Agenda item

Construction of a new single platform railway station including new highway access and signalised junction; modifications to existing highways including pedestrian footways; provision of parking for cars, electric vehicles, motorcycles, cycles, and taxis; works to public rights of way. Construction of: facilities ancillary to the station including, lighting, soft and hard landscaping, surface and subsurface drainage, utilities and other services, boundary treatment and other associated works

Land South East Of Delaval Court, Astley Road, Seaton Delaval, Northumberland

Construction of a new single platform railway station including new highway access and signalised junction; modifications to existing highways including pedestrian footways; provision of parking for cars, electric vehicles, motorcycles, cycles, and taxis; works to public rights of way. Construction of: facilities ancillary to the station including, lighting, soft and hard landscaping, surface and subsurface drainage, utilities and other services, boundary treatment and other associated works.

G Halliday introduced the report with the aid of a power point presentation.  An addendum report had been circulated in advance of the meeting and had been uploaded to the Council’s website which provided details of amendments and additional conditions to be attached to any permission granted.  He also advised that two further emails had been received from Mr R Billinghurst regarding the proposed layout of the car park and omissions from the officer report which had also been circulated to Members of the Committee in advance.  Paper copies of both were also made available at the Committee. 

D Moy addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of residents of Whytrigg Close in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:

·       Residents were not opposed to the opening of the rail line or the proposed car park but wished to see changes to its proposed layout and size which they considered would improve the impact of the proposals without any detriment to its users.

·       The current proposals would have a major impact on the lives of residents and they were entitled to further consideration. The current proposals would increase antisocial behaviour and the residents proposals would minimise problems.

·       The layout of the car park forced all cars to pass close to their properties unnecessarily on the outer road which would encourage speeding. There was already a problem with anti-social behaviour and the Police had challenged the application stating that antisocial behaviour should be designed out at the design stage.

·       The solution would be to change the traffic flow and route it away from the back of their houses.  Virtual meetings had been held with the local MP and all present had agreed that the direction of travel should be changed to alleviate the serious issues but NCC had not taken notice of this.  A direction change to the platform would also reduce antisocial behaviour and break up traffic flow and these changes were easy wins.

·       NCC had not demonstrated in the design modelling analysis could be defended from serious criticism.  A large proportion of residents to the south of Seaton Delaval would use the metro rather than travel and use the Seaton Delaval station.  SENRUG had also confirmed this in a report which had been prepared many years ago.

·       The long term effects of the Pandemic had been ignored and the reduction in the use of public transport due to changes in working practices such as more working from home had not been taken into consideration.

·       It had not been fully explained why there had been a 211% increase in the number of spaces since 2019/2020.  Phasing of the construction of the car park would allow for the uncertainty of numbers of bays required over the next few years.  This would also have the benefit of saving unnecessary costs; avoid the use of Green Belt land and reduce the damage to the environment; reduce the impact on residents and would benefit everyone in the surrounding area.  If additional capacity was required the car park could be extended or it could be that a station could be built at Seghill.

·       They opposed the use of tarmac on the Green Belt and the destruction of the biodiversity of the site.

·       The long straight space used for access would be to the detriment of the residents of Whytrigg Close and the reversal of the flow of traffic and providing the access road inside would provide more space closer to the station.

P Scott, Local Ward Member addressed the Committee.  He advised that he supported the application which would bring the reintroduction of passenger trains following their removal in 1964.  The service would allow residents to travel to Newcastle in less than 20 minutes or connect to the metro. The benefits of the proposals were clear and he recommended that the application should be granted, however there were valid concerns which needed to be addressed regarding the car park, the details of which had been provided by Mr Moy in his speech.  He stressed that the concerns were from a group of residents who were in support of the station but believed the car park should be looked at again.  He agreed with this position and if Members were minded to agree the application then a reserved matters condition could be added linked to the provision of the car park, this would allow more work to be undertaken before a final scheme was agreed including the possibility of moving the access road to the middle of the car park which would remove traffic from behind the properties and prevent it running close to the station platform itself.

P Gillon, Chartered Planner addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The station was one of six proposed as part of plans to reintroduce passenger services between Newcastle and Ashington.

·       The application had been the subject of extensive consultations with officers and other stakeholders both before and after the planning submission.

