Agenda item

Development of 9 no. residential dwellings (100% affordable) including associated access, car parking, landscaping and all other ancillary works (amended layout and housing mix)

Land North of Piper Road, Piper Road, Ovingham, Northumberland

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and reported that an additional objection had been received which strongly opposed the development on the grounds of:

·        Environmental destruction to a well-established old hedgerow, including impact on nesting birds.

·        The impact of the noise, disruption and heavy goods relating to these works with such close proximity to local houses was dangerous and effected residents' health and was unacceptable.

Neville Gray spoke on behalf of Ovingham Parish Council and made the following comments:-

·        House building in the Green belt was a contentious issue.  References to it being a ‘rural exception site’ which at 9 dwellings was one dwelling less than the maximum allowed.  There were already 22 dwelling to the west and other land was available to the east and that possible disaggregation of development to circumvent the NPPF could result in 40 dwellings being built in the Green Belt.

·        Conditions 4 to 8 were welcomed but showed that further loss of existing habitat if approval was granted.  New hedgerow would take a considerable time to develop and likely ‘manicured’ and inferior in ecological terms.

·        It was recognised that there were fundamental drainage issues on the site and houses fronting Piper Road needed to be raised above the actual site level.  The drainage statement from consultants CK21 stated that invert levels had been assumed and that the existing sewer would need to be exposed to confirm the invert level which would determine the finished floor levels.  Invert levels had been assumed and the properties fronting Piper Road would be elevated.

·        Conditions No. 2 and 28 confirmed that the final elevation of the houses was not currently known.  The Parish Council were of the view that the work identified in the CK21 report, and any changes required to drawings and the site plan should have been undertaken in the 17-month period following submission of the application and prior to consideration by committee.

·        Detailed technical survey information cast doubt on the JDDK architect’s cross sections and showed that the new 2 storey dwellings fronting Piper Road would be significantly elevated and higher than existing houses opposite and to the west.  For this reason, they had objected to the site layout and had requested that only bungalows should front Piper Road on the south side.

·        Mobility issues and access to properties raised above street level had not been addressed within the officer’s report.

·        The height of the 2-storey houses would be out of keeping with the street scene viewed from the road and footpaths.

·        They did not agree with the comment in paragraph 7.47 of the report that heights would be satisfactory under policy GD2.

·        These matters could only be properly addressed when the actual site and floor levels were known.  Making condition no 28 retrospective removed the ability of the committee to properly scrutinise the application and should not be approved.

·        Careful thought should be given to the location and access to the site compound as this was a concern to many residents of Piper Road and Cherry Burn Land.

Ms. S. Ferguson represented the applicant and spoke in support of the application.  She wished to highlight the following key points to be taken into consideration in the determination of the application:-

·        All of the dwellings were to be provided as affordable housing and would form an extension to the neighbouring affordable housing site.  That scheme had successfully provided homes to 20 families who might otherwise have been forced to live outside the area in which they had grown up.

·        The development addressed the identified affordable housing need within Ovingham and the adjoining parishes of Ovington and Horsley.  This had been confirmed through a housing needs survey completed for Ovingham and the surrounding parishes, consultation with local registered providers to establish an evidenced demand and Northumberland Homefinder data.  Extensive discussions had been held with the Housing Enabling Officer to ensure the housing mix and tenure met the need of the area and had resulted in amendments to the housing mix.

·        The affordable housing would directly contribute to the sustainability of local services and facilities of the village.  Supporting small scale developments in rural villages was important to ensure their services and communities were sustained in the long-term.

·        Alternative sites had been examined through sequential analysis and a review of the 2019 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).  There were no other available or suitable sites to deliver the affordable housing.  Also, there were no current alternative sites within Ovingham, Horsley or Ovington with planning permission providing any element of affordable housing to satisfy the identified need.  This was confirmed within the officer’s report at paragraph 7.29.

·        The proposed development allowed for the provision of affordable housing in an acceptable location adjoining an existing affordable housing scheme with no visual harm.  There should be assurance that the proposed affordable housing meets the tests and was acceptable within the Green Belt.

·        With regard to concerns regarding ground levels and proposed layout, the site had been designed to continue and reflect the form of development of the existing adjoining housing.  The layout and scale had been found to be acceptable and the report confirmed that it would not result in significant or harmful impacts on existing residents.  It was a good quality design with standards as high or better than private housing would be.  An acceptable drainage strategy and ecological mitigation measures were provided and confirmed through consultation by the lead Local Flood Authority and county ecologist, contrary to the objections raised.

·        The development complied with local and national planning policy and constituted a rural exception which was appropriate in the Green Belt.  The development would bring no harm but deliver substantial benefits for local people in need of housing.

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

·        Exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt included limited affordable housing for local community need.  This was in line with the development plan policy.  As there was an identified need and it was deemed to be acceptable in terms of character, well related, immediately adjoining an existing settlement.  It was therefore considered to be an acceptable site.

·        As the Tynedale Local Plan Policy referred to alternative provision, the applicant had been asked to consider these.  Ovingham was constrained by Green Belt and there were no alternative sites.  There were no forthcoming allocations or sites available in the SHLAA.  There was also a change in emphasis and assessment of alternative sites was no longer explicitly stated in the NPPF or the emerging policy.

·        Current identified housing need was a key aspect in the definition of a rural exception site and advice had been sought from Housing Enabler Officers to confirm that there was an identified need and the adjoining affordable housing development had been taken into account.  This would also need to be confirmed any other sites which would be assessed on their own merits.

·        The adjacent affordable housing site had been considered in a similar manner against similar policies assessing the provision of limited affordable housing, which did not specify a set number of units.

