Agenda item

New dwellinghouse
Land North West of Sturton Grange Mill, Warkworth, Northumberland

New dwellinghouse

Land North West of Sturton Grange Mill, Warkworth, Northumberland

V. Cartmell introduced the application with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation and explained that there had been a late statement from the applicant which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

Craig Ross spoke in support of the application and gave the following information:

·       The scheme had the full support of Warkworth Parish Council.

·       The applicant was willing to enter into discussions for a coastal mitigation contribution.

·       The application would sit in the development limits of a previous large-scale building and would not require a new entry way.

·       The application would not be able to be considered functionally or physically isolated due to it being near 26 homes

Rod Galile also spoke in support of the application stating that the application site fell within the Sturton Grange development and was well contained in the existing walled garden and did not spill out in the open countryside nor impact on the nearby listed buildings, neighbours, or landscape.

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

·       In July 2021 the NPPF had been re-written and included in the transport section “new locations must offer a genuine choice of transport modes”. However, the location where the application was set, occupants would be dependant on their car due to the roads surrounding the area not providing safe or suitable alternatives, which was why Highways gave their response to consultation as unsustainable.

·       The application site was not in any defined settlements and was classed as open countryside.

Councillor Watson proposed that the application should be granted permission as the application site was in an enclosed piece of land, had no objections from neighbours or the Parish Council, in his opinion there was no effect on the listed building.  In granting permission it would be subject to a S106 in respect of a coastal service mitigation payment, and subject to conditions which were to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair of Planning. This was seconded by Councillor Mather.

The Planning Manager explained that conversions were acceptable in the open countryside, however new buildings were contrary to planning policy and this proposal was also deemed unsustainable on highways grounds due to needing a car to travel to and from the application site. It was explained that the applicant would need to demonstrate material planning benefits of the scheme that would on balance outweigh the harm to the open countryside. It is officer opinion the applicant had not demonstrated this and that potentially this decision could  open a precedent if members were to grant this application without adequate justification as the site was classed as open countryside.

Councillor Watson stated that he did not consider the application to be isolated and in the open countryside as there was a wall surrounding the site and a road already outside the application site and there would be a public benefit in that there would be another home in a growing community and disagreed with the conservation officer, stating he considered there was no harm at all.

Councillors Castle, Renner-Thompson and Mather stated that they agreed with the Local Member and the Parish Council and would be voting in favour of the application as the application was in a local settlement.

Councillor Bridgett spoke in opposition to the proposal and agreed with the officer’s recommendation and urged members to think carefully about the precedent that it would set. Councillor Thorne also expressed that he agreed with the officer’s recommendation and that there was strong logical arguments on planning grounds.

A vote was taken as follows:  FOR 4; AGAINST 7; ABSTENSION 0. 

The motion failed, Councillor Bridgett proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation, to refuse the application which was seconded by Councillor Hill.

A vote was taken as follows:  FOR 8; AGAINST 3; ABSTENSION 0.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.