Agenda item

20/03738/VARYCO

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) and 7 (catchment area) pursuant to planning permission 19/03768/FUL (approved under appeal reference APP/P2935/W/20/3252959) to alter parking arrangements on site and extend catchment area to include the Northumberland County Council area first and then Tyne and Wear Conurbation (Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, County Durham and Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council)

East Farm Cottage, Guide Post, Choppington, Northumberland

NE62 5PS

Minutes:

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) and 7 (catchment area) pursuant to planning permission 19/03768/FUL (approved under appeal reference APP/P2935/W/20/3252959) to alter parking arrangements on site and extend catchment area to include the Northumberland County Council area first and then Tyne and Wear Conurbation (Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, County Durham and Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council)

East Farm Cottage, Guide Post, Choppington, Northumberland

NE62 5PS

 

There were no questions in relation to the site visit videos.

 

R Laughton, Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a Power Point presentation.  He advised that the proposed site plan number referenced in paragraph 2.9 and Condition 02 should read 300-02 Rev 07.

 

A letter in objection to the application from the East Farm Park residents was read to the Committee by R Soulsby, Planning Officer.  A copy would be filed with the signed minutes and be uploaded to the Council’s website.

 

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

 

         There was already provision for car parking, however this was to be extended into the garden.  The need to double park cars would remain but the wall would no longer be removed.

         This was an application to vary two conditions attached to a permission already granted at Appeal and whilst Members could request slight changes to the wording, a hybrid decision could not be made and Committee would need to either refuse or approve the application as submitted.

         The application had been brought to the Committee for a decision following consideration through the virtual delegation scheme with part of the consideration being the history of the site and the level of interest.  Given the wider public interest the Director and Chairs had determined it should be considered by Committee.  Members were advised that should this be refused the applicant could still implement the previously agreed permission.

         A lot of weight was always placed on Planning Inspector’s decisions by LPAs, however conditions imposed by a Planning Inspector were not sacrosanct and if there was a good reason these could be varied.  Applications must be considered with an open mind and following the responses from the various consultees Officers had considered the request acceptable.

 

Councillor Beynon proposed refusal of the application as he considered it was totally the wrong location and did not agree that Children from out of the County should be brought into the area.  This was seconded by Councillor Towns who stated that the proposals for the parking addressed that issue but considered that the Planning Inspector’s condition outlined in paragraph 7.12 of the report to restrict the age range and for children to be housed from the Northumberland area should stand and highlighted the reason provided for the imposition of the condition as outlined in the report. In discussing the exact reasons for refusal, Councillor Beynon advised that he still had concerns regarding the car parking as he felt that due to the way in which vehicles would need to be parked within the car park that vehicles would be parked on the highway. 

 

The Development Services Manager questioned if the reasons for refusal were:-

 

1.       The proposed wording regarding the region was imprecise and unenforceable.

2.       Based on the evidence of the Designing Out Crime Officer that it was important that children were not remote from family and friends.

3.       Concerns regarding the car park and highway safety.

 

In discussing the reasons, Councillor Bawn suggested that the highways safety concerns would be indefensible, but the catchment argument was very pertinent as outlined by the Planning Inspector.   The Development Services Manager advised that whilst Councillor Beynon had concerns regarding highway safety, the revised application did provide an improvement to the already agreed permission. In terms of the wording relating to the region being imprecise and unenforceable, there was now a clear catchment area being imposed.  She advised that it would be better to refuse the application for one strong reason rather than to bolster it with two or three reasons.

 

Following a further discussion the following reason for refusal was proposed by Councillor Beynon and seconded by Councillor Towns:

 

It was important to the operation of the site that children were not remote from family and friends and were from the local area. This was necessary to minimise the intensity of the use and protect the amenity of neighbours.”

 

Councillor Dodd questioned what was considered local, was it Northumberland or the North East.  Northumberland was a vast County and some areas within Tyne and Wear and Durham were actually closer to this site than some areas of Northumberland.  The Development Services Manager advised that this was highlighted in paragraph 7.20 of the report with no concerns being raised by the Police, Public Protection or Children’s Services.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application as outlined in bold above as follows:  FOR; 4; AGAINST 5; ABSTENSIONS 0; and therefore the motion failed.

 

Councillor Dunn proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report with the amendment to Condition 02, which was seconded by Councillor Dodd.

 

Councillor Towns and Beynon reminded Members that the Planning Inspector had said the condition was necessary and Members had a duty to consider the neighbours to the application site.  Members had found the arguments persuasive when they had previously refused the application and this was going against the Planning Inspector.  Councillor Dunn highlighted that the condition imposed by the Planning Inspector could be changed and whilst she had some sympathy with the neighbours, considered that the three placements would be manageable.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal to accept the Officer’s recommendation with the change to Condition 02 as follows:-  FOR 5; AGAINST 4; ABSTENTIONS 0.

 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report and the amendment to Condition 02.

Supporting documents: