area planning committee south east 16 september...

AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE SOUTH EAST 16 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application No: 13/02762/FUL

Proposal: Proposed development of 25 No. new residential bungalows on land previously designated for educational use, and as agricultural prior to that (As Amended).

Site Address Land North Of Windsor Drive, Windsor Drive, Blyth, Northumberland

Applicant: Mr Barry Elliott Beach House, Beachway, Blyth, Northumberland NE24 3PG

Agent: Mr Paul Draper 47 Coniscliffe Road, Darlington, Durham, DL3 7EH

Valid Date: 10 September 2013 Expiry Date:

10 December 2013

Case Officer Details:

Name: Mr Philip McCarthy

Job Title: Senior Planning Officer

Tel No: 01670 622642

Email: [email protected]

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)

Application Site

1. Introduction 1.1 More than 5 letters of objection have been received that is contrary to the

recommendation and therefore the application is to be determined by the South East Area Committee.

2. Description of the Proposals 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 25

bungalows on land adjacent to Windsor Drive in Blyth. The application site covers an area of land measuring 1.42 hectares. Vehicular access to the site is to be provided at two points from Windsor Drive, which is accessed from Balmoral Drive. The application site forms part of an open area within a residential housing estate. The site is considered to be green field in planning terms and has not been previously developed.

2.2 The application site is allocated for Community Facilities (Education

Purposes) by the Blyth Valley Local Plan 1999. The site has never been developed for its allocated purpose.

2.3 An application to develop bungalows on the western portion of the site was

considered by the South East Committee in October 2012. This application was for 6 bungalows. The Council resolved that it was minded to approve this application, subject to conditions and a s.106 agreement to secure a contribution towards the provision/upgrade of sport, recreation and children's play facilities off site. The s.106 remains outstanding and therefore planning permission is yet to be issued for this.

3. Planning History

Reference Number: 10/S/00471/OUT

Description: New build development consisting of 30no. 2 & 3 bedroom

dwellings

Status: Withdrawn

Reference Number: 11/01288/OUT

Description: Resubmission: New build development consisting of 30no. 2 & 3

bedroom dwellings

Status: Withdrawn


Description: Resubmission: New build development consisting of 6no. 2 & 3

bedroom dwellings

Status: Refused


Description: Resubmission: Outline permission for new build development

consisting of 6no. 2 & 3 bedroom bungalows. (Previous application

11/01607/OUT)(Additional information received 8/8/12)

Status: Minded to approve, subject to conditions and s.106

Reference Number: 13/01000/FUL

Description: Proposed development of 28 No. new residential bungalows on

land previously designated for educational use, and as agricultural land prior to

that.

Status: Withdrawn

Appeals

Reference Number: 11/00025/NONDET

Description: Resubmission: New build development consisting of 6no.

2 & 3 bedroom dwellings

Status: Dismissed

4. Consultee Responses

Sustainable Drainage Systems

No objections, subject to conditions

Northumbrian Water Ltd

No objection, subject to development taking place in accordance with the submitted information

Blyth Town Council No comments

Highways The number of trips generated can be accommodated on the highway network. Highway geometry and access acceptable. Parking allocation will generate indiscriminate parking as insufficient in curtilage has been provided. No footpath has been provided across the frontage of plot 1 and 12-17. Should be demonstrated that a refuse vehicle can manoeuvre in the turning heads. Note – since receipt of these comments, the application has been amended to incorporate a footpath along the front of the highlighted units and the driveways have been widened to increase the number of in curtilage parking bays. In addition, a plan has been submitted demonstrating that a refuse vehicle can manoeuvre within the proposed turning heads.

County Ecologist No objections, subject to conditions

NCC Housing No objections. Blyth is an area of high demand and bungalows are welcomed

Environment Agency No objections

5. Public Responses

Neighbour Notification

Number of Neighbours Notified 76

Number of Objections 8

Number of Support 0

Number of General Comments 0

Notices

Site Notice posted 20th September 2013

Press Notice - News Post Leader published 3rd October 2013

Summary of Responses:

8 letters of objection have been received. The main points raised within these letters are summarised below:

- The site should not be developed in a piecemeal fashion - The area is prone to flooding, building houses on an area that acts as a natural run-off, will serve to exacerbate the issue. - The scheme would increase the risk of flooding to properties surrounding the site - The local school (Bede Academy) is at full capacity - There is no need for new houses in this area - The proposal will impact on the wildlife in the area - Car headlights will shine into properties along Windsor Drive - Windsor Drive is not suitable for the increased traffic flow and could impact on road safety - The proposal would result in a loss of light and privacy to existing properties - The land should be left as an open area available for recreational use - The proposal would enclose the footpath, creating an alleyway running along Mulberry Close -The proposed layout does not respect the existing development in the area

6. Planning Policy 6.1 National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (NPPF) 6.2 Development Plan Policy

Blyth Valley Local Plan, May 1999

H21 Design and Layout Principles for New Housing Areas C10 Educational Facilities SB4 District Centre School etc.

Blyth Valley Core Strategy, July 2007

SS1 Regeneration and Spatial Strategy SS2 Sequential Approach and Phasing SS3 Sustainability Criteria H1 Housing Provision H2 Making the Best and Most Efficient Use of Land H3 Mix of Housing Development ENV1 Natural environment and resources ENV2 Historic and built environment

A2 Pedestrian and Cycle Routes C1 Educational Facilities

Blyth Valley Development Control policies DPD, 2007

DC1 General Development DC2 Planning Obligations DC5 Housing Windfall Sites DC11 Sustainable Travel DC13 Open Space Contributions DC16 Biodiversity DC19 Drainage and Flood Risk DC27 Design of New Developments DC30 Integrated Renewable Energy

6.3 Other Documents/Strategies

N/A 7. Appraisal 7.1 In determining this application, the main planning issues are considered to be

the principle of residential development on this site, the design of the proposal, residential amenity, highway issues, flood risk and ecology.

Principle of Residential Development

7.2 At a national level, the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable

development, which should be seen as a 'golden thread' running through plan making and decision taking. In terms of decision making, the presumption in favour of sustainable development means;

-approving development proposal that accord with the development plan without delay; unless -any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or -specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.3 The application site falls within the settlement limits as defined within the Blyth

Valley Local Plan. The site is currently in agricultural use and is considered to be previously undeveloped or 'Greenfield'.

7.4 The application site is covered by 'saved' policy C10 of the Blyth Valley Local

Plan 1999. Policy C10 seeks to ensure that land is available in suitable locations for school facility needs. The site at South Beach is listed within policy C10 and more detailed information is set out in policy SB4. Although policy C10 is a saved policy, following reorganisation, the site is no longer required for this purpose and this has been confirmed by the Council. This allocation dates from 1999 and therefore is some 15 years old and the site has not been developed for its designated purpose over this period. The principle of developing housing on this allocated site has been accepted through the decision to grant planning permission (subject to condition and

s.106) of a part of the site (Planning Ref: 12/00923/OUT). Although the area of land is no longer required for its allocated purpose, the fact that the site is allocated for development is considered to be a material consideration. In determining a previous appeal on part of this site, the Inspector attached "some significance" to the fact that the land was earmarked for development, albeit not residential development as this scheme proposes.

7.5 In light of the above, it is considered that limited weight can be attached to the

designation set in policies C10 and SB4 and it should not be viewed as a barrier to permitting residential development on this site.

7.6 Policy DC5 of the Blyth Valley Development Control Policies Document deals

with the issue of housing on windfall sites (the application site is considered to be a windfall site). Policy DC5 states that new housing development on greenfield windfall sites will not be permitted. The application proposes housing development on a greenfield site and therefore is contrary to policy DC5. Although contrary to DC5, it is considered that limited weight can be attached to this policy given the level of compliance with the NPPF. Whilst the NPPF states that decisions should, "encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed" this does not seek to prevent the development on unallocated greenfield sites, which is what policy DC5 sought to do.

7.7 Policy SS2 of the Core Strategy sets out a sequential approach and phasing

to development. The policy sets out a sequential approach that gives priority to previously developed land and buildings as the most sustainable sites. For the same reasons considered above in respect of DC5, it is considered that the rigid sequential approach to site selection set out in SS2 is not compliant with the NPPF.

7.8 In terms of housing policy, the NPPF states that, "Relevant policies for the

supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites".

7.9 The Council's most recent published assessment of its five year housing land

supply position is set out within the document "Northumberland Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites 2013-2018" which was published in October 2013. This identifies that there is currently not a five year deliverable housing supply in the former Blyth Valley area or the Urban Northumberland Strategic Housing Market Areas. As a result of this, the housing policies set out in the Blyth Valley planning documents are considered to be out-of date.

7.10 The proposal presents an opportunity to aid the delivery of housing on a site

that is in a suitable location and would represent a natural infill development within an established and sustainable settlement. After considering the benefits that would flow from the development, the appropriate planning policies and in particular 'the presumption in favour of sustainable development' as set out in the NPPF it is considered that, on balance, residential development is appropriate on this site in land use terms.

Affordable Housing

7.11 The NPPF (Para. 50) states that affordable housing should be provided on

sites where there is an identified need. On a local level, Policy SS1 identifies the provision of a range and mix of housing including affordable housing as a District Wide priority. Policy SS3 further advises that before granting planning permission, the Council will need to be satisfied that the development would help to build communities through the provision of affordable housing to meet identified local need.

7.12 It is clear from the existing evidence base that there is a need for affordable

housing in urban Northumberland. This includes evidence from the Northumberland County Wide Housing Needs Survey, Northumberland Housing Needs Survey Sub-Area Housing Report 2012 and the Northumberland Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2010. In addition, there is recent evidence in the Council's housing allocations service 'Homefinder' that confirms that there is an existing need for affordable housing in the former Blyth Valley Area.

7.13 On the basis of national planning policy, policies in the adopted Blyth Valley

Core Strategy (SS1, SS3 and H3), and the available evidence base, the Council considers it both appropriate and necessary to seek up to 30% affordable housing.

7.14 The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Statement with the

application, within which they have accepted that 30% of the units would need to be made available as affordable housing and they have proposed that 7 affordable houses would be provided on this development. The applicant has not set out a tenure mix; however, they have confirmed that the mix would be the subject of further negotiation. Agreeing the tenure mix along with the timing of delivery would need to be considered in consultation with the Council's Housing team.

7.15 The development is to be exclusively bungalows and therefore the affordable

units would be bungalows. Bungalows are in short supply and much needed and therefore the provision of such is welcomed.

7.16 The level of affordable housing proposes is considered to be appropriate and

consistent with policy requirements. The provision of affordable housing would need to be secured through a s.106 agreement.

Design of the proposal

7.17 Planning policies at a national and local level place a great emphasis on

achieving a high standard of design. At a national level the NPPF states (paragraph 58) that planning decisions should aim to ensure developments (amongst other things) function well and add to the overall quality of the area; establish a strong sense of place; respond to local character and history; create safe and accessible environments that are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. The NPPF goes on to state (paragraph 64) that, "Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions."

7.18 At a local level, design considerations are set out in policies DC1 and DC27 of the Blyth Valley DPD, ENV2 of the Blyth Valley Core Strategy and policy H21 of the Blyth Valley Local Plan. These policies are considered to be consistent with the aims of the NPPF and therefore significant weight can be attached to them.

7.19 The scheme includes 5 different property types, they are to be set around a

typical cul-de-sac layout, with properties fronting on to the access road; parking and garden areas are to be provided between the properties and the access road The proposed properties are similar in style to those within the area ensuring that the scheme would integrate within the existing built environment.

7.20 The proposed site density is relatively low at approximately 22 units per

hectare. This is lower than the density of development within the surrounding area. Although it would be developed at a lower density, the general arrangement is similar to that within the wider area and this lower density is largely attributable to the fact that the scheme would consist entirely of bungalows, which typically leads to a lower density of development owing to their larger land take.

7.21 The properties along the western edge of the site are to back on to Balmoral

with the exception of Plot 1; this type of development is typical within the area. Incorporating appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment along this boundary would help to ensure that the development is well integrated into the wider area. The northern boundary of the site runs parallel with a public footpath. Significant parts of the northern boundary are to be left open, whilst other parts would be enclosed. Although the level of enclosure along one side of the footpath would be increased over the current situation, sufficient parts of the boundary would remain undeveloped thereby ensuring the footpath would not become oppressive and unattractive to users.

7.22 The properties to the east are to back on to the cycle path that runs along the

boundary of the site. This would lead to the erection of a wall/fence along one side of this footpath and therefore this footpath would become enclosed on one side, although the other side of the path would open on to a field.

7.23 Properties to the south are to front on the road, this is a typical arrangement in

the area and entirely appropriate in design terms. 7.24 It is important that the landscaping and enclosures provided within this site

are appropriately designed and located; these matters can be adequately controlled through appropriately worded planning conditions.

Residential Amenity

7.25 The application site is located within a residential area and therefore there are

a number of properties surrounding the site that may be affected by the development, consideration of any such impacts will follow.

7.26 The properties to the south (Windsor Drive) of the application site are

bungalows, these properties would front on to the properties on the proposed site. Whilst these properties would face each other, given the level of

separation (approximately 21 metres) and the single storey nature of the development, it is considered that any associated loss of amenity experienced by the occupiers of these properties would be minimal. It is accepted that the occupiers of some properties along Windsor Drive would be affected by the shining of headlights from vehicles exiting from parts of the site. Whilst this potential exists, due to the limited number of properties proposed, the number of vehicular movements would not be significant as would any associated amenity impacts.

