       The colour of the stone being used was a bright yellow, which would take decades to tone down. The colour and coursing of the stone were not sympathetic to the vernacular and were within the curtilage of a grade II listed building.

·       The reduction of the number of car parking spaces within the development, specifically the and the small size of these garages. The size of the garages would not be able to fit a family-sized car inside, which meant that residents would use street parking, reducing the number of spaces down to 15, 1.5 spaces per property.

·       The development was on the edge of a small village, which has no public transport, no local shops or services, residents would be reliant on their cars, likely resulting in two cars per household.

·       Developer has not tried to reach the sustainable objective set out in the NPPF with the lack of electric car charging point, and requesting that if the applications were granted, that there be an additional condition of a 16AMP charging point.

Councillor Dixon of Rennington Parish Council addressed the committee speaking in objection to the two applications. His comments for objection included the following information:

·       The inappropriate use of tiling and stone on the almost complete new build.

·       The objection in the relation to the stonework related to the bright colour and irregular shape and laying of the stone.

·       The tiling was blue, as against the original speciation of grey slate.

·       The materials and styling detail used has a negative visual impact on the appearance and character of the village and an adverse effect on the setting of the Grade II listed buildings that form the remainder of the site as well as the listed building opposite the site, also was adjacent to a row of old traditional agricultural worker cottages.

·       The C73 road going through Rennington from south to north, the mix of converted farmstead and school properties, old estate agricultural cottages, newer build cottages and houses, the village pub and village hall all fronting onto the C73, ending at North Farm. They shared a common vernacular, presented a visual harmony and a strong sense of place. The loud and overbearing effect of the application now different from the original plans approved for this site was contrary to that sense of place. 

·       There was concern around the relationship with the Grade II listed buildings, there had been a loss of the roof trusses, a new roof had been laid including modern roof lights which were contrary to previous planning approval, as well as use of inappropriate yellow stone from replacing the unsalvable stone from the listed building.

·       Water drainage scheme that had been put in place had changed considerably from original plans, which could cause problems such as flooding as surface water was being drained already into a short watercourse. There was a history of flooding on the roadway and in the field opposite the entrance to the site.

·       The method of working, the village had to cope with the C73 roadway being used as part of this site, the way the developer had organised the site meant they could only access the site yard to the build site by using the C73, this has caused problems with residents, motorists, and pedestrians due to blockages from road works and lorries transporting materials.

·       The site was loud and overbearing in its effect of the village, it was seen as a mini estate instead of a traditional farmstead conversion.

·       Rennington Parish Council asked the committee to refuse these applications. 

Councillor W. Pattison addressed the committee speaking as the Ward Councillor. Her comments included the following:

·       The development was filled with retrospective applications.

·       The developer has changed plans on the application without consulting the residents of the village or the Parish Council.

·       The residents voiced their concerns over the “garish” yellow of the stone being used.

·       During the building work at North Farm, the developer chose to remove the roof of a Grade II listed cart shed, as written in unit 9. The roof should be put back and restored exactly as it was, and she asked Members to reject this application.

Councillor Pattison left the room.

In response to questions from members, the following information was provided:

·       The bright stone would weather in time, the building conservation officer had visited the site and stated that any stone used must be a natural colour.
The planning officers did feel the stone was appropriate and would weather over time.

·       L. Sinnamon, Development Service Manager, advised the Committee that the applicants were entitled at any point in the building process to submit an application to vary what they were building, and the Committee had to consider it. The Building Conservation Officer had deemed that the building materials were appropriate. If this application was refused and it went to appeal it was likely that the Inspector would give weight to the comments from the building conservation officer and overturn members decision. In November the Building Conservation officer had given verbal confirmation that they were happy with the stone, however there was no formal approval.

·       The Highway Authority had been consulted regarding the parking and had raised no objections, subject to conditions.

·       If members considered they would like to add a condition to the application regarding charging points for electric vehicles, it could be added as a condition.

·       The material used on the listed building was different to the original, the Conservation Officer had stated that they accepted the re-roofing has been completed in a manner consistent with the cycling of traditional slate as discussed in the application.

·       1.5 car parking spaces per house was not a policy but a judgement by the Highways Officer.

·       The garages would be large enough to fit a family sized car in addition to any bicycle storage.

A proposal was set out by Councillor Thorne to approve the application 20/03446/VARYCO as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Watson.

Councillor Hunter expressed her disappointment that the developer had started work before they had been granted planning permission and that they had taken the risk. Parish Councils see retrospective applications as automatic planning approval.

Councillor Swinbank explained to the committee that he was going to vote against it due to the developer not seeking planning permission before commencing work, and he considered that the application should be refused, and the units be stripped and put back the way they were.

L. Sinnamon explained to the committee that enforcement action was discretionary and the aim of the Council Enforcement Strategy was to resolve planning breaches informally first before taking further enforcement action. On this occasion the officers had worked with the applicant and the Building Conservation Team to agree an acceptable way forward, notwithstanding that it was not what was originally applied for. It may be the case that if the developer had used brick for instance, it may have been unacceptable in which case there would be a different outcome.

Councillor Mather expressed his concern in relation to the parking issue, as there was a lack of public transport.  It was clarified that the garage would be 3m x 6m and was appropriate for accommodating a family car and cycle storage.

Councillor Thorne requested an amendment to his proposal to accept the recommendation to also include a condition for electric vehicle charging points to be provided and the size of the garages to be confirmed.   

It was clarified that the proposal was now to accept the recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report and delegated authority be provided to the Director of Planning and the Vice-Chair Planning to agree the dimensions of the garages to be no less than 3m x 6m and an additional condition to be added to provide one electric vehicle charging point per property at a suitable wattage to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority. 

This was agreed by both Councillor Thorne as the proposer and Councillor Watson as the seconder.

A vote was taken on the proposal as outlined above as follows: - FOR 5; AGAINST 5; ABSTENTIONS 0.

There was one Councillor who did not vote.  

The Vice Chair - Planning used his casting vote and voted to approve the application.

It was RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions as outlined in the report and delegated authority be provided to the Director of Planning and the Vice-Chair Planning to agree the dimensions of the garages to be no less than 3m x 6m and an additional condition to be added to provide one electric vehicle charging point per property at a suitable wattage to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority.