Agenda item

Construction of single storey front extension – re-submission of planning application ref: 21/03848/FUL

Beach Lea Bungalow, 67 Longstone Park, Beadnell, Chathill, Northumberland, NE67 5BP

Construction of single storey front extension – resubmission of planning application red: 21/03848/FUL

Beach Lea Bungalow, 67 Longstone Park, Beadnell, Chathill, Northumberland, NE67 5BP

B. Macfarlane – Planning Officer, introduced the application with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, there were no updates.

G. Martindale spoke on behalf of Beadnell Parish Council and gave the committee the following information:

·       The Parish Council were objecting for the same reasons as they did during the first submission of the application in February 2022.

·       The application was a chalet which was part of a group of 8 attached properties. There were 36 of the L shaped chalets on Longstone Park, built around 1968.

·       The chalets were subject to an agreement dated 25 June 1968 between the estate developers M J Liddell and Son Ltd and the Borough of Berwick Upon Tweed which prohibited the erection of any building or structure on the amenity areas.

·       The application was the second planning application to infill the amenity area of the L shaped design on one of the 36 chalets, which would alter the local context and character of the estate.

·       The precedent referred to by the applicant for the type of front extension was set when approval was given for Sunrise Cottage, 55 Longstone Park to build on their amenity area.

·       The AONB was not consulted on the Sunrise Cottage planning application, but they were consulted on the Beach Lea Bungalow, they did not support the application because the extension was considered too large in terms of the host and would impact on the design of the building group.

·       The Parish Council were concerned that the precedent set by Sunrise Cottage was being used.

·       Beadnell Parish Council requested that the committee refused the application.

P. Taylor spoke in support of the application and gave the committee the following information:

·       Longstone Park was a cul-de-sac with no through visitor traffic and had no distinguishable architectural features and had not been included within the boundary of Beadnell Conservation Area.

·       The proposed extension was modest in scale and size and of a design that would reflect the local surroundings.

·       A similar extension of the proposed design had been built with planning permission at 55 Longstone Park. The physical presence and design could be seen and was not visually obtrusive nor had an overbearing impact on neighbouring uses.

·       The design was of a high quality and was in full accordance with Policy 5 of the North Northumberland Coastal Neighbourhood Plan.

·       The proposal made great effort to preserve and mirror the character and local vernacular of the area.

·       The development was considered to be of an appropriate design which would not have a significant adverse impact on the character or visual amenity of the existing dwellinghouse or the surrounding area.

Following members questions to the planning officer, the following information was provided:

·       The extension was considered to be subservient to the bungalow.

·       The Parish Council were made aware of the existence of an Agreement between the builder and Local Authority which prohibited the erection of any building or structure on the amenity areas. Any such restrictive covenant was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Renner-Thompson proposed to refuse the application based on policy 5 of the North Northumberland Neighbourhood Plan. This was seconded by Councillor Hill.

Councillors Watson, Swinbank and Thorne disagreed with the motion and stated that it was a small extension, sympathetic to the host building and there was no planning reasons to refuse the application.

A vote was taken as follows: FOR; 3, AGAINST; 5, ABSTAIN; 0

The motion failed and Councillor Watson proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Councillor Thorne.

A vote was taken as follows: FOR; 5, AGAINST; 3, ABSTAIN; 0.

RESOLVED that the application was GRANTED in line with the conditions set out in the report.