7.27 The properties to the north of the application site are separated from the

proposed properties by a distance of 28 metres at the closest point. An established landscape buffer exists between these properties and the application site. For the above reasons, the proposal would not adversely affect the level of amenity experienced within the properties to the north.

7.28 The properties to the west of the site are separated from it by a road and a

significant level of separation thereby ensuring that the occupiers of these properties would not suffer any loss of amenity as a result of the development.

Highway Issues

7.29 The application shows that vehicular access to the site is to be taken at two

points off Windsor Drive. The location of the proposed access points are considered to be appropriate in highway terms, as is the internal layout of the site. Due to the scale of the development any impacts on the wider highway network are likely to be limited and could be accommodated on the existing network. The proposed layout incorporates both in-curtilage and visitor parking bays at a level that is considered to be appropriate.

Flood Risk

7.30 The application was accompanied by a Flood Risk and Drainage Statement

(FRA). The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (area of lowest risk) and the application site covers an area measuring over 1 hectare. Given that the site is in Zone 1, in accordance with guidance, the FRA focused on the risks associated with surface water. This is especially pertinent in this case, given the previous instances of flooding from surface water in the area and the concerns that have been expressed during the consultation process.

7.31 The NPPF (paragraph 103) states that when determining planning

applications, "local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment."

7.32 The submitted FRA confirms that the surface water from the site will be

positively drained to the existing Northumbrian Water sewer at the assumed greenfield run-off rate. Attenuation (via an underground storage tank or basin) would be provided to capture any water over and above the level permitted to flow into Northumbrian Water’s network. The tank or basin would be provided within an area of land to the south of the development site (the land is outside of the application boundary but it is located within the blue-line thereby indicating that the land is in the applicant’s ownership). The tank would be

sized to attenuate flows up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event.

7.33 The surface water from the site would not discharge into the ditch to the north

of the site, as a result of this and the design of the drainage scheme; it is considered that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding off site.

7.34 The submitted FRA and Drainage statement considered all forms of flood risk

to and from the proposed development. 7.35 The Council’s Flood Risk/Drainage team have been consulted on the design

of the drainage scheme and they have commented on the proposal at various stages. Following receipt of additional information they are no longer objecting to the application, subject to conditions. Conditions have been recommended that would secure the submission of a surface water drainage scheme, finished floor levels at least 150mm above ground level and no rainfall directly or indirectly discharged into the ditch to the north or onto any existing footway or cycleway. The recommended conditions are considered to be appropriate and necessary and could be secured as part of the planning permission.

7.36 The detailed design of the drainage scheme as well as a regime for future

maintenance of the drainage infrastructure would need to be secured as part of the planning permission.

Ecology

7.37 The application site contains (or is located close to) several features that may

be of ecological value including a small water course and a number of small trees. The bulk of the site is arable, although there is a small area of unploughed damp semi-improved grassland. The site is considered to be of limited ecological value.

7.38 The Council’s ecologist has considered the proposal and has raised no

objections, although conditions have been recommended. The recommended conditions would require the submission of a landscaping scheme to ensure that the scheme includes locally native trees and shrubs. It is further recommended that a condition be attached that would prevent vegetation clearance taking place between 1 March and 31 August (unless an ecologist has first confirmed that no bird’s nests are being built or are in use, eggs or dependant young will be damaged or destroyed). The landscaping condition is considered to be appropriate and the delivery of an appropriate landscaping scheme can be secured by condition however, nesting birds are protected by law and therefore a condition is not considered necessary as it would be repeating provisions that exist elsewhere. An informative could be attached to make the applicant aware of this matter.

Open/Play Space

7.39 Policies DC1 and DC13 of the Blyth Valley Development Control Policies DPD

state that new residential developments should make appropriate contributions towards the increased demand on sport and recreation facilities and children’s play facilities generated by them. Appendix B of Blyth Valley Development Control Policies DPD states that new on-site provision will only

be required in developments of more than 50 dwellings. In this instance, as it is a relatively small site proposing only 25 dwellings, an off-site contribution to improving facilities elsewhere is the appropriate option. This would need to be secured by way of a section 106 agreement.

8. Conclusion 8.1 Blyth is a main town where (along with Cramlington) the majority of new

housing in the former Blyth Valley area is to be directed and the principle of residential development on part of this site has been accepted previously. The principle of development in this broad location and at the proposed scale is accepted.

