Agenda item

Residential development of 9 detached and semi-detached dwellings, single and two storey, plus associated infrastructure works (amended description)

Land North of Lonkley Lodge, Lonkley Head, Allendale, Northumberland

The Planning Area Manager (West) introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and explained that the application had previously been considered by the committee on 10 August 2021 although the Section 106 agreement had not been completed prior to the adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP) on 30 March 2022.  There was no longer a requirement to include a Section 106 agreement to seek a financial contribution for sport and play provision.  Adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan had not changed the previous suitability assessment although the report and conditions had been updated to reflect the adopted Northumberland Local Plan policies and include additional conditions for accessible housing, climate change mitigation, reference to policy STP 4 and broadband, see below:

Mr. P. Barber spoke in objection to the application and raised the following concerns:?

·        Flood risk.  Whilst the inclusion of condition no 21 was welcomed to deal with foul and surface water from the development, as it was drafted it did not specify changes to the existing drainage systems.

·        2 properties were to be built over an underground conduit and it was suggested that condition no. 21 should include reference to rerouting of any existing water carrying cundies or conduits, otherwise there was a potential flood risk, and their objections would need to be maintained.

·        The deliverable 5-year housing supply equated to 10.9 years across the county and therefore there appeared to be no need to approve the proposal in terms of housing need.

·        The local perception of housing need was for smaller, more affordable houses than larger and more expensive units which would be purchased by wealthier families moving to Allendale.

·        There was a covenant which prohibited development of the land and the current beneficiary of the covenant had confirmed that they had not been contacted regarding its removal.  The availability of the land was therefore queried and that the covenant issues should be dealt with before building commenced to ensure that it did not become an abandoned building site.

Parish Councillor Mike Kirk stated that the Parish Council were concerned regarding the loss of the Section 106 contribution for sport and play.  However, he had listened to the discussion on the previous application and understood the explanation.  He requested that a copy of the briefing paper be shared with all parish councils so they could better understand the replacement policies and funding arrangements.

Mr. A. Herdman, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.? He wished to address the following points raised by the objectors:-?

·        It had not been in the developer’s interest not to progress matters as they had raised finance to purchase the land.  If they did not sell the houses, they did not make money.

·        The application had previously been approved in August 2021 which had led to the purchase of the land and an application to change ownership with the Land Registry in September 2021.  Due to staff shortages at the Land Registry, this had not been completed and received until March 2022.  The Council’s legal section had been unable to progress the Section 106 agreement until the title had been in the applicant’s name.  The delay had not been of benefit to the developer or the architect.

·        There had been no changes to the proposals from August 2021 and that the principles of the development complied with the Northumberland Local Plan.

·        Lengthy discussions had been held with Northumbria Water and the Lead Local Flood Authority regarding drainage and the risk of flooding to ensure that the design and calculations dealt with surface water.  The proposed conditions specified the quantity and rate that could be put in the network and costly measures for underground storage.

·        The development consisted of 2-4 bedroom dwellings with a mix of single and two storey, detached and semi-detached properties.  The cost of houses had increased rapidly in the UK due to there not being enough houses.

·        The issue with the covenant was not a planning matter.  If land had been purchased which could not be developed, this was not relevant to the planning decision.

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

·        The covenant issue was not one which was considered by officers when considering the planning application.  Whether the site could be developed was a separate issue.

·        A new decision was required, although there had been no changes to the plans and the principle of development had been accepted at the previous meeting.  The report had therefore been updated to reflect policies and conditions in the newly adopted Northumberland Local Plan which no longer included a requirement for sport and play provision.

·        Condition no. 35 was similar to condition no. 31 on the previous application (20/03425/FUL) discussed earlier in the meeting.  It was also agreed that it would be helpful to include informative no.14 from the aforementioned application.

·        The minutes of the meeting on 10 August 2021 and conditions agreed would be checked and replicated to ensure that protective measures around the pond did not exclude wildlife.  It was suggested that this could be included in the landscaping condition as SUDS water features acted as a natural draw to children, they therefore needed to meet health and safety requirements whilst ensuring that there were also ecological benefits.

·        Condition no. 16 would be amended to remove repeated wording.

Councillor Dale proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application subject to:

·        Amendment of condition no. 35 to refer to Policy STP4.

·        Inclusion of an additional condition regarding provision of broadband.

·        Amendment of condition no. 16 to remove repetitive wording.

·        The wording of condition no. 10 on landscaping to include details regarding safety measures and fencing to be provided around the pond.

·        Informative no. 14 from 20/03425/FUL be included.

·        Delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning, following consultation with the Chair regarding the additional wording/conditions.

This was seconded by Councillor Stewart.

Members expressed their disappointment regarding the loss of funding from the Section 106 agreement which would have been of benefit to facilities in Allendale.  It was also disappointing that the number of units was below the threshold where there would have needed to be some provision for affordable housing.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows: -

FOR: 10; AGAINST: 1; ABSTENTION: 0.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report and subject to:

·        Amendment of condition no. 35 to refer to Policy STP4.

·        Inclusion of an additional condition regarding provision of broadband.

·        Amendment of condition no. 16 to remove repetitive wording.

·        The wording of condition no. 10 on landscaping to include details and regarding safety measures and fencing to be provided around the pond.

·        Informative no. 14 from 20/03425/FUL be included.

·        Delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning, following consultation with the Chair regarding the additional wording/conditions.