area planning committee west : 19 march 2014 site...
TRANSCRIPT
AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEST : 19 MARCH 2014
Application No:
13/03542/OUT
Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 18 houses
Site Address Land North East Of Green Rigg, Medburn, Northumberland
Applicant: Mr And Mrs Eric Potts Greenrigg, Medburn, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland NE20 0JE
Agent: Nicola Allan Dilston House Cottage, Corbridge, Northumberland, NE45 5RH
Valid Date: 21 November 2013 Expiry Date:
20 February 2014
Case Officer Details:
Name: Mrs Caroline Jones
Job Title: Senior Planning Officer
Tel No: 01670 625547
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)
1. Introduction 1.1 This application is recommended for approval contrary to the views of
Ponteland Town Council and 14 letters of objection and therefore the decision falls to be determined by the West Area Planning Committee under the provisions of the Council's delegation scheme.
2. Description of the Proposals 2.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of up to 18
dwellings on a greenfield site to the east of Green Rigg on the C345 in Medburn. Matters relating to the layout, scale and appearance of the dwellings and the landscaping of the site are all reserved for subsequent approval. Access to the site is to be determined at this stage and is proposed via an existing field access which runs between Green Rigg and a property known as South Lodge.
2.2 The site is located within the defined settlement boundary of Medburn and
has an area of approximately 1.76ha. The site is bounded to the south east, north and east by open fields and by dwellings to the west and south west. The north east corner of the site bounds the Green Belt.
2.3 Indicative layout plans have been submitted with the application to
demonstrate how the site could be developed with 18 large detached dwellings on large plots. Plans also include the demolition of the annex to Green Rigg, a detached building located in the rear garden of the property.
3. Planning History
Reference Number: CM/20090200
Description: Proposed new 3 bedroom dwelling (with room in roof provision) and
double garage on garden
Status: Refused
Reference Number: CM/20090004
Description: Proposed change of use of agricultural paddock to residential garden
Status: Approved
Reference Number: CM/20070851
Description: Demolition of existing garage and construction of new granny annexe
Status: Approved
Reference Number: CM/20060572
Description: Resubmission of stables and change of use of land
Status: Approved
Reference Number: CM/05/D/303
Description: Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of two bungalows.
Status: Withdrawn
Reference Number: CM/05/D/436
Description: Construction of new dwelling and demolition
Status: Refused
Reference Number: CM/04/D/408
Description: Outline - Erection of 2 No dwellinghouses
Status: Withdrawn
Reference Number: CM/04/D/407CLU
Description: Certificate of Lawfulness - Use of Garden
Status: Refused
APPEALS
Reference Number: CM/20090200
Description: Proposed new 3 bedroom dwelling (with room in roof provision)
and double garage on garden
Status: Appeal dismissed
4. Consultee Responses
Ponteland Town Council
Object on the following grounds: The proposal is contrary to Policy MBH2 of the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan as the site is neither brownfield nor infill and is not within the curtilage of existing properties. The construction of 20 dwellings on agricultural land would constitute new housing development on greenfield land in a part of Medburn where only infill development on brownfield sites is permitted. The construction of 20 dwellings in this location would have a detrimental impact on the agricultural/rural and undeveloped character present in this part of the settlement, contrary to Policy H15 of the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan. Medburn is a small settlement without any services, only a limited bus service and poor paths for cyclists and pedestrians; it is not a sustainable location for new house building. The construction of 20 more dwellings in addition to the recently approved construction of 19 new dwellings would have an overwhelming and detrimental impact on this small settlement and the C345 which is a narrow country lane and the only access road; the proposal would be unsustainable and contrary to the NPPF.