·       The application had also been the subject of a significant public consultation exercise with over 139 respondents specifically supporting the proposals at Seaton Delaval.  Such support confirmed there was a significant public interest in the development of a new railway station at Seaton Delaval.

·       Following consultation in December 2020, changes to the scheme were made to respond to those concerns raised by residents and included increasing the area of planting and screening between residential properties and the proposed access road; re-aligning the access road to minimise the straight sections of road to address concerns this would encourage speeding; and re-aligning the pedestrian access to the east away from the property boundary.

·       Work had continued with Officers and other stakeholders to address concerns wherever possible during the determination of the application, culminating in this scheme.  The application and the submitted documents provided a robust case which demonstrated the application was in accordance with all relevant and national and local planning policies.

·       The proposed railway station would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, precise details of which could be found within the planning application submission.

·       The submitted Transport Assessment and the passenger demand modelling which underpinned that assessment had informed the design of the scheme and was support by Highways Officers.

·       The station and wider scheme would deliver the transport infrastructure which was required to attract inward investment, create additional employment opportunities and encourage further economic growth in Seaton Delaval and the South East of Northumberland. 

·       Policies within both the adopted Blyth Valley Local Plan and Core Strategy and the emerging NLP identified Seaton Delaval as a safeguarded location for a future railway station.

·       The station was a sustainable development which policies confirm should be supported and there were no objections from Statutory Consultees and when balanced against the objections the significant economic, social and environmental benefits, the scheme should be approved.

·       The application had been thoroughly assessed and had been found to be in accordance with the relevant planning policies and he respectfully urged Members to accept the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

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

·       There was a condition related to the management of the car park and Mr Halliday had set out the logic of the proposed layout.  There were some physical issues in relation to the design and circulation of traffic in the car park which needed to be taken into consideration such as to avoid cars passing in large numbers between where people were parking and walking to the station, for safety reasons. Some fine tuning of the operation of the car park could be undertaken as part of the management strategy however it would not be possible to change the total layout of the car park at this stage without deferring the application and if a changed layout went outside the red line boundary then a whole new planning application would be required.  There were a number of conditions to be attached to any permission granted and when these were read as a whole with the report, such as those which required a detailed landscape plan, which it was thought could address some of the concerns of the residents.  There had been a need to balance issues such as noise, ecology, lighting, constraints of the site and if any changes were proposed then there would be a need to go back to all consultees.  A lot of work had been undertaken to satisfy conditions and the application before Members provided the best balance of the requirements of other consultees.

·       Work could be undertaken as part of the landscaping scheme to be submitted to look at the type of screen planting taking into account all angles and the openness of the area and the distance between the properties and the car park.

·       There would be a light traffic controlled access to the car park and extensive modelling to show capacity and the safety improvements which would be required had been undertaken.

·       There was to be some modest landscaping and SUDs areas incorporated into the car park to break up the visual impact and would also provide a drainage function, however it had been made clear by any operator of the car park that due to maintenance issues, it should not be shrub planting and was likely that any planting would be low level.

·       There was an active policy to promote the use of sustainable transport and in this instance the level of car parking provision was appropriate as, whilst it encouraged the use of cars, it would result in shorter car journeys with residents parking at the station and then travelling the rest of their journey by train.  If the number of spaces were reduced then there was the risk of people being put off using the rail line or displacing parking into neighbouring residential areas. Any phasing of the use of the car park could be proposed as part of the management plan. 

·       An RAC Foundation report had advised that between July and September 2021, the levels of traffic within urban centres had returned to pre-covid levels with people doing less walking/cycling than they had during lockdown. 

·       Neighbouring housing estates could be used by cyclists to access the station.

·       There were no buildings to be provided at any of the stations only some wet weather protection.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions as outlined in the report and additions and amendments contained in the addendum report which was seconded by Councillor Flux.

Members considered that the points raised in Mr Billinghurst’s email had been addressed in the report.  It was suggested that details of the car park management plan and the landscaping plan could be agreed with the Chair to ensure that the final schemes reflected the concerns of the Members.  Councillors Hutchinson and Flux advised that they would be happy for this to be added to the proposal to approve the application.  A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as outlined and it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions in the report and amendments and additional conditions outlined in the addendum report with the Car Park Management Plan and Landscaping Plan to be agreed by the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee.