Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and replacement with a single dwelling including proposed garage and bin store

Land South-West of Gubeon Farm, Morpeth, Northumberland

Demolition of existing building and replacement with a single dwelling including proposed garage and bin store

Land South-West of Gubeon Farm, Morpeth, Northumberland

Councillor Sanderson left and then returned to the meeting during consideration of this item and therefore took no part in the deliberation or decision.  Councillor Wearmouth joined the meeting during consideration of this item and therefore also took no part in the deliberation or decision. 

T Wood, Principal Planning Officer, provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation.  There were no updates.

Councillor M Sharp addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Mitford Parish Council (MPC).  His comments included the following:-

·       Following initial concerns that the proposed building would dominate the site, MPC now supported the application as they were satisfied that it would not be overbearing, was well designed and would use materials that would sit well in the setting.

·       MPC wished to challenge two arguments in the report which had been made to justify refusal, both of which conflicted with policies of MPC and the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan (MNP).

·       This was a former farm with stone outbuildings, one of several within Mitford Parish, some of which had been converted for housing, some derelict with very few continuing to function as farms.  MPC policy was to encourage the repurposing of derelict and underutilised farm steadings to both help grow the rural economy and to provide housing to support that economy.  This position was reflected in policies SUS1 and SET2 of the MNP and was consistent with the rural employment strategy in the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP). 

·       Everyone wanted to see a vibrant and diverse rural economy, but there was no need to build business parks and housing estates in the countryside to achieve this, rural Northumberland was littered with old farm buildings begging to be repurposed and this should not be discouraged.

·       It was within the Green Belt but it was on the site of a derelict barn and enclosed on two sides by converted farm buildings, it was screened by woodland and hedging on the other sides.  It would not impact the open countryside, would not compromise the intent of the Green Belt and would be a vast improvement to the existing.

·       The report stated that the proposal failed on sustainable travel grounds and like many rural parishes, Mitford had no public transport and no local shops.  If this rule was applied over zealously, much of rural Northumberland and our heritage would be doomed to further decay. The answer would be to encourage the provision of more bus services, not restrict the economic development in a Country which was largely rural.  Sites such as this should be treated as an exception to this rule.

·       This site provided employment through its equestrian operation, provided four housing units and this proposal would add an attractive family home to the mix. 

·       Members were urged to use common sense in considering this proposal as this would be a quality development which would replace a blot on the landscape.

Craig Ross, Agent addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       This application had the support of the Parish Council and residents.

·       This was a small community on the outskirts of Morpeth with access to services.  The existing seven dwellings had been refurbished buildings and there was an outstanding permission for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling which this proposed development would replace.  There would not be an increase in the number of dwellings but this proposal would made the best use of the site. 

·       The proposed development would be contained within a courtyard within the boundary of the site, there would be no encroachment into the open countryside and there was already vehicular access to the site. 

·       The proposed development would form part of the small community with the addition of a new family.

·       There was an extant permission for the conversion of an existing agricultural dwelling and therefore the travel impact would remain the same and there would be no greater harm. 

·       There was no interference with the Green Belt with the site limited to infill with the re-use of land which already had the benefit of an extant permission.   This had been explored in planning caselaw and court judgements.  This was a significant material consideration as the development would be instead of an existing approval, for a single dwelling and was no worse than the extant but was of a better design and made best use of the site.

·       MPC had recognised that the development was not the open countryside and it had been demonstrated that there would be no harm to the Green Belt and that there were very special circumstances to support the application.

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

·       No details were known of any additional dwellings built adjacent to the site and in any event would not be a material consideration to this application. The recommendation in the report was based on policies within the NLP and the MNP.

·       The application site was within open countryside outside of the settlement boundary and had been assessed against policies for development both in open countryside and within the Green Belt.  The proposal was contrary to both Open Countryside and Green Belt policies and the exemptions for development within the Green Belt were clear and therefore there must be very special circumstances demonstrated to allow development.  The applicant was of the opinion that there were very special circumstances, however Officers did not consider these to be sufficient to offset any harm to the Green Belt. 

·       The application site was a greenfield site not brownfield as agricultural buildings were not classed as brownfield in the NPPF and whilst the land had previously been developed it was still a greenfield site. 

·       Officers had no issue with the design of the dwelling, however the extant permission was to convert and extend the existing agricultural dwelling but this proposed its removal and replacement with a much larger property. If Members were to take the view that there were very special circumstances then reasons for this would need to be demonstrated.

Councillor Dodd proposed to accept the recommendation to refuse the application as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Jones.

Whilst Members were sympathetic to the views of MPC and recognised that the proposal was in keeping with a number of dwellings of this type around the County, the fact was that it was within the Green Belt and it was not felt that very special circumstances for development had been demonstrated and there would be no benefit to the community in this instance.

A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application as follows: FOR 6; AGAINST 0; ABSTENTION 1.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1)       The proposals represent an unacceptable and unjustified form of development within designated open countryside land. The principle of residential development is unacceptable, conflicting with the provisions of policies STP 1 and HOU 8 of the Northumberland Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2)       The proposals represent an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful and would conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt set out within National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would outweigh the level of harm therefore the development conflicts with the provisions of policies STP 7 and STP 8 of the Northumberland Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3)       The proposals fail to promote sustainable travel and connections, thus ensuring any future occupier would be reliant on a private car for access to everyday services and facilities. The proposals therefore conflict with the provisions of policies STP 3 and TRA 1 of the Northumberland Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.