Highways Authority No objection subject to conditions
County Archaeologist No objection subject to conditions
County Ecologist No response received
Public Protection No objection subject to conditions
Waste Management No response received
Environment Agency No objection subject to condition
Northumbrian Water No objection subject to condition
Sustainable Drainage Systems Officer
No objection subject to condition
5. Public Responses Neighbour Notification
Number of Neighbours Notified 29
Number of Objections 14
Number of Support 2
Number of General Comments 1
Notices General Site Notice, posted 11th December 2013 Press Notice, Hexham Courant, 6th December 2013 Summary of Responses: A total of 14 letters of objection have been received raising the following considerations:
The access is dangerous and not suitable for the number of cars;
Headlight intrusion into nearby properties;
There are flooding issues in the paddock and concern this would exacerbate the issues;
It would cause harm to the character of Medburn;
It is too high density;
Two and a half and three storey development is inappropriate in this location;
Detrimental impact on horse riders in the areas due to construction traffic;
The bus service is poor;
There are poor connections to the phone network and broadband;
There are no services;
Previous schemes for less housing have been refused at the site;
Disruption from building work;
There are lots of houses within Medburn that are up for sale and are not selling;
Medburn is not a sustainable location for housing and it would not contribute to the local economy;
The scheme is disproportionate to the scale of Medburn;
C345 is a dangerous road; and
Increased noise and disturbance. Two letters of support have been received for the application with the following comments being made:
The development is outwith the Green Belt and Medburn has been deemed a sustainable location for development by two Inspectors; and
The development will take pressure off the expansion of Ponteland. One letter of general comment has been received relating to factual matters. 6. Planning Policy 6.1 National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 6.2 Development Plan Policy Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (adopted 2003, saved policies 2007) MBC1 Settlement boundary MBH1 Infill development MBH2 Infill development H15 New housing developments RE5 Surface water run-off and flood defences 6.3 Other Documents/Strategies Castle Morpeth Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing 7. Appraisal 7.1 The main issues for consideration in determining this application are as
follows:
Principle of the development Siting, design and impact on the landscape Impact on neighbouring residential amenity Ecology and biodiversity Surface water drainage and flood risk Highway matters Archaeology
Principle of the development 7.2 The application site is an open field which extends to around 1.76ha in area.
The site is located within the settlement boundary of Medburn as defined by Policies C1 and MBC1 of the Local Plan. The purpose of the settlement
boundary is to exclude Medburn from the Green Belt, the boundary of which runs along the northern boundary of the application site, in order to allow for sensitive development to take place within the village whilst retaining the main characteristics of buildings set in a largely rural landscape. In this respect the intention behind Local Plan Policies C1 and MBC1 aligns with up-to-date national planning guidance set out in the NPPF.
7.2 The site is located mainly within an area defined by Local Plan Policy MBH2
with a small area and the access road located within the area covered by Policy MBH1. Local Plan Policy MBH2 considers development as being appropriate, in principle, for infill development on previously developed land. The site is not previously developed and the construction of 18 dwellings in this location is not considered to constitute infill development. As such, whilst the site may lie within the wider settlement boundary for Medburn, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy MBH2.
7.3 However, the Council is not currently able to demonstrate a five year supply of
deliverable housing land within either the former Castle Morpeth district area or the County as a whole. The Council's most recent published assessment of its five year housing land supply position is contained within the document Northumberland Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites 2013 -2018 published in October 2013 and this identifies that in the former Castle Morpeth area there is only a 3.5 years (71%) supply of housing land available. The NPPF states that in such cases where a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated by a Local Planning Authority, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. Therefore the lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the contribution which the application would make is a material consideration which weights in favour of the proposal. In addition to this, paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In taking decisions within the context of this presumption, the NPPF makes clear that where relevant policies are out of date then permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
7.4 Under the NPPF sustainable development has three dimensions: economic,
social and environmental. These roles should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. It is considered that the proposal would fulfil an economic role by contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy.