8.2 The application site is considered to be in a sustainable location and after

considering the detailed impacts of the development, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on areas of acknowledged importance. Although the development would constitute greenfield development, consideration of this needs to be balanced against the allocation of the land, the planning history, the relevant local and national policies and the absence of a deliverable Five Year Housing Land supply (as well as under provision in recent years) within the former Blyth Valley Borough. Against this background and with the emphasis of recent Government advice on delivering sustainable development and the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF the greenfield status of the land is not considered to preclude development on this site.

8.3 The proposed development would increase housing supply and extend

housing choice in Blyth; it would also include the provision of affordable housing.

8.4 Having considered the application against the relevant planning policies and

after considering other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the satisfactory conclusion of a s.106 agreement securing affordable housing and a contribution towards the provision/upgrade of sport and recreation facilities, children's play facilities.

9. Recommendation 9.1 That this application be Minded to approve subject to the following conditions

and s.106 covering the matters set out above.

Conditions/Reason 01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

02. Unless otherwise controlled by planning condition or obligation, the

development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in

complete accordance with the approved plans. The approved plans for this development are:-

1. Proposed Site Plan - 213057 02 P8 2. Armadale - 213057 03 P1 3. Armadale Special - Double Garage - 213057 04 P1 4. Birkhill 213057 05 P1 5. Caprington 213057 06 P1 6. Dirleton 213057 07 P1

Reason: To ensure that the approved development is carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans.

03. No development shall commence until a schedule of the types and colours of

all materials to be used on the external elevations of the proposed development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be constructed other than with these approved materials.

Reason: In the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the development upon completion and in accordance with the provisions of Blyth Valley Development Control Policy DC27.

04. No development shall commence until details of all proposed means of

enclosure, and boundary walls and fences to the site along with a timetable for installation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be implemented in complete accordance with the approved details and timetable unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the satisfactory appearance of the development upon completion, and in accordance with the provisions of Blyth Valley Development Control Policy DC27.

05. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement for

the duration of the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall provide for;

- the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; - storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; - the erection and maintenance of security hoarding; - the erection and screening of any compound and welfare facilities; - wheel washing facilities; - the sheeting of all vehicles carrying loose material; - measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction.

The approved Statement shall be implemented and complied with during and for the life of the works associated with the development, unless otherwise is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory form of development having regard to highway safety and general amenity.

06. The roads and footpaths serving the development shall be constructed to an

adoptable standard in accordance with current Northumberland County Council specifications.

Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory form of development.

07. No development shall take place until a scheme to protect the buildings from

gas emissions associated with the former mine workings, in particular Stythe (or Black Damp), and a programme for its implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In order to safeguard the development and/or the occupants thereof from possible future gas emissions.

08. During any site works, there shall be no noisy activity, audible at or beyond

the site boundary, on Sundays or Public Holidays or outside the hours: Monday - Friday - 0800 - 1800, Saturday 0800 - 1300.

Reason: In order to protect residential amenity and ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise.

09. No development shall commence until details of the provision of refuse and

recycling storage for each dwelling and a programme for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and approved implementation schedule unless otherwise is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse/recycling area shall have a direct and level access from the street to the dwelling and be capable of accommodating the appropriate refuse/recycling bins.

Reason: In the interests of the provision of adequate refuse storage/collection facilities and of general and visual amenities.

10. No development shall commence until a detailed landscaping scheme,

showing both hard and soft landscaping proposals (the detailed landscape planting plan must include the planting of locally native trees and shrubs), has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This shall include, where required, the planting of trees and shrubs including a planting schedule setting out species, numbers, densities and locations, the provision of screen walls or fences, the mounding of earth, the creation of areas of hardstanding, pathways, etc, areas to be seeded with grass, and other works or proposals for improving the appearance of the development. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings not later than the expiry of the next planting season following commencement of the development, or within such other time as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaped areas shall be subsequently maintained to ensure establishment of the approved scheme, including watering, weeding and the replacement of any plants, or areas of seeding or

turfing comprised in the approved landscaping plans, which fail within a period up to 5 years from the completion of the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, the satisfactory appearance of the development and to maintain and protect the landscape value of the area and to enhance the biodiversity value of the site.

11. No development shall commence until a detailed landscape management

plan (for areas other than domestic gardens) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the approved plan shall thereafter be implemented in complete accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the satisfactory appearance of the development upon completion.

12. No development shall commence until a scheme of surface water drainage

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall be based on the principles stated within page 16 (Appendix D) of Cundall's Drainage Strategy referenced 1008902 Rev P1 and dated 14 April 2014. Details to be provided shall include information on the proposed attenuation measures, precise locations, sizing and calculations. The scheme shall ensure that discharge of surface water shall connect to manhole MH6501 with a maximum discharge rate of 5l / sec. The submitted details shall also:

i. Provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the

method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

ii. Include a timetable for its implementation; and

iii. Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority, statutory undertaker or any third party and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The scheme shall thereafter be operated and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent the risk of flooding to the proposed development and to not increase the risk of flooding to existing properties elsewhere.

