Agenda item

Construction of 17 dwellings at a mix of 3 three bed properties, Ten 4 bed properties and 4 three bed affordable homes

Land North And East Of Ashlynd House, Church Lane, Wark, Northumberland

Construction of 17 dwellings at a mix of 3 three bed properties, Ten 4 bed properties and 4 three bed affordable homes

Land North and East of Ashlynd House, Church Lane, Wark, Northumberland

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

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  She advised that Wark Parish Council had written a letter of support which had been received after the report had been published and circulated to members the previous day.

At 14.47 the meeting was halted for a few minutes during the officer’s presentation to resolve technical difficulties with the YouTube broadcast.

A statement in objection to the application from Mr Keep was read out by K Blyth, DM Area Team Manager (West), and would be attached to the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

A statement made by Councillor Gibson is attached to the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council's website.

A statement in support of the application from the agent Mr Milburn was read out by K Blyth, DM Area Team Manager (West), and would be attached to the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

The Director of Planning drew Member’s attention to the following points for consideration:

·       The existing now out of date plan did not allow schemes in the open countryside but did not set out a settlement boundary.

·       A decision from the Planning Inspectorate regarding the soundness of the Northumberland Local Plan which was expected imminently.  It did set a settlement boundary and Wark was identified as a service village and a focus for future growth.

·       The site had not been included within the settlement boundary when housing sites had been identified, due to access issues, however these been addressed as part of the detailed scheme.

·       The applicant had engaged well with officers and had provided an extremely high-quality scheme.  However, the existing local plan did not support this scheme.  If this scheme was interpreted as providing a high-quality scheme which met local need and was desired, more weight could be attached to the benefits it delivered providing quality housing.  A strictly consistent approach following the strategic policy where additional housing numbers were not required in the county, would see it refused.

·       The decision was finely balanced and would fall where members placed the most weight.

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

·       This application differed to a recent decision regarding a planning application for a site in Longframlington, which was the second phase and adjacent to a site which had been allowed on appeal.

·       The previous appeal decisions within the village of Wark were in different parts of the village.

·       There had been significant local opposition to the application in Longframlington whereas this application had some local support, including from the Parish Council which gave added weight to an exception site.

·       A decision by the Planning Inspectorate had been required on the settlement boundary in Longframlington as it had been disputed by the applicant.  Wark was defined as a service village, did not have a set boundary and this was not disputed by the current applicant.

·       Decisions for each site were made on their own merits and under the planning framework relevant at that time.

·       There was no strategic reason to trigger the release of additional land for housing land supply as there was a deliverable 5-year supply.  However, this was a county wide supply and disguised areas where there was a demonstrable local need and the affordable housing requirements were exceeded.

·       Comparison could not be made with sites in different parts of the county or with decisions made several years ago because the housing need and housing delivery rate had changed.

·       The current scheme went beyond the policy requirement for provision of affordable housing.

·       More housing was needed in Wark as it was defined as a service village and was considered as a sustainable location in the context of the NPPF.

·       The detailed information submitted as part of this application had not been available when the boundary for the village had been set under the Northumberland Local Plan.

·       The decision as to whether the application be refused or approved was extremely finely balanced in this case and the suite of documents which comprised the development plan needed to be read in their entirety.  Under the Northumberland Local Plan, Wark was identified as a service village where growth was permitted, although the site was outside the settlement boundary.  The decision would need to take into account the housing needs at the time of the decision.  However other caveats allowed weight to be given to local support from the parish council when considering an exception site.  Significant weight could not be given to the new plan as it had not yet received approval, however it aspired to not want to allow rampant incursions into the countryside as opposed to Wark needing growth, the site had been considered when housing sites had been under consideration, but discounted due to the aforementioned access issues, now resolved.  The site could be put forward for inclusion in a future review of the plan.

·       It was proposed that the 30 mph zone was to be extended to the north of the site so that traffic was slowed before reaching the access to the development, if approved.

·       Work had been undertaken with the applicant to address flooding and drainage concerns as officers had recognised the decision was extremely finely balanced.  Even though technical issues had been addressed, it did not make the scheme any more acceptable.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons set out within the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Stewart.

Upon being put to the vote, the results were as follows:-

FOR: 3; AGAINST: 8; ABSTENTIONS: 0.

The motion fell.

Councillor Oliver proposed that the application be approved on the basis that there was considerable local support, the scheme was of a high-quality design, provided affordable housing above the minimum requirement and supported a service village in a rural area.  This was seconded by Councillor Horncastle.

In answer to a question from the Chair, the Director of Planning suggested that if the application be approved, delegated approval be given to him to agree conditions with the applicant.  This would include a Section 106 agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing, sport and play provision and to protect the ecological belt of trees to the north of the site.  He confirmed that if conditions were not agreed, the application would be brought back to the Tynedale Local Area Council.

Councillor Oliver agreed to include an amendment for delegated authority to be given to the Director of Planning, in consultation with the Chair, to agree the wording of conditions and section 106 agreement.

Upon being put to the vote, the results were as follows:-

FOR: 8; AGAINST: 0; ABSTENTIONS: 3.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission and that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning, in consultation with the Chair of Tynedale Local Area Council, to determine appropriate wording of conditions and subject to a Section 106 agreement.