Agenda item

Retrospective works to dwelling including removal of car port and garage, alterations to roof, windows and door openings and construction of outbuilding

Greenfield House, Hepscott, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 6LH

Retrospective works to dwelling including removal of car port and garage, alterations to roof, windows and door openings and construction of outbuilding.

Greenfield House, Hepscott, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 6LH

An introduction was provided to the report by R Soulsby, Planning Officer with the aid of a power point presentation. 

Councillor P Ashmore, Chair of Hepscott Parish Council addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following information:

·       He wished to address the one remaining issue in respect of this application, the issue of village and neighbour amenity and in particular ecological amenity.  It was a material planning consideration and was referred to in condition 3.

·       It was dreadful what this application and the aftermath had done to the green wildlife corridor of the Hepscott Burn, which was supposed to be protected by the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan. This once lovely, wooded site occupied 1.2 acres in the centre of the wildlife corridor. The removal of more 25 mature trees, the bird habitat and the destruction of the bat colony had seriously diminished the village’s amenity.

·       Some of this lost amenity could be regained through Condition 3  and the mitigation of the destruction of the bat colony when the roof was removed which the applicant was fully aware was a criminal act. 

·       The wording of Condition 3 was outlined, however it was considered that this would not happen as:

1.     The overwhelming evidence was that the putting up of the bird and bat boxes had still not happened 15 months after the outline permission was granted.

2.    The applicant had been reported to the police in 2020 for his destruction of the bat boxes by Northumberland County Council and nothing had happened since.

3.    The police did not appear to see it as a priority.

4.    A pre-commencement planning condition was placed on the outline planning application – condition 9 “no development should take place unless in accordance with the mitigation measures detailed in the ecological report.  Development had started but still no mitigation measures.

5.    In June 2021 NCC’s own ecology department said that due to the loss of the bat roost which was seen as a significant impact the requirement for further details on mitigation should not be left to a planning condition.

·       It should be ensured that mitigation measures should be pre-commencement and carried out before any further work on site began. 

·       This Committee could not restore the bat roost or bring felled trees back to life but it could help restore some amenity to the village and the wildlife corridor by changing the wording of condition 3 to ensure that the mitigation measures were carried out before any further work was started.  This would be the only way it could be ensured that the work was carried out.  With this amendment Hepscott Parish Council would not oppose the application.

H. Wafer, Agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The application was a retrospective application for an existing residence and the principle of development was acceptable.

·       All technical matters have been addressed and are suitable subject to conditions.

·       There were no statutory objections apart from the Parish Council which had concerns regards to the scale of the works and works being carried out before permission had been granted.

·       The applicant wished it to be noted that whilst the work would increase the height of the dwelling it was considered suitable for the surrounding area and similar to those in the reserved matters applications.

·       Whilst the works had been carried out without consent the applicant was taking steps to rectify this and that the works to the roof had been carried out following advice that it was rotting and dangerous.

·       The proposed development had been assessed by Officers against planning policy and had found it to be acceptable.

·       With respect to ecology whilst a bat roost had been impacted, ecology plans had been submitted to address these concerns and these had been addressed by a condition.

·       The applicant requested that the application be granted consent in line with the recommendations in the report

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

·       It was not possible to include a pre commencement condition as the works had already commenced and conditions could not be attached to an alternative permission.  In relation to enforcement action, a decision had to be made on whether any breaches could be regulated through the application of conditions and it was considered in this instance that it could be.

·       If it was felt more appropriate then Members could change the timescale of condition 3 from 6 months to 3 months for the monitoring report to be submitted, however it had been Ecology who had requested the 6 month period.

·       The fact that the application was for retrospective permission was not a material consideration and should not influence how the application was assessed.

Councillor Sanderson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application with a change to condition 3 that the timescale to submit the monitoring report should be reduced from 6 months to 3 months.  He also asked that a note be prepared and submitted to the Director of Finance requesting that the raising of charges for retrospective planning applications be looked at as part of the budget proposals.

The Committee were advised that fees were set by Government and Local Authorities had no powers to change these.  Councillor Sanderson advised that he would lobby Government on this. 

Councillor Wearmouth seconded Councillor Sanderson’s proposal.

During debate the appropriate timescale for the monitoring report was discussed as it was suggested that Ecology may have requested six months for a specific reason.  Members were advised that the ecological breach would be dealt with under separate legislation by the Police and whilst this was a material consideration on balance it did not outweigh the Planning policy support for the proposal  Members considered that 3 month timescale would be suitable to allow Officers to ensure that all mitigation had been implemented.

A vote was taken on the proposal to accept the recommendation to approve the recommendation with the change to condition 3 which requested the monitoring report to be submitted within 3 months and it was unanimously:

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reason and with the conditions as outlined in the report and amended above.