·        Officers had sought to retain as much of the hedge as possible along Piper Road and landscaping conditions sought replacement planting around the boundary of the site in mitigation for the hedging being removed.  Officers would liaise with the Council’s ecologists regarding the mix of plants and suitability of that proposed.

·        Standard wording within Section 106 agreements regarding local connection criteria included a cascading system for local, next parish, Northumberland.  This was regardless of whether it was a rural exception site.

·        Condition no. 28 was normally included when further information was required on levels or where there was a sloping site.  Information on indicative levels had been provided and were dependent on further drainage works and investigations.  Given the layout, relationship with adjoining properties, the separation distance between the properties on the opposite side of the road which were much greater than the minimum distance of 25 metres normally required between the rear elevations of 2-storey properties, officers were satisfied that the levels would be acceptable and would be reviewed by planning officers before being discharged.

·        The results of the drainage investigation works and details submitted for any discharge of conditions would be uploaded to the Planning Public Access system following an assessment by officers and available to interested persons to view.

·        Phase 1 had been built in 2016 and had coincided with the construction of a flood alleviation scheme which consisted of a large ditch and bund to the north of the development which conveyed water away to the east and the River Tyne.  Those measures would remain for phase 2 and conditions were included in relation to that.

·        The uncertainty regarding levels related to the proposal for a new foul water sewer which would be located under a water course and the surface water sewer from phase 1.  They were therefore confident that a gravity fall system could be constructed from phase 1 to phase 2 in the east and were not concerned regarding raised ground levels at this stage.

·        Local need had been identified via a housing needs assessment undertaken by the applicant which considered the general housing need for the area for affordable rented and forms of ownership which identified a need for Ovingham and surrounding parishes.  The Housing Enabler Officer had also reviewed applicants on Northumberland Homefinder for Ovingham only and then Ovingham and surrounding parishes which influenced the change in tenure and house types.  Other registered providers had also been contacted.  Information from Karbon Homes, who operated phase 1, had been similar to the Council’s Homefinder data.  Housing need could change over time.

·        The housing needs assessment had been similar to the exercise undertaken by the Council in Haltwhistle and Rothbury which had been carried out by specialist consultants.  This considered house prices and income of residents in the area to assess what people could afford, current stock and tenure types before coming to a conclusion.  This was reviewed by officers who also considered current building commitments within the SHLAA.  They had concluded that there was a residual need for units in the Ovingham village and surrounding parishes.

·        Prudhoe had been excluded from the housing needs survey in Ovingham.  Units on the Prudhoe hospital site were to be affordable rented and discounted market value.  However, officers had concluded there was a residual housing need for the area as a whole.

·        2 bedroom bungalows had been requested as above a certain age, the Universal Credit (UC) under occupation cap did not apply which would enable residents to receive full housing benefit element for UC.  Applicants over the age of 55 were eligible for a bungalow under the Council’s housing allocations policy.  2 bedroom bungalows were preferred by registered providers as they found them easier to let and could be rented by individuals who required live in support.

·        The grade of agricultural land was unknown and had not been a material consideration for phase 1

·        Detailed plans had not been received regarding the cycle parking and was not understood to be a covered shed or storage area, although there would be sufficient space within the plots.

Councillor Stewart proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and completion of a Section 106 agreement.

This was seconded by Councillor Dale who enquired about the addition of conditions regarding the cascading of local connection criteria and use of established plants of 2.5/3 feet in the replacement hedgerow.

The Solicitor reported that an additional condition regarding the cascading of local connection criteria was not required as it was included as standard wording within Section 106 agreements.

The Development Management Area Manager (West) reminded members that conditions needed to be reasonable and necessary and queried whether a specific condition was required with regard to the size of hedgerow plants to make the application acceptable?  It was suggested that Condition No. 4 could be amended to include reference to the size of plants and read “…including a planting schedule setting out species, size, numbers, densities and locations, ….”.

Councillors Dale and Stewart agreed with the suggested amendment to Condition no. 4.

It was noted that there was little climate change mitigation within the development and a suggestion that the applicant be required to install an EV charger at each unit and that the cycle parking be fully secure or covered was debated by Members.  The Local Area Council was asked to consider whether the addition of condition requiring an EV charger, and secure or covered cycle parking were reasonable and necessary to make the application acceptable.

In answer to a question, it was confirmed that all applications were considered on their merits and the inclusion of a condition on this application would not set a precedent on other applications.

Both Councillors Stewart and Dale agreed to amend the proposal to include an EV charger for each dwelling.

Other members were of the view that although EC chargers were laudable, as it was not currently a policy requirement, queried whether it could be defended at appeal and should be included.

Alternatively, the Development Management Area Manager (West) suggested that the installation of EV chargers could be included as an informative.  Councillors Stewart and Dale agreed to the latter suggestion and that the inclusion of EV chargers be removed from the motion.

The Solicitor confirmed that as Councillors Fairess-Aitken and Kennedy had not been present at the commencement of the item, they would not be able to participate in the vote.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report, amendment of condition no 4 as set out below and subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure 100% affordable housing provision on the site and a financial contribution to sport and play provision:

“04.    Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, a detailed landscaping scheme showing both hard and soft landscaping proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This shall include the planting of not less than 80 metres of locally native hedging of local provenance, including a planting schedule setting out species, size, numbers, densities and locations, the provision of all new boundary treatments, the creation of areas of hardstanding, pathways, etc., areas to be seeded with grass, and other works or proposals for improving the appearance of the development.

The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings not later than the expiry of the next planting season (November – March inclusive) following commencement of the development, or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To maintain and protect the landscape value of the area and to enhance the biodiversity value of the site, in accordance with the provisions of Policies GD2, NE37 and H32 of the Tynedale Local Plan, Policy NE1 of the Tynedale Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.”