13. No rainfall falling within the development shall directly or indirectly discharge

into the ditch north of the development site or onto any existing footway or cycleway. Drawings showing the heights of the land and the details of the drainage system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the risk of flooding to the adjacent areas is not increased as a result of the development.

14. Finished Floor Levels within the development shall be at least 150mm above

ground level.

Reason: To prevent the ingress of surface water into any new dwellings. 15. Prior to the commencement of any development, details of a scheme to

provide footpath connections between the site and the footpath to the north of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submission shall detail the location and design details along with a timetable for delivery. The development must be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and timetable.

Reason: In order to ensure the site is fully integrated into the existing footpath network in the interests of sustainability.

16. No development shall take place until:

A scheme (including a programme for implementation) for the inclusion of energy from renewable energy sources has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme will demonstrate that 10% of the total predicted energy requirements for the development will be provided from renewable energy sources: or

A scheme (including a programme for implementation) demonstrating at least 10% overall improvements over the 2010 Building Regulation minimum CO2 emissions standard, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, through efficient design measures; or a combination of both;

The scheme shall be implemented as approved. All of the above will apply unless otherwise is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To achieve environmental benefits.

Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 13/02762/FUL

List and Comments of representations received:-

Name Address Summary of Comments

Christine Wisher 5 Mulberry Close

Blyth

Northumberland

NE24 3XR

I am writing to object, on a number of grounds,

to the proposal to erect 25 houses

(bungalows) on land off Windsor Drive, Blyth,

Northumberland. There seem to be several

inaccuracies and omissions in the information

you list relevant to this application on your

website.

Firstly, since every other phase of

development around the green space central

to this area has been separated from each

other by a green lane, usually some 30m wide,

why has this not been followed in this case?

In the present climate of heightened

awareness of environmental issues, it would

be inconsistent with the area plan if this

development goes ahead placed far too close

to the very well used multi-use pathway to the

north of the site.

Also relevant to this is the Revised Site Plan

(amended) dated 30.10.13 which contains a

gross error since it shows that on the other

side of Windsor Drive, there appears to be

continuous existing housing when this is not

so. There is in fact one of the green lanes,

referred to earlier, of at least 30m in width. A

look at the document by PD Design Consulting

on the list of documents shows both a plan

and an aerial photograph contradicting this

and showing the extent of the green space. At

the very least this swathe of green should be

continued across the road and on to the site in

question. The Revised Site Plan should be

withdrawn and corrected before it is re-

submitted. Is this an attempt to hide this

anomaly? As stated earlier, residents and

their children in the area make great use of

these green gaps and the excellent network of

safe paths away from road traffic, and this

proposal would considerably diminish this

community resource and reduce the amenity

in the area. Why spoil the exemplary

development of South Beach and its green

spaces now for one last, overbearing

development?

The area of the site is well-known for being an

area of low-lying boggy ground that floods at

the slightest sign of heavy rain. The report by

PD Design Consulting is itself inaccurate as

the flood risk has conveniently been

"airbrushed out" in the northeast corner of the

site. A look at the Met Office website still lists

this area as at risk. This is just where a

particularly large double fronted bungalow and

its driveway and road access are located on

the proposed plan, removing the possibility of

natural drainage.

The report by PD design consulting is also

inaccurate as it lists the nearest stream as

"250m away" (the stream referred to runs from

Newsham pond to the sea), when there is in

fact, another stream parallel to Mulberry Close

right next to the path bordering the proposed

site. The report then goes on to contradict

itself, indicating that it is this unreported

stream that is going to be used for drainage

from the site. This unlisted stream is also

culverted a little further to the east of the

proposed site which places a severe limit on

its

capacity to drain floodwater. This has been a

problem in the past where it got blocked and

resulted in flooding of the area. This has been

improved since, but will always be at risk and

have limitations as to its capacity. The open

stream referred to in the plan is far more

capable of carrying floodwater. I submit that

since drainage is such a critical issue here that

these plans should be rejected on the basis of

inaccuracies alone.

The site itself drains very poorly naturally, and

wild irises (yellow flag) grow along the stream

and in the field when the farmer does not

plough them in, this alone should contribute to

this site being subject to preservation for this

natural flora. These irises are characterised as

requiring a boggy habitat for their growth.

