Agenda item

Redevelopment of existing land and buildings and the erection of 7No dwellings

Land North Of Katerdene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland

Redevelopment of existing land and buildings and the erection of 7No dwellings

Land North of Katerdene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland

There were no questions on the site visit videos which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.

R Laughton, Senior Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation.  Updates were provided as follows:-

·       Page 43 – Item 9 Recommendation should read :

“That this application be REFUSED permission subject to the following: …”

·       There were typographical errors in paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 and to clarify the aim of these paragraphs was to confirm that it could be argued that the site was not considered to be in an isolated location in reference paragraph 80 of the NPPF this was due to its proximity to the existing farmhouse although the site was not located in a village itself it would not be included under definition of paragraph 79 of the NPPF to be able to support services in other nearby villages.

Late representations received after the agenda had been published had been emailed to members in advance of the meeting and paper copies were circulated at the meeting with a short adjournment provided to ensure that Members had sufficient time to read these prior to consideration of the application.  The meeting recommenced at 4.31 pm.

T Michie addressed the Committee speaking in support of his family’s application.  His comments included the following:-

·       Katerdene had been in the family since his Grandfather purchased it in the 1950’s.  It was no longer operating as a commercial farming unit with all members of the family pursuing different career paths to agriculture.

·       This was a resubmission of a former application which following advice from Planning Officers was withdrawn amended and resubmitted. 

·       The size of the application had been changed from the original along with the design and location of the houses ensuring that these did not encroach past the boundary of the existing yard, buildings and areas which were granted a Certificate of Lawfulness which also covered the paddock area which was not included within this application.

·       A lot of discussions had been undertaken related to the principal of the development and technical issues and if Members provided their support to the application then they had solutions to the noise, land contamination and drainage and delegated authority could be given to the Planning Officers for sign off whilst the necessary reports were produced. 

·       A great deal of information had been provided in support of this application. On the first application Highways only required technical changes to be made however they now said that this application was wholly unacceptable and he questioned why this was the case as they were not aware of any policy changes. 

·       They could link to the path on the new by-pass or simply walk down Fulbeck Lane the same as the existing residents of both the old and new properties.  They did not understand why walking down the lane or linking to the by-pass route was suddenly unsustainable or unacceptable and no technical response had been provided from Highways or Planning on this issue.  They hoped that Members accepted that walking down the lane to the by-pass was acceptable and a provided an easy suitable route into Morpeth.

·       The site represented an anomaly in relation to the existing and emerging policies, the NPPF and the site circumstances.  The aim of the NPPF was to deliver more homes in the most sustainable way while the Neighbourhood Plan was to harness growth whilst retaining local identify and distinctiveness.  The development would meet the aims of the NPPF whilst protecting and representing the aspirations of the Neighbourhood Plan.

·       A lot of information had been provided by the agent in relation to other developments in the area, and Katerdene sat between these. 

·       The site was previously developed and had an existing permission for 2 dwellings currently and the site would not encroach outside boundaries of the Certificate of Lawfulness which was granted by the Council.

·       The site would not link settlements together and would not undermine the settlement boundary as defined in the Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst outside the settlement boundary it fell within the settlement of Morpeth and fell within allocations for employment and housing land. The site was not isolated from Morpeth and was a sustainable form of development.

·       The impact on the highway network should be considered acceptable with manoeuvring and parking spaces would be provided and safe access provided.

·       The proposal would comply with the Development Plan as a whole and fulfil the environmental role as sustainable development.  It would contribute to the supply of housing and would be sustainable development in terms of the NCC.

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

·       In respect of further clarity on aspects of the late representation, details of the Certificate of Lawfulness had been checked and it was confirmed that only half the site at the northern part could be considered as brownfield site the other half being greenfield.  The application has been considered on the whole site.  If the whole site had been previously developed it would still need to be considered against bullet point g in the NPPF which stated … “not have a greater impact on the openness of he Green Belt that the existing development”.

·       In terms of the Highways position, Highways stated that they had assessed the application and had concerns regarding the unsustainability of the location with the development being wholly reliant on vehicle use and did not meet tests within the NPPF.

·       Other developments in the location could have had different material reasons for being acceptable at the time of development however Members must consider the facts as of today in relation to this application and the in principle position which was in the Development Plan and the position of the emerging Local Plan on developments outside the settlement boundary. If the application did not meet policies you could look at other material aspects, however Officers did not consider these were sufficient to justify development outside the principal policies to allow this application.

·       All aspects of the highways scheme was unacceptable, whilst there was the possibility that some mitigation could be provided details of this had not been provided to Highways so they could not support this application. 

·       Part of the site could be developed but Members must look at the policies and be consistent in their application. 

·       Discussions regarding settlement boundaries had taken place with policy colleagues, there was a definite line of a settlement boundary and anything outside of this was described as open countryside or outside the settlement boundary.  In this instance, whilst the application site might be close to and feel part of the settlement, it was definitely outside of the settlement boundary and therefore there should be no development unless there were exceptional circumstances. 

·       The extant permission for 2 dwellings had been granted under permitted development and therefore there had been no opportunity to refuse due to sustainability. 

·       The site to the north of the internal road could be utilised for development, however the applicant had wished to proceed with the application for the whole of the site.

Councillor Dodd proposed acceptance of the recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the Officer’s report which was seconded by Councillor Jones.

Whilst Members had some sympathy with the applicant and felt that the proposed dwellings were of a good quality design, it was not considered that there was sufficient justification for development within the Green Belt and outside of the settlement boundary and they must be consistent with the application of planning policies.   It was stated that Cabinet had agreed that a review of the Local Plan would be undertaken once it was adopted in light of the development of the Northumberland Line and BritishVolt in order to provide more executive type housing in South East Northumberland which might assist in unlocking this site in the future.  Alternatively a smaller development on the previously developed land could be submitted for consideration.

A vote was taken on the recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons as outlined in the report as follows:  FOR 6; AGAINST 0; ABSTENSIONS 3.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons as outlined in the report.