Area Planning Committee North

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL

AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE NORTH

At a meeting of Area Planning Committee North held at St James Church Centre, Pottergate, Alnwick, NE66 1JW on Thursday, 2 April 2015 at 6:00 pm.

PRESENT

Councillor R J D Watkin

(in the Chair)

MEMBERS

Castle, G
Hunter, E I
Jones, G W
Murray, A H / Sambrook, A
Tebbutt, A
Thorne, T N
Woodman, J

OFFICERS

Bracken, P
Cartmell, V
Filby, U
Kendall, M
Norris, K
Robbie, G
Seaton, J / Solicitor
Principal Planning Officer
Solicitor
Building Conservation Officer
Democratic Services Officer
Principal Planning Officer
Major Developments and Delivery Manager

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Press - 1

Public – 15

158.MINUTES

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings of Area Planning Committee North held on 19 February 2015 at 6:00 pm and 5 March 2015 at 6:00 pm, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

159.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cairns.

160.DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Councillor Watkin declared a personal interest in application 14/03344/FUL as he was a member of the River Tweed Commission.

Councillor Jones declared a personal interest in application 14/04149/FUL as he sat on the AONB.

Councillor Woodman declared a personal interest in application 14/03344/FUL as he was a member of the River Tweed Commission and a personal interest in application 14/04149/FUL as he sat on the AONB.

Councillor Hunter declared a personal interest in application 14/03344/FUL as she was a member of Tillside Parish Council but had taken no part in their discussions regarding the application.

Councillor Murray declared a personal interest in application 14/03344/FUL as he was a member of the River Tweed Commission.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

161.DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The report set out the material planning considerations that had to be taken into consideration with applications and the procedure for considering and deciding each application. The report also outlined the public speaking procedure and it was noted that the agenda would be reordered in line with public speaking.

RESOLVED that the information be noted.

162.14/03839/OUT – Outline residential development of up to 55 dwellings with all matters reserved, land South East of The Shoulder of Mutton, South Road, Longhorsley, Northumberland

It was noted that the above application had been withdrawn from the agenda at the request of members in order that a site visit could be carried out and that information be provided regarding the road safety review. The application would be brought to a future meeting.

163.14/04285/FUL – Erection of 25 no. dwellings with associated access, landscaping and parking, land North of Reivers Gate, Longhorsley, Northumberland.

164.14/03195/FUL – Construction of an oak timber framed function room and associated conversion, refurbishment and alterations to redundant farm buildings, Doxford County Store, Doxford Farm, Doxford, Chathill, Northumberland, NE67 5DY

Graeme Robbie, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the above application, and referred to plans, maps and photographs on screen. It was noted that listed building consent had been granted a few weeks earlierunder delegated powers, the reasons for which were set out in the report.

Lindsey Patterson, objector, spoke against the application and her comments included the following points:

The road to the site was a single track road with no passing places and increased traffic would have a devastating effect on the grass verges.
It would have a massive effect on the daily life of residents – the road ran through the hamlet and a late licence (2 am) would have a major impact on the quiet, rural location.
Residents already had to deal with the impact of holiday lets.
Last year two dogs were killed outright by motorists speeding on the road.
None of the people in favour of the application were residents directly affected by the additional traffic.
She asked that speed measures be put in place and that signs be erected stating a 30 mph speed limit.

Richard Shell, the applicant, then spoke in support of his application:

15 to 20 jobs would be created in an area of low employment.
Apprentices would be taken on from Duchess High School.
Local businesses would be supported for example florists and taxi firms.
This was a farm diversification scheme to create new revenue and support the holiday cottages.
It would protect the listed building.
It would promote tourism as people would come to a wedding, see the beauty of Northumberland and hopefully return.
His family supported speed calming measures, they owned one of the 5 new dwellings, the caravan site was run by his brothers and they had already taken initiatives to install speed calming signs.
There had never been an incident on the road. The previous year some dogs had been let loose on the road at 7:00 am and killed which was very sad.
He was sad that neighbours had come along to object as he wanted to work with them regarding speed awareness and to retain a good relationship with them.