There are other signs of wildlife that others

have referred to, such as bats and

sparrowhawks, that contribute to the natural

environment that would end up under concrete

and tarmac.

The next part of this objection refers to the

plans for dealing with the run-off water as a

result of rainfall. The figures given in the plan,

and the basin dimensions will result in the area

flooding under periods of high rainfall. This

assessment is a technical one using data on

the plan and from the Met Office, and is

presented to counter the wildly optimistic

version placed before you currently. To

appreciate this requires a few simple

calculations.

First of all, the data, from the plan the site area

is 1.42 Ha, (or 14,200m2), the proposed

"detention basin" is given as between 396m3

and 543m3 capacity (why such a wide

variation between limits?) and the maximum

permitted flow off site to be 5Ls-1 (itself an

admission that the existing drainage cannot

cope with more).

Next, data from the Met Office from their

website shows the average rainfall in the area

to be 600mmyr-1 in round figures. This is in

fact, evenly spread over all 12 months as

50mm per month using the histogram

available. The number of rainy days per month

is remarkably consistent at an average of 10

days per month. All this is verifiable from the

website of this government department.

Calculations then follow, from the Met office

data we can see that if 50mm of rain falls in 10

days, then the average rainy day would yield

5mm of rain. The standard deviation on this

figure implies that if the average is 5mm, then

there will be several days when 10 or 15mm of

rain will fall. In fact as severe weather is

forecast ever more frequently with climate

change, peaks of 10mm per hour have been

recorded in Northern England and will occur.

All this when the average of 5mm rain per day

will cause the proposed site to be inundated,

as I will show next.

The proposed plan of the site gives the area

as 14,200m2. An estimate of 50% of this is

unavailable to natural drainage due to the

footprint of the buildings, driveways and roads,

let alone efforts by future residents to make

patios, paths and other hard landscaping as is

the current vogue, especially with bungalows

being preferred by older residents seeking

gardens that are easy to maintain. This leaves

the drainage system to cope with runoff

effectively from some 7100m2. The remaining

area of garden will have the same problem as

the field as it is now, of very slow drainage,

and so more of this falling on saturated ground

will only add to the runoff total.

The effect of 10mm of rain on an area of

7100m2 will be to generate at least 710m3 of

runoff which is larger than the maximum

proposed basin capacity, and would take

some 40 hours to discharge at the allowed

rate, at which time the existing stream will be

in spate due to its natural function. What if it

rains the next day…and the next? (as it

frequently does). The result will be flooding of

the area.

The solution? Reduce the size of the

development, restore the green space

between developments, put less area under

concrete and tarmac and create less of an

environmental problem.

Mr David

Hindmarch

11 Mulberry

Close

Blyth

Northumberland

NE24 3XR

It is not clear within the application what

provision has been made for containment of

surface flood water. Obviously, this is a natural

flood area which generally over-spills into the

adjacent properties and land during heavy rain

and snow melts. I would assume that any one

building here must therefore provide

considerable under ground attenuation

capacity in order to contain the run off that will

be created as a result of the proposed

additional hard landscape. Where has this

been considered?

Mr & Mrs

Christopher

7 Mulberry Close

Blyth

Northumberland

NE24 3XR

We object to the proposed development based

on the following:

The proposed development area is prone to

flooding. The homes on Mulberry Close

flooded therefore works were carried out to

minimise this and the run-off is onto the

development land. Any development of this

land would cause this water to flood back to

Mulberry Close. Cycle/pathways around this

area still flood making the area difficult for

walking/ access to school.

The schools and roads in the area are already

at full capacity any further development will

exacerbate this. There is no requirement for

housing in this area of Blyth with two further

estates under construction (South Shore,

Newcastle Road) there is a need for services

rather than further housing development.

Although we are against the development we

would request that should permission be

granted the estate layout be changed. The

layout should be in keeping with the open

aspect of current property and should face

onto Mulberry Close. The proposed estate

perimeter creates a corridor, giving way to

blind-spots which would then be prone to anti

social behaviour including graffiti and crime.

Overall our home currently enjoys open views

and the proposal would result in a loss of open

space and light to our home. The land is

currently farmed and gives a much needed

natural open area close to the stream where

we have bats and other wildlife. Any

development would be of detriment to the

natural environment that the Council are trying

to create on the estate (i.e. leaving grassed

areas uncut to encourage wildlife).

Mr M And Mrs D

Rose

4 Mulberry Close

Blyth

Northumberland

NE24 3XR

We wish to register our objection to the

proposed development of 25 new residential

bungalows on the land North of Windsor Drive

as applied for by Mr Barry Elliott.

