Agenda item

Reserved Matters application for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale on approved application 13/00802/OUT
Land North of High Fair, Wooler, Northumberland

Reserved Matters application for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale on approved application 13/00802/OUT
Land North of High Fair, Wooler, Northumberland

J. Bellis – Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, members noted that access had been included in this application and the original outline of the application was for 36 units but had been reduced to 14 units. J. Bellis explained that access to the site had been included in the outline application and members were not looking at that in regards to these reserved matters application.

Updates were given by J. Bellis and included:

                        i.         Full weight could now be given to the Wooler Neighbourhood plan, however the recommendation remained as outlined in the report.

                       ii.         Paragraph 7.26 in the report should have read as “It is therefore considered that the proposal would be appropriate in townscape terms and would fully comply with policies F1 and F3 of the BLP, Chapter 12 of the NPPF, the guidance set out in the National Design Guide 2019, emerging NLP and the emerging WNP in respect of how the proposal responds to its context, the identity of the proposal and the built form of the proposal and the surrounding townscape.”

J. Robinson spoke on behalf of J. Guthrie & B. Murray and gave the committee the following information:

·       There had been 130 plus objectors during the consultation of Reserved Matters that had taken place between February and May 2021.

·       There had been no physical notice posted locally resulting in a lack of awareness by residents. 

·       Residents were concerned around the proposed road layout entering the site and a potential increase of incidents including children being surprised by emerging traffic.

·       The proposed change of road priority would coincide with the reduction to a single-track road leading to the National Park, the route being popular due to the Common providing a car park. The night traffic had been increasing due to the increase in interest in the Dark Sky status in the area.

·       The significant detritus that flowed down the road culminated at the point of the new development entrance, due in part to wash from the road and a field opposite, where a drain had collapsed 15 years prior.

·       Ramsey Lane was the only route to the proposed development and was single-file traffic both up and down the steep hill which would create daily congestion. `

·       There were concerns with regular flooding and the freezing of water across the road, with poor conditions of the road’s surfaces, and the increase in volume of traffic which would escalate the issue.

C. Cummings spoke as the Chair of Wooler Parish Council and gave the following information:

·       The original application 13/00802/OUT was for 36 units, 50% being affordable homes.

·       The Parish Council had reservations regarding highways access

·       Ramsey’s Lane was already overburdened with traffic as it was the only highway to over 200 homes, a quarry and water tanks that supplied the village which were required to be filled up several times daily through the summer months

·       The original offer for affordable housing was for 18 units however this had been reduced to 15% in accordance with the S106.

·       Concerns with flooding damage to Highburn House.

·       Wooler was lacking in 3-bedroom rental properties.

S. Beeby then addressed the committee speaking on behalf of the developer, in support of the application. The following information was provided:

·       The scheme was originally approved for 36 units, which was then reduced to 14 after consultation with case officers, due to engineering work and visual impact of the large-scale site.

·       Highways was a known issue, but access had already been agreed as part of the outline application and highways had informed the applicant that changing the priority of the road would be beneficial and safer due to the slowing down of cars and better access for larger vehicles such as refuse collection vehicles. 

·       The traffic impact from 14 units would be less than the 36 units that had been previously agreed.

·       The style of the units had been planned using styles from the Victorian era, to fit in with the tone of town centre houses.

·       The developer felt that they had met all the requirements set out from the Ecology Team and the Local Flood Authority.

·       The 14 units would be more attractive and appropriate to the context and setting than the 36 units that were originally planned.

Following from questions from Members to the planning officers, the following information was provided:

·       The S106 had previously been agreed with 15% of the formal contribution to affordable homes, whereas the NPPF required only 10% of full units to be affordable homes as an ownership product. 

·       The committee members were reminded that the application that they were discussing was only for the internal arrangement of the site and not access to the site.

·        The LLFA had looked at the drainage water for the site with all surface water to be collected on the site and this would drain to a ditch in the field nearby at a restricted rate of 2.8 L/s, equivalent to the greenfield runoff rate for the developable area.

·       A site notice had been erected on 13 May 2021 and published in the press on 28 April 2021.

·       The wording on the original application stated that it was up to 36 units.

·       Change of Priority on the road was not a reason of concern on Highways grounds or on NPPF safety or capacity.

Councillor Thorne proposed to move the officer’s recommendation for approval, but stated that the decision was difficult, especially for new members but felt like the 14 units were less pressure on roads and water needs than the original 36 units. Councillor Thorne also sympathised with the local community, but the committee were only looking at appearance, landscape, and scale. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Watson.

Councillor Mather stated that he would approve of the application if the affordable houses were for rent and not sale as they felt like it would not benefit the local community. Councillor Mather asked the committee if they would defer this application for the applicant to re-examine the affordable homes.  Advice was provided that this did not form part of the application and the committee would not be able to defer the application for this reason

A vote was taken on the proposal to accept the officer’s recommendation as follows: FOR 5; AGAINST 3; ABSTENSIONS 0.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED, subject to conditions set out in the report.