Agenda item

Full planning application for change of use of existing agricultural field for forestry and community education uses including creation of planting amphitheatre and associated infrastructure

Land to The North of Eland Lane, Ponteland, Northumberland

Full planning application for change of use of existing agricultural field for forestry and community education uses including creation of planting amphitheatre and associated infrastructure

Land to The North of Eland Lane, Ponteland, Northumberland

R Soulsby, Planning Officer provided an introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation.  Members were informed that a late representation from Ponteland Town Council had been received which read as follows:

“The Council has concerns over access; parking on a narrow country lane; blocking a road that is used regularly by the neighbouring farm and residents; litter; safety with such a proximity to the river; vandalism; the risk of antisocial behaviour; the remoteness of this facility and the risk that it could become a 'hangout' area for youths resulting in antisocial behaviour.”

The Planning Officer advised that whilst objectors had raised concerns regarding the site potentially resulting in an increase in antisocial behaviour and litter within the area, these were not material planning considerations.

Mr C Jackson addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       This was a retrospective application for previously productive agricultural land and it was incomprehensible that Bellway continued to develop and change the use when it could be productive agricultural land.

·       There was no reference to the current condition of the land.

·       The proposal was unnecessary.

·       No educational body had been consulted or expressed a need for this facility.

·       The developer had based this on the Miyawaki method which was particularly suitable for urban areas and this was not an urban area, and therefore there was no basis to support the application.

·       The placement of the trees 2 to 3 metres apart was inconsistent with the size site as a much larger site would be required for the number of trees and therefore the proposals were inappropriate.

·       There had been no engagement with community groups and the educational aspect was not valid.

·       The application failed to consider or meet the objectives set out in Northumberland's Local Plan (NLP)- Policy STP1, in particular sub bullet g;  Policy STP3;  Policy STP4; Policy STP5, bullet 2, in particular sub bullets, a, f and g and extracts of the NLP  were read out to the Committee.

·       In respect of Policy STP6 the land was already well maintained farm land and there was no attempt to meet any of the planning objectives outlined in the report.  Agricultural use on the site was already well managed and there would be no net biodiversity gain, but in fact there would be a net loss.

·       The clear ecological benefit had not been outlined.

·       The developer had rubbished the concerns from residents in relation to fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour on the site.

·       STP5 stated that you must not create an area which does not promote,  support and enhance the health and wellbeing of communities and must support the wider issue of public safety and the Police have not endorsed this development.

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

·       Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak and Officers for the report.

·       Ponteland would be the first tiny forest created by Bellway in the country and would also act as an educational tool for community and educational groups.  The forest funded by Bellway had already had groups on site.

·       There would be 300 trees provided requiring low maintenance and would enhance the green infrastructure and provide ecological enhancements to the site.

·       The site would not typically require planning permission as it was a small site and the development could be undertaken under permitted development rights which would also allow for use of the site for up to 28 days per year.

·       Bellway had sought consent to remove the 28 day limit and the application would also give the Council more control of the development and maintenance of the site.

·       There were no technical objections and the application was recommended for approval.

·       The development was in accordance with the NLP and the objections related to the risk of anti-social behaviour and vandalism were not within the remit of planning.  There was no evidence that the development of the site would result in anti-social behaviour or vandalism and the Police had not objected to the application.

·       The site would mainly be used by groups for educational purposes with the young people supervised whilst on the site.

·       The proposal was sustainable development and would have ecological benefit, accorded with planning policies and Members were requested to approve the application.

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

·       The applicant had set out that the site would be used as a learning tool for biodiversity and protected species and would be used by school and community groups.  All that was being assessed as part of the application was the change of use to forestry from agricultural land.

·       Works had been undertaken on the site but had not been approved and Officers were not aware of any specific project or timescales for the use of the site by the groups.

Councillor Dodd proposed refusal of the application as he felt that this was not a forest as it was no bigger than two back gardens and the description did not match up with what would be provided.  He felt that the Committee were being conned regarding the change of use and as a farmer himself this was not a location where he would plant trees and considered they would be alien to what was already there.

Members were reminded by the Planning Area Manager that all Members were being asked to look at was the change of use so that planting could go ahead on the site and questioned what would be alien as trees could already be there. Councillor Dodd stated that if it had a purpose such as a shelter belt then that would be different but he considered that this was a trojan horse and felt that it would encourage anti-social behaviour on the site as there was a lot of this happening in Ponteland at the current time.

Members were reminded that any reason for refusal must be linked to a principle of development and whilst there was some sympathy that was not a  planning reason for the refusal of the application. There was no building to object to and robust reasons for any refusal must be provided by the Committee linked to policies which would be defensible at any future appeal. There was a defined Green Belt boundary around the settlement of Ponteland however, the application site was located within the inset boundary and was therefore not located within designated Green Belt.

Councillor Dodd withdrew his proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Beynon then proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Murphy. 

Members suggested that if Bellway wished to offset their carbon footprint then it should be done on their own housing estates by the provision of more green areas with tree planting on them rather than by buying more land.  They also highlighted the concerns that the Town Council had in respect of the application, and it was stated that the application would provide more community benefit in an urban environment rather than in Ponteland where it was not needed and this was something the NLP should look to encourage.  

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as follows:- FOR 2; AGAINST 2; ABSTAIN 0.   As this was a tied decision, the Vice-Chair Planning, in the Chair used her casting vote in favour of the proposal and it was therefore:

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and subject to the conditions outlined in the report.