Our objections are based on the following

rationale.

o FLOODING: The area of the proposed

build is prone to flooding. This flooding has

caused damage to properties on Mulberry

Close and is responsible for gardens on

Windsor Drive having dropped by 12inches

since their build. Moderate rain fall in the area

causes pathways to become impassable,

pathways that are a main thoroughfare for

children and parents making their way to

school thus easing traffic problems. The issue

of parking and congestion around local

schools has been identified as a priority by the

council. The building of the properties, on land

that acts as a natural run off, will merely serve

to exacerbate the issues. We appreciate that

some work has been undertaken to address

this issue however there is no proof that the

problems have been alleviated. In fact as

residents we can attest to the fact the

problems still exist.

o SCHOOLS: With no further schools

planned for the South Beach area and with the

existing schools running at capacity, it is

difficult to see where children moving into the

area as a result of housing planned on land

adjacent to Newcastle Rd and developments

near to South Shore will be accommodated.

o AVAIALBLE HOUSING: With 280

affordable houses planned for a site on

Newcastle Road and the large developments

being constructed by Charles Church and

Miller Homes near South Shore, we struggle to

see what need there is for a further 25

properties to be built in the Blyth area. We

would argue that the land left undeveloped is

of far greater value to the residents of Blyth.

This land, as it currently stands,

disproportionally improves the recreational

area running adjacent to it. A recreational area

that is enjoyed by the majority of local

residents.

o DESIGN: Should permission be

granted, we request issues around the estate's

layout be addressed. The proposed layout is

not in keeping with the rest of the estate. We

would suggest that in order to blend the estate

into its surroundings, the fronts of the houses

should face the housing on Mulberry Close

and Windsor Drive. The additional benefit of

this action would be to make the area appear

more open and thus reduce its effect on the

nearby recreational area. If the layout remains

as proposed, this will create an alleyway

running along Mulberry Close. As well as

closing the area in, there is strong evidence to

support the fact that alleyways such as this

create issues with regards to ASB. It should be

borne in mind that the council and responsible

developers have a commitment to design out

crime and ASB. Failure to address issues at

this early stage has been shown to have a

subsequent cost implication. Further more it is

well accepted that ASB has a detrimental

effect on the quality of residents lives. It is in

light of this fact that Vera Baird, the current

Police & Crime commissioner has identified it

as a priority of the community she serves.

o Having reviewed the latest planning

submission, we note that some of the issues

raised in relation to the design have been

addressed. Although these changes are a step

in the right direction, we are of the opinion they

do not go far enough in totally alleviating the

problems. It is our contention that all the new

builds should face the existing homes for the

reasons given above.

We make the above objections and

suggestions with a view to improving the lot of

all residents and not merely our own interests.






rationale.









































residents.




























submission, we note that no changes have

been made to address the above issues

raised, It is our contention that all the new






Mr And Mrs Blades 15 Mulberry

Close



Blyth

Northumberland

NE24 3XR




rationale.









































residents.




























submission, we note that no changes have

been made to address the above issues

raised, It is our contention that all the new






Doreen And Brian

Beadle

5 Windsor Drive

Blyth

Northumberland

NE24 3XL

See attached

Mr And Mrs Pate 2 Windsor Drive

Blyth

Northumberland

NE24 3XL

See attached and;

We were not aware that the applicant had

submitted any amendments to the above

mentioned planning application until we

received your letter dated 13th December

2013

We did not receive this letter until late in the

afternoon of Monday 16th December therefore

we feel that we have not been given enough

time to research and reply with valid objections

by the 27th December 2013

The time factor is very short considering 2

weekends and the Christmas holidays are

included in the equation.

Due to these circumstances we wish to re-

submit our previous correspondence

to you dated September 30th 2013 for further

consideration (please refer to your records)

Since September 30th 2013 (and our previous

letter to you) there has been several heavy

downpours of rain causing the entire site to

become submerged in water and the wider

outlying areas have become waterlogged.

The area of flood affected land has become

more widespread than before which indicates

that the situation is worsening as opposed to

improving.

The applicant, on his application, has used an

outdated map to show "current flood zones".

The map he has used has a date on it of

4/3/12 but this map does not show

SANDRINGHAM MEADOWS nor RAEBURN

CLOSE.

According to the A to Z street guide (7th

edition) of 2007 both of these streets were

present on this date.

Due to the last paragraph above we feel that

the flood-plain indicated on the applicants map

is outdated, incorrect and needs to be re-

reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Mrs Denise Pycroft 3 Windsor Drive

Blyth,

Northumberland

NE24 3XL

See attached