7.5 Medburn as a settlement is poorly served by services/facilities with no shops,
school, pub, community centre or other such community facilities. However, there have been two recent appeal decisions within Medburn, one for five dwellings and one for 14 dwellings, which both determined that although Medburn itself has no services of its own it is not a remote or unsustainable location by virtue of its close proximity and connectivity to Ponteland and its range of services. For the appeal against five dwellings at Prospect Farm (planning application ref: 11/01959/OUT, appeal decision dated 22nd October 2012) the Inspector determined that:
"The Local Plan indicates that limited housing development is acceptable at Medburn with the clear implication that it is not considered to be an unsustainable location for limited new housing. Although the small settlement has no facilities of its own, it is not a remote rural
location. Whilst it appears that residents generally have private cars and the site is outside convenient walking distance of the shopping, social, educational and employment facilities at Ponteland and Darras Hall, the site appears to be within cycling distance of such facilities and there is a limited regular bus service and school transport. Therefore, the site offers scope for accessing facilities and services by means other than private cars."
7.6 In the appeal against the development of 14 dwellings on land to the east of
The Nursery (application no. 12/00892/OUT) the Inspector agreed with this position and stated that:
"The appeal site in this instance is close to Prospect Farm. It is within easy reach of a bus stop, a bridleway and a cycleway, and I am in agreement with that Inspector with regard to the accessibility of Medburn to the service facilities of nearby Ponteland. In addition, the bus service from Medburn to the nearest Metro Station, notwithstanding the Council's argument regarding frequency, would provide suitable links to the employment, shopping and leisure facilities to be found in the wider Tyne and Wear area."
7.7 Whilst the NPPF provides a strong presumption in favour of sustainable
development, it also recognises at paragraph 55 that in cases where a number of settlements are closely grouped together, new housing in one village may support services in an adjacent settlement. The close proximity of Medburn to Ponteland is one such example where new housing development on the application site could potentially lend support to the wide range of services in Ponteland village centre, and clearly this has played a key part in the decisions made by the Inspectors in both appeal cases. Therefore, as the proposed scheme would provide new housing development in a location that is not remote from Ponteland and Darras Hall, which would support the existing services and facilities in an adjacent settlement, and which has reasonable access to such services and facilities by means other than the private car, it is considered that new housing in Medburn would accord, in principle, with paragraph 55 of the NPPF and be generally consistent with the approach taken by the Inspectors in determining the recent Prospect Farm and Land East of The Nursery appeals.
7.8 In terms of the social and environmental roles, the proposal would improve
the tenure mix in the area by providing both executive and affordable units for which there is considered a need and the dwellings would be subject to the sustainability standards imposed by the Building Regulations.
7.9 Whilst the Local Plan was adopted in February 2003 (with some policies
saved in 2007) and therefore significantly pre-dates the publication of the NPPF, the collective intention behind the housing policies in the Local Plan was to ensure the delivery of a wide choice of homes in the former Castle Morpeth District. To this end it is considered that the saved housing policies of the Local Plan, including Policy H6 relating specifically to executive style housing, generally align with paragraphs 47 and 50 of the NPPF which similarly seek to widen housing mix and opportunities for home ownership.
7.10 There is not currently a comprehensive or robust definition of what constitutes
an "executive home", however the proposed dwelling sizes in this case and plot sizes would be broadly comparable with existing executive style properties in Medburn and on the nearby Darras Hall Estate. Evidence provided with the planning application relating to land east of The Nursery demonstrated that there is a significantly lower proportion of executive housing in the north east than in other parts of the country. This shortage is
also recognised by the Northumberland Housing Strategy 2011 - 2012 (September 2011) which suggests that high value areas in the prime commuter belt, such as Ponteland and the area surrounding it, offer opportunities to provide greater housing choice through the type and mix of new housing. Again this would align with the guidance set out in paragraphs 47 and 50 of the NPPF as explained above.
7.11 In conclusion, although the proposal would not be considered infill and would
not be on previously developed land, it is considered that the development would accord with the NPPF, particularly with paragraphs 14 and 55 and would serve to redress the shortfall in the five year housing land supply in the County while delivering executive style and affordable housing units to an area where there is a strong identifiable need.
Affordable Housing 7.12 In terms of affordable housing supply there are no Local Plan policies which
require the provision of affordable housing. The former Castle Morpeth Borough Council therefore adopted an Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) in February 2008 pending adoption of its Core Strategy. Subsequently, the Core Strategy was not adopted prior to Local Government Reorganisation in Northumberland on 1st April 2009. The IPPAH now forms part of the Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework, however it is a non-statutory policy document, albeit one which is formally adopted. The Council's Legal Services Team has advised that, whilst the requirements of the IPPAH can be used as a starting point in negotiations on affordable housing provision in the former Castle Morpeth District, very limited weight can be attached to it for the purpose of insisting on a higher proportion of affordable housing than a developer is willing to provide.
7.13 The applicant is willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement with the Council
to provide an off-site commuted sum towards affordable housing and negotiations are on-going in this respect. The Council's Housing Enabler has stated that although the preference would normally be for delivery of the affordable units on-site, given the context of the planning application and the village, in this instance a commuted sum would be considered acceptable. In accordance with paragraph 50 of the NPPF, and given that there is an identified shortage of affordable housing in the Ponteland area generally, it is considered reasonable in this instance to require a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision.
Siting, design and impact on the landscape 7.14 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built
environment and, through the NPPF, recognises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 57 of the NPPF stresses the importance of planning positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Paragraph 60 continues by stating that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative
through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is recognised however that it is proper to seek to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness.
7.15 At the local level, and in specific relation to new housing development, Local
Plan Policy H15 despite significantly pre-dating the NPPF firmly aligns with the design objectives of the NPPF by setting out a number of criteria for new residential developments to satisfy in the interests of achieving high quality living environments.
7.16 The outline application proposes the construction of 18 dwelling units on a site
which is 1.76ha in area. The indicative layout provided with the application shows a low density consistent with the general form of development in Medburn which is characterised by large dwellings on spacious plots.
7.17 As details of the layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping of the
site have all been reserved for subsequent approval it is difficult at this stage to fully assess the potential visual impact of constructing 18 dwellings in this location. However, the indicative layout plan and scale parameters submitted with the application do provide a sense of how such development could be accommodated on the site. The site would be accessed by an existing field access which is located between the bungalow at Green Rigg and South Lodge, a two storey dwelling. The plan shows the proposed dwellings being sited either side of a centrally positioned internal access road. The scale parameters set out in the Design & Access Statement suggest that the dwellings would be two and a half to three storeys. Given that the dwellings adjacent to the site are no more than two storey including bungalows and one and a half storey properties it is felt that dwellings of more than two storeys would be out of keeping with the scale of dwellings that abut the site. It is therefore considered appropriate to attach a condition should permission be granted which restricts the development of the site to two storeys only. At this stage, it is accepted that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the site is capable of accommodating 18 dwellings.
7.18 In terms of the wider landscape impact of the proposal, the site is at present
well screened from areas to north, south and west by the existing houses which line the C345 and landscaping is currently reserved for subsequent approval. Additionally, given that, if approved, the proposed dwellings would be conditioned to be no more than two storeys in height and would be viewed in the context of adjacent properties on the C345 and The Avenue it is considered that the proposal would blend successfully into its surroundings without resulting in an adverse impact on the openness or setting of the immediately adjacent Green Belt whose boundary abuts the north east corner of the site.
