Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved for up to four residential dwellings (Resubmission of 18/04275/FUL) (amended description)

Land To The Rear Of 51 Station Road, Station Road, Stannington, Northumberland

Outline application with all matters reserved for up to four residential dwellings (Resubmission of 18/04275/FUL) (amended description)

Land To The Rear Of 51 Station Road, Station Road, Stannington, Northumberland

T. Wood, Principal Planning Officer provided an introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation.

T. Hall addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application on behalf of a group of residents.  His comments included the following:-

·       Between 2015 and 2018, 9 applications, 5 within the Green Belt had been approved for 73 houses which was an estimated 95% increased development rate which was excessive, disproportionate and unprecedented for a small village. This small application plus the remaining brownfield site would push that figure to 108%.

·       He questioned how a planning department could approve a plan in the Green Belt which immediately created a critical situation within the Green Belt, advising that the site was outside the inset boundary which should have altered them.

·       The last approval was August 2018 with all subsequent applications refused with NCC immediately and repeatedly acknowledging that development had reached a critical point with regard to the Green Belt.

·       This was a clear example of over-development, it should not have occurred and it can only be critical because an optimal point at which appropriate action should have been taken was not.

·       Contrary to the officer’s report this application contravened the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP) STP19(d) which stated that “small villages will support a proportionate level of development”.  Apparently 10% had originally been suggested but at a later stage was replaced by proportionate.  The structure of the NLP and social hierarchy clearly indicated that proportionate development would be significantly less than 108%.   In terms of proportionality,10% and 108% were irreconcilable. There was now a small village, not even in the social  hierarchy, with the largest relative contribution to development that any other location in Northumberland.

·       The officer’s report attempted to address objectors’ concerns of overdevelopment by stating that the inset boundary has defined the level of appropriate development, which was debatable as there was another version that the inset boundary was actually drawn around land sites that were mainly already approved prior to late 2016 and then around the Green Belt to be protected.

·       This was effectively an admission of overdevelopment because two developed sites, 19/0131 and 18/01044 were outside the inset boundary and therefore must be inappropriate.  If you used the boundary to define appropriate land areas for housing then you had already reached quota by developing twice outside the boundary which negated any future brownfield development. It was inconceivable that 108% would be considered appropriate when the 20 year target represented an increase of only 12% or 6% annually.  Where was the justification for more houses in a small already overdeveloped village when NCC were already 4 years ahead of plan, several years of housing land supply and a 20 year target slashed.

·       There was no supply/demand imperative and it appeared the application was being recommended for approval just because it was a brownfield site inside the inset boundary.

·       There was a need to balance the benefits of the application and the situation which had resulted in Stanning Station seeing the small village increased by 95% and rising; a critical situation which could and should have been avoided, the effects of which were permanent; substantial loss of Green Belt which should have been protected; irreparable loss of amenity, community and village life and character; increased noise pollution, major traffic hazard at the level crossing and continuous construction disturbance; inadequate infrastructure causing blocked drains.

·       This was a small rural community which had been bombarded with 23 building applications and 8 appeals within a few years and all within the distance of less than one mile.  The residents of Stannington Station needed some positive action after the horrendous and unprecedented situation that had been inflicted on them over the past few years.  No more development was the least that they deserved.

M Ketley, agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.   His comments included the following:-

·       Altoria Development Ltd was a Morpeth based company who specialised in building bungalows and had a proven track record of providing this type of housing for older persons to help address the shortage. 

·       Altoria had delivered two further developments in Stanning and one in Blyth, all built to the lifetime homes specification including smart technology providing monitoring services allowing people to live independently.

·       Stannington Station had development over the last decade but the adoption of the NLP drew a line in the sand because of the Green Belt boundary providing certainty for the 20 – 30 years. 

·       This site was within the inset boundary of the Green Belt and was therefore acceptable for future development.

·       This application was for outline permission with all matters reserved for 4 bungalows which would easily be accommodated and was good use of the site.  The development was appropriate in principle and the site was proportionate for 4 bungalows.

·       Work had been undertaken with officers to reduce the number of bungalows on the site to 4 and it was a sensitive scheme in a sustainable location with appropriate services and transport.  The village had a shop, restaurant and farm shop and a new bus route had been introduced.

·       He asked that Members endorse the officers recommendation and approve the application.

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

·       The application had been assessed as an application for market housing and not as a not for profit scheme.

·       The newly adopted NLP included a map and had a definitive area indicated.

·       As places developed then the way in which they would be described in the plan would change.  Stannington Station was described at the current time as a small settlement in accordance with the plan.

·       The applicant agent in his speech said that the site was being promoted as bungalows and that this was the applicants unique selling point with the product being marketed for a particular demographic, however single storey bungalows were delivered on many other sites across the County.  The applicant was not the only provider but it would appear that there was a market for this type of property.

·       The 436 bus service now ran through the village every 2 hours and there was a bus stop at the eastern end of the village which was used by a greater number of buses.

Councillor Beynon proposed refusal of the application as it would be an overdevelopment of the area, and this was seconded by Councillor Darwin who advised that the speed limit reduction from 40 mph to 30 mph had still not happened, there was no shortage of bungalows along Station Road and he also considered it overdevelopment.

Members in debating the proposal to refuse the application highlighted that the application site was not within Green Belt, the type of development was very land intensive and was not as profitable as putting 4/5 bedroomed detached houses on the plot and this type of development should be encouraged.  The site was set back from the road and would not block any views.  The site had been looked at by a Planning Inspector very recently who had commented that this particular site would be suitable for development and this would carry great weight at any future appeal.  The objectors had made good points, but it was considered that any appeal would be lost and could in fact have costs awarded against the Council if the inspector thought that the decision was unreasonable.   The application met policy requirements, however there would be very few sites within Stannington Station left on which any future development would be allowed.

A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application as follows: FOR 3; AGAINST 6; ABSTAIN 0.  The motion failed.

Councillor Towns proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as detailed in the report which was seconded by Councillor Wearmouth.   The development was sustainable with a shop, restaurant and farm shop nearby and the bungalows would meet an identified need, were sympathetic with the area and did not constitute overdevelopment.

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as follows:- FOR 6; AGAINST 3; ABSTAIN 0. 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report. 

Councillor Towns left the meeting at this point.