Agenda item

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for proposed 150 residential dwellings (use class C3) including 30% affordable housing, countryside park including car park, pursuant to approved outline planning application 16/00078/OUT (revised description 8th August 2022).

Land West of Lancaster Park, Pinewood Drive, Lancaster Park, Morpeth, Northumberland

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for proposed 150 residential dwellings (use class C3) including 30% affordable housing, countryside park including car park, pursuant to approved outline planning application 16/00078/OUT (revised description 8th August 2022).

Land West of Lancaster Park, Pinewood Drive, Lancaster Park, Morpeth, Northumberland

Whilst this application was linked to the previous application which had been refused and therefore there was no permission for any access road into the site Members were advised that the application would still need to be determined.  An addendum report was circulated and time given for Members to read. 

D Love provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation.  Updates were provided as follows:-

·       An updated response on Air Quality had been received from Public Protection and as such there are no objections on these grounds with an additional requirement under point 12 to condition 33. 

·       In light of the refusal of the previous application, the recommendation had now changed to refuse the application as there was no legitimate means of access as the access relied on the previous application and the red line boundary did not extend to the St. Leonards junction.

·       Since the outline application was permitted, the exact boundaries of the Green Belt around Morpeth had been confirmed through the adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan. Following the adoption of the plan, application 18/03394/REM (for service area/innovation centre) was confirmed not to be located in the Green Belt. Most of the housing on application 19/01362/REM was also confirmed to be outwith the Green Belt. However, 25 dwellings were confirmed to be located in the Green Belt, as was much of the country park. When the outline application was approved, the housing element located in the Green Belt was considered in the context of Green Belt policy. While, in accordance with national policy, it was considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, however officers and members accepted that harm to the Green Belt and other harm, was clearly outweighed by other considerations, and that therefore the development should be supported as Very Special Circumstances existed. The amount and location of the housing in the Green Belt in 19/01362/REM, and the number of jobs supported by 18/03394/REM were broadly aligned with those presented in the outline application. Therefore, given that the applications were largely the realisation of the original outline approval, there was no need to revisit Green Belt considerations including VSC as part of the assessment of these reserved matters applications and therefore members were asked to disregard paragraphs 7.9 to 7.17 of the officer report.

Peter Burchall addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application. His comments included the following:-

·       Residents still objected to the application and it had already been discussed that the outline approval for the housing development had been given because the applicant claimed that without an element of housing the commercial development was not commercially viable. 

·       Noise was a major issue for the residential development.  Day and night time noise levels on the site exceeded the maximum levels recommended by the World Health Organisation.  Despite mitigation the maximum noise levels for outdoors would always be exceeded for most of the site and there would be many houses where the maximum levels would be exceeded indoors even with all windows closed.

·       Mechanical ventilation would have to be installed in some houses to mitigate noise levels and the NPPF stated that if this was required then the development was not a sustainable one.

·       The installation of noise barriers on the northern and western sides of the site would appear oppressive to residents and be an eyesore when viewed from outside the site. No permission had been given for these barriers as they were added after the outline consent had been granted.

·       Affordable housing on the site would be the most affected by the excessive noise levels.

·       There was only one entrance/exit to the housing development, through the service area and it was questioned where else would residents need to pass through a busy 24 hour commercial site to access their homes.

·       The proposed emergency access route had not been approved in detail.

·       The development was not sustainable and it did not meet the principles of the NPPF in that “planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which enable and support healthy lifestyles”.

·       The site was too small for the number of houses proposed. In order to accommodate the housing within the site the village green which had been highlighted as an important feature in the outline consent had been omitted and there was now no place for children to play outdoors.

·       He asked the Committee to refuse the application as it was totally without merit.

A Byard addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Morpeth Town Council in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The original outline application was consented against the newly made Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan.

·       The Officer's report which supported the outline application placed a very significant weight on the economic benefits of the proposal and stated  "Having considered the benefits of the proposals in terms of affordable housing provision, job creation, both in the short and longer term, including provision of an Innovation Centre for the research and development sector, it was considered that the economic benefits of the proposals justify a departure from local planning policies, including policies contained within the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan."

·       Since the housing element depended on the employment element promised, including Innovation Centre, hotel etc,  MTC believed the two applications should never have been separated.  MTC had further objected that the general employment offer was now greatly reduced and that the 7 office units were nothing like the promised Innovation Centre.  The housing element was dependent upon this and was not needed in Morpeth which has seen a surge in housebuilding over the last few years.