Members’ Questions

In response to questions, the following information was provided:

Concerns regarding speed awareness had been acknowledged but due to the distance to the application site it would be difficult to tie conditions to approval.
Confirmation was given that it was an adopted road and not under the applicant’s control.
It was confirmed that if the applicant/agent came to an agreement regarding road safety it would need to be agreed by the Council’s Highways Department.
Officers could encourage the applicant to work with the Highways Department regarding highways options but not necessarily by informative.
The number of parking spaces to be provided was based on the applicant’s experience of running weddings.
250 would be a maximum figure for evening guests.
It was unlikely that a wedding would generate 100 cars and it was felt that 54 parking spaces, in context of this isolated site, was reasonably generous.
It came down to a balanced judgment in encouraging the diversification scheme.
The access road served Doxford Farm, it petered out and the applicant owned land around there and there was a further field which could be used for parking if necessary.
There was scope for informal passing places.
The surface of the additional paddock area for parking would be a textile membrane and members could request an additional condition to have the material approved should they so wish.

In response to further concerns regarding access and two way issues on a single track road, it was reiterated that it would be difficult to have a highways condition as the road was not under the applicant’s control. The Solicitor pointed out that if complaints were received regarding poor access, the applicant, as a business man, would surely seek to address those concerns. The Major Developments and Delivery Manager agreed but stated that officers would ask the Highways Section to have discussions with the applicant regarding possible options.

Councillor Jones moved approval and asked for an informative to be attached that officers in the Highways Section work with the applicant to resolve highways issues. The motion was seconded by Councillor Tebbutt who said it was imperative that officers in Highways respond.

Discussion ensued and members commented as follows:

A member wished the applicant’s business every success but felt that the interest of residents should be protected, access arrangements had not been given sufficient consideration and improvements should be made to the lane.
There would be occasions when large buses were used to transport guests and there were concerns regarding the impact on residents.
Passing was possible but if the business was a success there would be more traffic.
Comparisons were made to Doxford Hall Hotel.
The Highways Department was fully conversant and would see what changes could be made.
There was not a good enough reason to refuse the application but there were concerns regarding access.

The Major Developments and Delivery Manager confirmed that if the application was approved an informative would be added to encourage the developer to liaise with the Highways Department. She said she would speak to the Senior Highways and Development Engineer to ensure that there were proactive discussions going forward.

Upon being put to the vote the motion was unanimously agreed and it was:

RESOLVED thatpermission be granted subject to the conditions, with reasons, set out in the report and an informative to encourage the applicant to work with the Highways Section to address highways issues (exact wording to be delegated to officers).

164.14/03453/FUL – Extension to the Ultimate Skin Clinic to provide an orangery area, The Ultimate Skin Clinic, 19 Milkhope Centre, Seaton Burn, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland, NE13 6DA

The Chair stated that the above application would be discussed together with the next application for Listed Building Consent but a separate vote would be taken for each.

Viv Cartmell, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application and referred to plans and photographs on screen. Stannington Parish Council had raised no objection to the applications and had since confirmed that they supported the proposals. Six letters of support had been received on the grounds that the conditions in the clinic were cramped at present and an extension would provide a better service to customers and would bring economic benefit to the clinic and Milkhope Centre.

Officers acknowledged that the proposed extension could improve the customer experience and offer the opportunity for more treatment space at the Clinic, which had the potential for positive impacts on the local economy. That would be in line with the objectives of paragraph 28 of the NPPF. Notwithstanding that, it was not considered that the scale of that public benefit was sufficiently substantial in nature to outweigh the substantial harm to the significance of the listed building. For that reason, the development would not accord with Local Plan Policy E6 and refusal was recommended.

Karen Carins, Chair of Stannington Parish Council, spoke in support of the application and her comments included the following points:

The application was similar to the Milkhope Coffee shop application for an extension which was approved in May 2013.

