Agenda item

Installation of 20KV Standard Distribution Sub Station and associated access  arrangements in conjunction with existing planning approvals (primarily 16/04680/OUT and 19/02033/REM), to allow removal of current poles and overhead power lines. 

Land North East of 8 Bridgeford View, Bellingham, Northumberland.

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

·        An additional paragraph which had been omitted from the report, should be inserted after paragraph 7.11 to read:

'The impact on noise and amenity has been considered due to the proximity of the station next to existing and proposed dwellings.  Public protection have been consulted and have no objections to the proposed development and it is not considered that neighbouring amenity would be significantly impacted by the development in terms of light, outlook or noise in accordance with Tynedale Local Plan Policies GD2 and CS22 and the NPPF.'

Mr. P. Chard spoke on behalf of Mr. P. Bell in objection to the application.  He made the following comments:

·        The proposed access was in an unsafe location.  They believed that the visibility splay required by Highways could not be achieved, making the condition unenforceable.

·        There was no reference to any site visits having taken place by Highways only reference to a review of planning documents which were two dimensional.  Visibility needed to be considered in both the horizontal and vertical plane.

·        The proposed substation was situated significantly below the level of the carriageway so the access would inevitably be sloping, adversely affecting visibility.

·        There was a significant downward dip in the road (forming a crest) which compromised visibility of the proposed access from both directions.

·        The section of road was on a steep hill, requiring increased stopping distances, particularly in adverse weather and road conditions, and for HGV farm vehicles, wagons and quarry lorries for which this was the principal route to the A68.

·        If the proposed Visibility Splay was achievable, it would require removal of the one remaining tree, which it had been pledged to retain within the Tree Protection Plan, and the subject of planning conditions.

·        There were 2 other vehicular entrances in the immediate area as well as a new footpath to the recently enlarged development of holiday homes and a proposed new roadside footpath as part of this development.  These were potential distractions for drivers as well as the kink in the road and the steepness of the hill.

·        Speeding was a known issue on this section of road with evidence of vehicles having to take evasive action with tyre marks on kerbs and grass verges.  Cars and lorries mounted the pavement at that location.

·        In view of the aforementioned reasons, this location as a point of access had not been considered suitable by the Applicant at Outline stage.  If nothing had changed, they asked why it was now suitable.

·        The above issues had been highlighted by locals who were familiar with the road including members of Bellingham Parish Council who had also objected.

·        A much safer access had been proposed from within the development, with an internal street only 2.5 metres away from the proposed substation compound.  They queried why has this not been evaluated and selected as the safest option.  Safety issues should not be disregarded or be the subject of unsubstantiated and unwarranted compromise.  It was the duty and responsibility of Councillors to satisfy themselves that the proposed access was safe.  The application should be refused if this could not be done.

Mr. R. Murphy, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He wished to highlight the following key points:-

·        The application related to the approval of the housing development on the wider site which allowed for the removal of existing overhead power lines and cables.

·        It was a standard prefabricated design although a condition was proposed requiring that the colour specification be agreed in advance.

·        It was a requirement of Northern Powergrid that access be taken from a main road to allow for easy maintenance of the facility.

·        Drainage for the sub station was via the wider system for the housing development and this proposal had been agreed by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).

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

·        Applications of this nature could be submitted at the same time as a housing development or as in this case, after.  Either situation was not unusual, depending on the circumstances of the case.

·        Access was proposed from the main road, Pennine Way, as required by Northern Powergrid and not through a residential garden.

·        A member of the Highways team had visited the location to assess the site and ensure that visibility splay standards could be met.

·        The speed limit was 30 mph from the main road to access the site.  It had been concluded that no additional speed deterrents were required as part of the assessment for the original housing development.

·        The LLFA were satisfied that the proposal would not have any further impact on flooding.  Discharge of conditions for the wider site would cover this site although the applicants would be asked to resubmit drainage information to include the substation site as the conditions had not included it.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.  This was seconded by Councillor Horncastle and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.