7.19 The issue of encroachment into the countryside must also be taken into
account when assessing the likely impact of the proposed development on the landscape setting of Medburn as a whole. In this respect it must first be acknowledged that the proposal would involve the development of a previously undeveloped site to the east of the dwellings on the C345. However, the site lies within the settlement boundary for Medburn as defined by Local Plan Policy MBC1 rather than being outside of the settlement boundary in the open countryside and Green Belt. This is a particularly
important distinction to make in assessing the impact of the development on the landscape. Whilst the proposal would inevitably result in built development on a site which lies beyond the existing built-up part of the village, the defined settlement boundary is an important part of the existing character of Medburn and a clear representation of the natural boundaries to the settlement. The proposed development would sit entirely within the defined settlement boundary, would be well screened from areas beyond the site by adjacent dwellings and, in terms of its height, could be controlled through the use of a planning condition. It is therefore considered that a development of the scale being proposed could be accommodated on this site without causing an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside and Green Belt, or resulting in an adverse effect on the landscape character of the area within which Medburn is located or the setting of the village. Given the difficulties in fully assessing the likely impacts of a proposal at the outline stage however, especially when all matters are reserved for future approval, it would be imperative that a fully detailed landscape impact assessment be carried out at the reserved matters stage.
7.20 Subject to appropriate layout, scale, appearance and landscaping details
being agreed at the reserved matters stage it is considered that a development of the form currently being proposed could be achieved in accordance with both national and local planning policy. The proposal would consequently satisfy the NPPF in this respect, and the design criteria of Local Plan Policy H15, at this stage.
Impact on neighbouring residential amenity 7.21 Although there are existing residential properties to the south and west of the
application site it is considered that the proposed development, by virtue of its low density nature which would be characterised by large dwellings on correspondingly large plots, would be capable of achieving sufficient separation distances between existing and proposed properties to ensure that there would be no resultant adverse impact on the neighbouring occupiers through loss of light, outlook or privacy. Subject to an acceptable site layout and scale being agreed at the reserved matters stage, it is considered that new housing development on the site could be accommodated without appearing dominant or overbearing in relation to existing properties in the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered, at this stage, to be in accordance with the neighbouring residential amenity criteria set out in Local Plan Policy H15.
Ecology and biodiversity 7.22 A Phase One Habitat survey has been submitted with the application. The site
is made up, in the main, of improved grassland (grazed by horses) with poor hedges to the eastern and southern boundaries and occasional trees in/near the field boundaries towards the northern end of the site and on/near the southern boundary. The Med Burn (Pont tributary) runs west to east some 60m north of the northern red line boundary. The area between the northern red line boundary and the Med Burn would remain outside of the red line boundary but may be utilised as part of the site landscaping and/or accommodation for any SuDs scheme as may be required.
7.23 The existing buildings have been risk assessed for bats and that whilst not nil, the risk of bats roosting in either of the buildings, because of their relatively recent construction and well sealed nature, is negligible with no evidence of bats being found in or on the buildings.
7.24 Mature ash and oak trees (with some bat potential) stand on the slope down
to the Med Burn but well clear of the red line of the site. A single mature ash (also assumed to have some bat potential) stands in the eastern boundary close to the north east corner of the red line site. No other protected, notable or threatened habitats or species are likely to affected by the proposals.
7.25 The Ecologist has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions. Surface water drainage and flood risk 7.26 The application site itself lies within Flood Zone 1 and as such is at low risk of
flooding. Given the size of the site the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal following the submission of the FRA subject to a condition relating to surface water disposal. The Council's SuDs Officer has also examined the application and FRA and has raised no objection subject to a scheme for the disposal of surface water disposal being submitted to and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development.
7.27 Northumbrian Water have also examined the proposal and have stated that
there is not enough information within the application for them to give detailed comments and therefore they are requesting that a condition requiring a scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul drainage be submitted for approval. The applicant has shown a possible area for a drainage pond/lake however this is only indicative and the conditions would ensure that a scheme was submitted and approved prior to the commencement of any development. Subject to the recommended condition it is considered that the proposal would accord, in principle, with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy RE5 which both seek to minimise flood risk through, amongst other things, surface water run-off.
Highway matters 7.28 The Highways Authority has examined the proposed scheme and has raised
no objection subject to the access road layout being constructed to adoptable standards and a number of standard highways conditions which are set out in full below. Subject to the recommended conditions it is considered, so far as can be assessed at the outline stage, that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the existing road network in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H15.
