Agenda item

Construction of 1no. dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping

Land North of Meadow Gate, Catton, Northumberland

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and requested the following amendments to condition No.s 3 and 7:

Condition 3 – inclusion of policies and reference to the retaining wall

“Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no development shall commence on site until plans, including cross sections showing the finished floor levels, garden levels and resulting ridge height of the dwelling hereby approved, from a fixed datum point, are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

These plans should include details of any retaining walls that are required due to the proposed earthworks and change in land levels.

Thereafter, the development shall proceed only in accordance with those approved details.

Reason: To ensure these details are controlled by the Local Planning Authority in the interests of impact on the appearance of the area in accordance with Policies QOP1, QOP2, ENV1 and ENV6 of the Northumberland Local Plan the NPPF.”

Condition 7 - Updated to include reference to doors

“Notwithstanding the details submitted, all external doors including frames shall be of painted timber.  All windows shall be of painted timber and shall be hung sliding sash, recessed by at least 100mm and with no trickle vents.  The windows and external doors shall be retained/replaced like for like in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interest of the appearance of the area. In accordance with Policies QOP1 and ENV6 of the Northumberland Local Plan.”

John Haigh spoke in objection to the application and raised the following issues:

·        The application would have been dealt with under delegated powers had a formal complaint not been made by Mr and Mrs Pierce about the management of the application which was then reassessed.

·        The committee were requested to respect the opinions of the parish council, Catton residents and experts in the fields of conservation and the environment and reject the application.

·        The AONB had previously documented that the meadow was inappropriate for development and that it formed and important part of the character of Catton Village.

·        Permitting the development would contravene Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

·        The Council was not paying due regard to the AONB designation.  The Countryside Charity (CPRE) objection stated that the proposed plans fail an acceptability test.

·        The applicant’s consultant claimed the new dwelling would be similar to that previously approved which was untrue as it did not comply with previous conditions on the following 2 points:

1)    The ridge of the new building would be no higher than the ridge of Meadowgate.  The report stated that the new ridge would be 1.4 m higher but measurements from the Wider Street Elevation plan show it to be 2.1 m higher.

2)    The ground level was only to be lowered by 2.4 m and not the 3.5 m previously required.

·        They objected strongly that conditions applied by the former Senior Planning Officer, who had later become the applicant’s consultant, had not been adhered to and queried how the inconsistency could be allowed.

·        Most of the objections complained about the height of the proposal being obtrusive and out of keeping.  Local residents were dismayed by its scale and siting.

·        The development adversely impacted on the character and appearance of the settlement in contravention of clause (e) 1, 3 and 4 of STP1 and queried whether it should be regarded as a sustainable development.

·        They were concerned that a dominant building on the elevated meadow to the south of the recently opened Crown Inn would compromise views from the pub’s garden and impact on amenity values and viability of the business.  Reference was made to the strategic aim of the newly adopted Northumberland Local Plan to ‘conserve and enhance Northumberland’s natural and built environments ensuring that they continue to be experienced and valued by residents and visitors and protected from inappropriate development’.  They were of the opinion that this development was inappropriate.

·        The report had not included or addressed concerns of the publican who had complained about lack of communication from the planning department.

·        The development had an adverse impact on the amenity of existing neighbours and businesses in contravention of sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Allendale Neighbourhood Development Plan.

·        The objectors and CPRE disputed that the principle of development on the site had been established.  Of 4 applications, only one reached determination, which had lapsed due to lack of interest.

·        Although the site was sensitive and in a prominent location at the entrance of the village, the Planning and Conservation Officer had not advised on the proposal despite involvement on another site.  This had been queried and had not been answered.

·        Members were asked to reject the application as it:

-       Was too high and obtrusive and did not comply with previous constraints applied by Planning.

-       Ignored advice and objections raised by the national environmental bodies.

-       Ignored the requirements of the AONB.

-       Ignored the strategic objectives of the recently adopted Northumberland Local Plan.

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

·        The proposed development was now located 5 meters further away from the neighbouring property with a separate access also being located further to the north.  It had a similar footprint as the application that had previously been approved for a 2 storey, 4 bedroom house with double garage.  The previous application originally proposed sharing the existing access.  Highways had no objections to the separate access subject to conditions.

·        There would not be a significant impact on the amenity of the neighbours from the increased ridge height as the proposed building was located further away, 30 metres from Meadowgate.  As the site and wider areas was situated on a hill, properties to the north would be situated slightly higher than those to the south.  A condition regarding landscaping had been included so the details could be approved.

·        The height of the proposed building was higher due to changes in the design.  Condition 3 required approval of plans for finished floor levels, garden levels and the resulting ridge height.  Condition 2 required the property be built in accordance with approved plans i.e. that the building be sunk and not on existing ground levels.

·        Properties on the other side of the road were in a similar position being located higher than adjacent properties to the south.

·        The North Pennines AONB had not objected to the application but required that it did not impact on the character of the settlement by complying with the Building Design Guide.

·        Sliding sash windows had been specified by the applicants.  The AONB Building Design Guide required the materials to be timber and of a traditional style.  Details of the proposed windows had been specified within Condition No. 7 which could be amended to remove the reference to sash windows, perhaps ‘sliding sash appearance’.

·        It was not normal practice to specify whether windows were single, double or triple glazed as long as they were traditional in appearance.

·        The reference to ‘in perpetuity’ was to be construed as for the lifetime of the building.

Councillor Stewart proposed acceptance of the of the officer’s recommendation to approve the application with the officers amendment’s to Condition No.s 3 as read out in committee and condition no.7 removing the reference to sash windows from the latter.  The wording of amended condition No. 7 with regard to the materials and mechanisms used within the windows to be delegated to Planning Officers.  This was seconded by Councillor Hutchinson.

Whilst there was some sympathy for some of the issues raised by the objectors, the principle of development on the site had previously been established.  As this application was for a similar design Members could not find a reason to refuse the application.

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

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report and subject to the amended Condition No.s 3 as read out in committee by officers and condition no 7 removing the reference to sash windows from the latter.  The wording of amended condition No. 7 with regard to the materials and mechanisms used within the windows to be delegated to Planning Officers.

“3.  Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no development shall commence on site until plans, including cross sections showing the finished floor levels, garden levels and resulting ridge height of the dwelling hereby approved, from a fixed datum point, are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

These plans should include details of any retaining walls that are required due to the proposed earthworks and change in land levels.

Thereafter, the development shall proceed only in accordance with those approved details.

Reason: To ensure these details are controlled by the Local Planning Authority in the interests of impact on the appearance of the area in accordance with Policies QOP1, QOP2, ENV1 and ENV6 of the Northumberland Local Plan the NPPF.”

“7.  Notwithstanding the details submitted, all external doors including frames shall be of painted timber.  All windows shall be of painted timber and shall be hung sliding sash, recessed by at least 100mm and with no trickle vents.  The windows and external doors shall be retained/replaced like for like in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interest of the appearance of the area. In accordance with Policies QOP1 and ENV6 of the Northumberland Local Plan.”