Agenda item

Proposed erection of 9 no. 2 bed affordable bungalows 

Land north east of Hastings Hartley Arms, Lysdon Avenue, New Hartley, Northumberland.

Proposed erection of 9 no. 2 bed affordable bungalows 

Land north east of Hastings Hartley Arms, Lysdon Avenue, New Hartley, Northumberland 

Richard Laughton, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report with the aid of a power point presentation.   

John Barrell was in attendance and spoke in objection of the application.  The main key points were: 

• What he was going to say would not change the decision on the application.  However, he wanted to register his complete lack of trust in the planning system. 
• He was an immediate neighbour to the site and despite suffering 3 years of building work on 2 sides, he welcomed the proposed removal of the unkempt eyesore and replacement, with more useful and much needed affordable housing.  It was the way in which this was being achieved that was objectionable. 
• The proposal was promoted on behalf of Advance Northumberland, a wholly owned development company of NCC, whose focus was the regeneration of Northumberland. It should, therefore, be setting an exemplar of planning development to maximise development opportunities rather than seeking minimal change to the existing isolated plot. 

• The officer’s report regarding Panning Policy cited compliance with STP1, 2 and 3 as New Hartley was recognised as a service village within the NLP and served by public transport and comprises facilities including a public house, convenience store and primary school. 
• The bus service is X7 which was scheduled every half an hour (but increasingly with unplanned cancellations) between Newcastle and Blyth and the nearest shop was over 300m walk distance from the site. 
• The pub did not serve food and the school was oversubscribed. 
• Walking and cycling routes were limited in the immediate vicinity of the site and the provision of communal cycle storage with car parking directly in front of properties was a token gesture to sustainability. 
• Policy QOP 4 highlighted that new development would be expected to incorporate well-designed landscaping and respond appropriately to any existing landscape features.  Apart from internal site clearance, the proposal sought to maintain the substantial tree boundary to the north west isolating and screening the development from the rest of the village.  This created a secluded ghetto with a single point of access. 

• The application was validated by the Planning Department in April 2021.  During the intervening two years, all that had changed was a watering down of the proposed mitigation work, principally to the access proposals.  Those started out as a substantial simplification and separation of a complex of 5 roads all meeting within 15m of each other.  The final proposals now presented were to retain this complexity of movement and add a further road within that area, yet Highways Development Management only comments related to the internal layout, which would not be adopted.   Any concerns to be finalised and addressed in a S278 agreement was yet to be signed. 
• No consideration seemed to have been given to the wider context and setting.  Seaburn View was the prime pedestrian route for children walking to school from the existing housing and the new development of 286 houses in Church Fields.  The added complexity of these junctions was bound to have an adverse impact on both road safety and sustainability.  If, for no other reason that parents would perceive additional danger and choose to drive children to school.  The recently installed pedestrian and cycle zone around the school was already being abused by parents who would not walk their children to school.  The proposal in its current form would only make that worse. 
• Alternative access (which had been repeatedly discounted) was possible via Montford Road/Hastings Terrace to the north west as this already provided vehicular access to the garages which were currently well used, rather than being abandoned as referred to in the Open Space Assessment.  The current tenants had been served with notices and told to remove their property before demolition started in 10 days.  The closest alternative facilities they had been offered were in Ashington or Bedlington, which was not very convenient or sustainable for a resident of New Hartley. 
• The remainder of the site was used as recreational space by adjoining properties in Seaburn View and the Open Space Assessment discounted that as not having any recreational value to local people, despite children playing there regularly under the watchful eye of their parents/guardians from the surrounding windows.  Again, the alternative was stated as a minute’s walk to unsupervised Protected Open Space to the north east.  This was more like a 5 minute walk and no responsible adult would allow their young child there unsupervised.  The realistic alternative was playing on the front street, which this development made more complicated with the additional traffic movements. 
• Therefore, the Open Space Assessment did NOT provide a credible case for poor recreational quality and amenity space. 

• So much more could be achieved with the site. 
• He urged the Committee to consider carefully how it treated isolated development proposals as part of a structured approach to planning development, being proactive rather than reactive. 