·       30% 'affordable rented' and Discount Market Value housing was welcomed but at current Morpeth prices probably remained unaffordable for many working families in Morpeth, whilst there was a desperate need for social housing.

·       MTC remained concerned about the impact of the development on Scotch Gill Woods, ancient woodland and a local wildlife site with specific protection under MNP Policy Env5.

·       Given all of the above, MTC wished to ensure that those elements of alleged benefit to the community were delivered as promised and therefore strongly object to any phasing plan which did not put the employment element first, including the promised Innovation Centre, followed by the Country Park, before the construction of any housing.

Councillor Bawn addressed the Committee speaking as one of the Local Ward Members on the application advising that he now fully supported the officer recommendation for refusal.

E Alder addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       He reminded members that the application was purely for the residential element and the principle of development had already been determined under the outline approval which was still a lawful consent.

·       Today was about the design, appearance and layout of the housing development.

·       The application provided 150 new homes as per the outline approval.  These would be good quality family homes with 30% affordable housing and in addition there would be a country park which would be of great benefit to the community.

·       The applicant had worked hard with officers with the application being submitted for some time in order to reach the point where it had been recommended for approval.  Great attention had gone into the design and it met all technical and planning policy requirements both national and local. 

·       It was a good design and had been looked at in detail with professional opinions provided and would be of a good quality where people would want and choose to live.

·       Materials had been carefully selected based on the character of the area with tree lined street scenes with a sense of openness and the scheme linked to both the ancient woodlands and proposed country park.

·       The design followed all place making principles and biodiversity, sustainability, ecology etc had all been considered and there were no objections from consultees. 

·       The scheme would provide the end users with all the needs they required with high speed fibre connectivity, energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions such as gas heat recirculation for water, water recovery systems, PV panels and electric vehicle charging points.  There were good transport links and overall the design was of high quality.

·       It had been hoped that the Committee would follow the original recommendation to approve the application, however this had now been changed to refuse for the red line boundary.  He thought there was some technical issue with that as for a reserved matters application you did not necessarily need a red line defined and highlighted that the country park was not on the screen.  Members were requested to either approve the application or request a deferral so that they could consider all the points given the previous application decision.

The Interim Executive Director advised that Members had a choice to approve/refuse or defer.  He requested that if Members were minded to approve the application then they should defer the application in order that technical issues could be addressed. If the Committee wished to refuse then Members could do so for whatever reasons they wished to and highlighted paragraph 7.28 on pages 136 and 137 in respect of the layout of the development.

Councillor Hill left the meeting at this point.

Clarification was provided that Members could refuse the application as there was no access to the site at the current time and that they could consider if there were any other material reasons for refusal.  Members were also advised that if this application was refused today then the applicant would have the right to appeal however they could not come back with another reserved matters application as the outline permission would lapse.

Councillor Reid proposed that the application be refused due to layout, scale and appearance, the design of the development which failed to preserve or make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, and the site's surroundings, and that it failed to create or contribute to a strong sense of place. The development did not demonstrate high quality sustainable design, was not visually attractive, did not incorporate high quality materials and detailing.  In addition there being no effective and safe access to the development was also proposed as a refusal reason.  It was proposed that the wording of the refusal reasons were delegated  to Officers in conjunction with the Chair regarding , The proposal  was seconded by Councillor Foster.

Whilst 30% affordable housing was very welcome, Members expressed concern that any application approved with that amount of affordable housing invariably came back for a variation to reduce the amount.  Advice was provided that no weight could be given to that as a Developer could come back at any time to vary a S106 and whilst this could not be ruled out, it could not be used as a reason to refuse an application.

A vote was taken to refuse the application as outlined above and it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED due to to layout, scale and appearance, the design of the development which failed to preserve or make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, and the site's surroundings, and that it failed to create or contribute to a strong sense of place. The development did not demonstrate high quality sustainable design, was not visually attractive, did not incorporate high quality materials and detailing.  In addition there being no effective and safe access to the development was also proposed as a refusal reason.  the precise wording delegated to the Director of Planning and Chair of Strategic Planning Committee.

A break was held at this point and the meeting reconvened at 6.30 pm.