The reason given for refusal was that the proposed design would cause substantial harm to the listed building that would not be outweighed by public benefit so the development would not accord with the NPPF nor Local Plan policy E6. However, the Parish Council believed that the extension did accord with saved Policy E6 and NPPF.
The positive contribution the extension would make would benefit the local rural economy which was in accordance with the NPPF and quotes were provided in support.
The Ultimate Skin Clinic was situated close to Horton Grange Hotel which was a popular wedding venue so therefore complemented the business for future brides and their entourage.
The Grange, the Milkhope Centre, the Parlour, the Cheese Farm and Northumberlandia were all within a very short distance.
The Grange, The Cheese Farm and Northumberlandia all came first at the recent WOW awards and Horton Grange was a finalist too.
Out of the whole of Northumberland with only 17 categories, Stannington Parish businesses and attractions won 4 which was incredible.
Horton Grange, The Milkhope Centre and Whitehouse Farm Centre would be included in Stannington’sNeighbourhood Plan as Business Centres.
The proposed extension was in keeping with the surrounding buildings which were all converted farm buildings.
The extension would be constructed to allow the visual appearance of the original building to remain intact, the extension was removable and would not spoil theintegrity of the building or the surrounding buildings.
To describe it as a domestic extension was subjective as all conservatories/ orangeries could be considered domestic or commercial.
The site of the clinic and the Milkhope Centre had seen significant changes over the last 35 years. The transformation had been phenomenal and had brought much needed employment and prosperity to the area.
An orangery would not detract from the overall conversions of the farm buildings.
There would be no adverse effects on the Green Belt, on neighbouring listed buildings, archaeology, or on the surrounding landscape.
The proposal had received letters of support and only one objection from the conservation officer.
The Ultimate Skin Clinic would not be applying for extra space if it did not have the demand.
Refusal of the application would mean that the business would be blighted and given no opportunity to expand which could result in relocation away from Stannington Parish which would be detrimental to the economy.
Stannington Parish Council respectfully asked that councillors consider the overwhelming positive reasons for the application which wouldfurther support the local rural economy and perhaps lead to further awards putting Northumberland squarely on the map for business excellence, diversity of assets and investment in the rural economy.
Stannington Parish Council had no objections to the second application for listed building planning consent. They asked the councillors to consider the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.
Reference was made to the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets could make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality, in particular the economic argument that tourism and culture was the fastest growing sector and Northumberland County Council was backing it, for example, by growing the wedding industry.
Businesses that complemented existing businesses must be encouraged to give visitorsa rewarding and memorable experience so they would return. The greater choice of experiences resulted in people staying longer in the area and encouraging the development of products and services would showcase Northumberland’s culture and heritage.
Again, StanningtonParish Council respectfully asked that councillors consider the overwhelming positive reasons for this application which would further support the local rural economy and perhaps lead to further awards putting Northumberland squarely on the map for business excellence, diversity of assets and investment in the rural economy.

Jenny Ludman, planning consultant, then spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application:

She apologised for any repetitions of the previous speaker as she fully concurred with all of the comments made.
The Milkhope Centre was a successful and thriving rural enterprise and was home to 35 rural businesses.
Many of the buildings there had been extended.
Both Horton Grange and the Milkhope Centre were very important to the rural economy and must be allowed to grow.
The application was not for a huge extension, the applicant just needed a bit more space for a lighter and more welcoming reception area which would free up space for more treatment rooms and enable her to employ more staff.
The Orangery had been constructed in such a way that it could be extended without causing harm to the listed building.
It was made of glass so the original building could be seen through it.
It was designed to be entirely removable.
Members would recall a similar application at the Milkhope Centre Coffee Shop which had resulted in a thriving business.
They respected the importance of the buildings but there needed to be a balance, it was no longer a farm.
She drew members’ attention to the level of support locally both from the Parish Council and local businesses.
In the reasons for refusal, reference had been made to the NPPF and BE8 of the Local Plan. This was out of date, it was not a conversion scheme it was an extension so that was not relevant.
In terms of the NPPF, it was her opinion that the scheme did accord with the NPPF which highlighted the importance of keeping buildings in use.
She stated that the application fully complied with the NPPF and referred to paragraph 28 which stated that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.
She asked that the application be approved.

Members’ Questions

In response to questions the following information was provided:

Clarification was provided regarding the size of the orangery and how far across the existing building it would stretch.
Concerns raised were about the impact of the extension on the building itself. Officers felt the extension would cause substantial harm but it was acknowledged that members may disagree.
Officers recognised there were economic benefits to the proposal but felt they did not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the listed building.
It was felt that the conservatory style structure appeared domestic and did not reflect the character of the listed building, it was out of character and if it was less domestic the Conservation Officer would not object.
In response to comments that plans did not show the new building to the left of the car park, it was stated that concerns were not about the size and position of the extension, it was with the detailed design. There was no objection in principle.
In considering the application, it could be taken into account that the construction was removable.

Councillor Castle moved that permission be granted with appropriate conditions (to be delegated to officers). He stated that the proposed design and placement of the extension would not cause substantial harm to the significance of the grade II listed barn building and would be outweighed by public benefit and thus the development would accord with the NPPF and would accord with Local Plan policy E6. Councillor Tebbutt seconded the motion.