Agenda item

Full planning application for the construction of 75 dwellings with associated access and landscaping

Land At Hadston Industrial Estate, Hadston, Morpeth, Northumberland

NE65 9YG

Full planning application for the construction of 75 dwellings with associated access and landscaping

Land At Hadston Industrial Estate, Hadston, Morpeth, Northumberland

NE65 9YG

Councillor Wearmouth advised that although he had previously been on the Board of Advance Northumberland and whilst he was aware of the application  he had no financial interest, he had an open mind on the application and would take part in the decision.

J Murphy, Planning Area Manager provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation.  Updates were provided as follows:-

·       The report stated that 17% affordable housing was to be provided however this had now been reduced to 10% in line with the NLP and therefore 8 units would be provided.  This had been confirmed as acceptable with the Affordable Housing Officer.

·       Condition 23 – remove “brought into use” and replace with “occupied”

·       Recommendation – remove “towards” from the end of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Provision: £99,000

A statement from Councillor Dickinson, Ward Member, was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer and included the following:-

·       His concern regarding the suitability of the site and requested that a site visit be undertaken. 

·       The site was a working industrial estate complete with recycling centre that often produced fumes.

·       The site had a number of garages that were extremely busy and a manufacturing site that was a UK wide supplier and which employed a lot of local people.  The factories and garages operated from early until late which was the nature of such a site.  The noise, fumes and traffic would be problematic not only during construction but for the people living on the housing estate thereafter.

·       There were also a collection of allotments situated to the rear of the site which were all taken, well used and had the smells, fumes and activity anyone would expect of an allotment site.

·       It was important that Members saw the location, the site operations and the surroundings prior to any decision being made.

N. Crowley addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The applicant was seeking approval for 75 dwellings of mixed type on a site which was within the settlement boundary and was well connected to local services.

·       The principle of development on the site was acceptable.

·       The mix of house types to be provided would help to meet local needs.

·       8 Affordable units would be provided in line with policy requirements with a mix of shared ownership and discounted market value units including bungalows, 2 and 3 bedroomed properties.

·       The development would include open spaces, play provision and planting would be undertaken.

·       The S106 agreement would secure contributions to off-site open space  including maintenance for 5 years; affordable housing; SEND provision; coastal mitigation and healthcare.

·       Whilst the site was close to industrial uses it had been carefully designed to mitigate against any disturbance.

·       An additional noise survey had been carried out as requested by Public Protection, and they had no objection to the application.

·       The machinery at the recycling plant whilst large was only used a couple of times per year.

·       The development would boost the housing supply and was appropriate to local needs and Members were asked to support the application.

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

·       Public Protection had advised of concerns regarding noise from the industrial site, however additional information had been provided on measures to mitigate this and they had advised that their concerns had been addressed. 

·       Highways concerns had also been overcome.

·       The land was white land, it was within the settlement boundary but not allocated and was open to development.  Applications would still need to accord with other policies in the NLP.

·       The land had a history as employment land in the Castle Morpeth Local Plan but it had been deemed to be surplus to requirements within the NLP and was recommended for de-allocation.  The land was still available for development, but this could be either for employment or housing purposes and any application would need to consider the technical issues. 

Councillor Towns proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application in line with the Officer’s report and as amended above, which was seconded by Councillor Dodd. 

Some concern was expressed by Members on the proximity of the industrial site and potential for complaints from residents in the future, however they recognised that it was for the applicant to provide the appropriate mitigation and for potential residents to be aware of the nearby industrial uses.

A vote was taken to approve the application as follows: FOR 7; AGAINST 0; ABSTAIN 1.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report and amended above and the finalisation of the S106 containing the following:

·       Off site open space contribution of £47,53.98 (including 5 years; maintenance)

·       10% on site affordable housing provision;

·       Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision of £99,000

·       Coastal Mitigation of £617 x 75 dwellings = £46,125.00

·       Healthcare financial contribution of £36,900

Councillor Murphy returned to the Chamber.