Alex Franklin, Hedley Planning Consultants, agent for the applicant was in attendance and made the following comments: 

• He thanked members for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Ascent Homes in support of the application for a 100% affordable housing development that would be acquired, let and managed by Northumberland County Council. 
• He fully supported the recommendation for approval as detailed within the Committee report and thanked the officers for working with them as they had addressed all comments raised by consultees and local residents. 
• The development of 9, 2 bedroomed bungalows, specifically for those with level access needs within a sustainably accessible location would meet a specific housing need for the area, as identified within the Northumberland Strategic Housing Market Assessment. 
• As all dwellings would be 100% affordable, members should give this significant weight within the planning balance. 
• The proposed, under utilised site was not allocated as Open Space within the Neighbourhood Plan.  It was partially recognised as brownfield land with the secluded area of greenfield land enclosed to the rear of existing properties and not visible from the public highway.  The Open Space Assessment submitted in support of the application demonstrated a wide variety of more accessible areas of public open space within New Hartley of a much higher quality.  The site, therefore, did not contribute to the needs of the local population within the immediate area, as supported by the Parish Council. 

• The applicant had worked cooperatively with the Local Authority throughout the application process, addressing all consultee comments and any concerns from local residents. 
• With particular regard to accessibility and highways safety, the site access had been significantly altered in response to those comments.  An independent Road Safety Audit had been undertaken to demonstrate the development did not provide safe access onto and from the existing highway network.  The proposed access as detailed on plans was considered appropriate and safe by highway professionals. 
• With regards to comments raised on the planning portal: 

• Although the development site was situated within the Coal Authority Standing Advice Area, Public Protection had no objections to the proposal, subject to Condition 11, 12 and 13 which related to ground conditions. 
• There would be no impact upon residential amenity during the construction phase as an appropriate Construction Management Plan would be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development within Condition 9 and 17. 

• There was no objection from the County Ecologist.  Existing trees along the northern boundary were to be retained and ecological enhancements, such as bat and bird boxes would be secured within Condition 5.   As noted within the Committee report, whilst the loss of a single tree was regrettable, within the planning balance, the provision of affordable, level access bungalow to meet an unidentified need should be given significant weight within the assessment. 
• Both Northumbrian Water and the Lead Local Flood Authority had no objections to the drainage proposals. 
• To summarise, the proposal provided much needed affordable housing, in line with the aims of the NPPF and Northumberland Local Plan.  The 2 bed bungalows had capacity to be “life-time” homes within a sustainably accessible location.  All the technical information submitted had concluded that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the surrounding area and its residents. 
• As the proposal fully accorded with all relevant planning policy, he respectfully requested that members approved the application before them, as recommended by the Planning Officer. 

The following responses were provided to questions from Members of the Committee: 

• The people who owned the garages had not been compensated 
• The existing garages were unsafe. And unsightly. 
• Ascent Homes had issued Demolition Notices and no complaints or responses had been received.  It was not a planning issue, but for the landowner to agree with those who had garages on their land. 

• There had been no objections from Highway regarding access. 
• This was a 100% affordable housing scheme and would be affordable rent. 
• The properties would be advertised on Homefinder and prioritised for individuals in housing need. 
• The ownership issue for the demolition of the garages was not a material planning consideration.  There had been no objections received in terms of them being demolished and the applicant separately issued demolition notices where no complaint was received. 
• Mr Laughton had not been involved in a previous housing development in New Hartley (15/01182/FUL) and therefore could not comment on the affordable housing comments. 

• The application had been supported by drainage proposals to discharge into the existing mains.  Northumbrian Water and LLFA had been consulted with no objections, subject to conditions. 
• The Housing and Enabling Team had been unsuccessful on the Barratt site (15/01182/FUL) but then had been allowed at appeal by PINS.  Again, the current application could only be considered for 100% affordable housing which was a positive factor.  

Councillor Robinson moved the recommendation to approve the application which was seconded by Councillor Flux and unanimously agreed.? 

? 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission subject to the conditions/reasons in the report.