Archaeology 7.29 The NPPF states that where a site on which development is proposed
includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation that is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their
significance (paragraph 128). The NPPF makes no distinction between 'full' and 'outline' applications.
7.30 This application does not contain any supporting information in relation to the
impact of the potential development on the historic environment. The County Archaeologist had therefore recommended that the application was not determined until such information had been submitted. Given the lack of information available in relation to the historic environment it was recommended that it would not be in the best interest of the applicant to undertake an initial desk-based assessment and a field assessment was recommended as the most cost effective approach. This information has not been submitted by the applicant. Further discussions have since taken place and given that the application is in outline it is considered more appropriate to condition the work required prior to the submission of the reserved matters application rather than to withhold planning permission on this basis. Subject to this condition it is considered that the proposal would accord with the provisions of the NPPF with respect to archaeology.
8. Conclusion 8.1 Although the proposal would not be considered infill development and would
not be on previously developed land it is considered that it would accord with the NPPF, particularly with paragraphs 14 and 55 and would serve to redress the shortfall in the five year housing land supply position in the County while delivering executive style and affordable housing units to an area where there is a strong identifiable need. Two recent appeal decisions within Medburn have indicated that the settlement is an acceptable location for new housing.
8.2 As details of the layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping of the
site have all been reserved for subsequent approval it is difficult at this stage to fully assess the potential visual impact of constructing of 18 dwellings in this location. However, the indicative layout plan and scale parameters submitted with the application provide a sense of how such development could be accommodated on the site and overall it is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated at this stage that the site is capable of accommodating up to 18 dwellings of a size, and plot size, commensurate with the general pattern of development in Medburn without causing an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside and Green Belt, or resulting in an adverse effect on the landscape character of the area within which Medburn is located or the setting of the village. The proposal therefore accords with the NPPF and the requirements of Local Plan Policy H15.
8.3 Subject to the recommended conditions, and so far as can be considered at
the outline stage, the development would not give rise to any issues of neighbouring amenity impact, adverse ecological impact, flooding or sewage disposal problems or highway safety concerns. The outline scheme therefore accords with the NPPF and Local Plan Policies H15, C11 and RE5.
9. Recommendation Authority to the Head of Development Services to GRANT CONDITIONAL PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 planning obligation or other appropriate mechanism to secure a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision and subject to the following conditions: Conditions/Reason 01. Approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, hereinafter called the reserved matters, shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 02. Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 03. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 04. Notwithstanding any description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details, to include samples, of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and / or roof(s) of the building(s) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. All roofing and / or external facing materials used in the construction of the development shall conform to the materials thereby approved. Reason: To retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with the provisions of H15. 05. The dwellings hereby approved shall be no more than two storeys in height. Reason: in the interests of neighbour and visual amenity in accordance with Policy H15. 06. The road layout shall be in accordance with NCC standards and constructed to adoptable standards. Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory form of development. 07. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, provision shall be made for a temporary car park within the site to accommodate operatives and
construction vehicles during the development of the site in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway. 08. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of a wheel washing, axle and suspension cleaning facility and its siting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facility shall be retained in the agreed position for the duration of construction work or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for use by construction traffic. Reason: To prevent mud, stones and other debris being carried on to the adjoining carriageway which may cause a hazard to other users of the Highway. 09. All loaded wagons visiting or leaving the site shall be sheeted at source or otherwise treated to prevent the spread of dust/debris onto the highway. Reason: To prevent mud, stones and other debris being carried on to the adjoining highway, which may cause a hazard to other users of the highway. 10. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, provision shall be made for a storage area to accommodate the storage of materials off the Highway during the development of the site in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway. 11. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless any damage to the highway caused by construction/operative traffic associated with the works within the development site have been made good, with damaged areas repaired and footways/verges resurfaced in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To return the highway fronting the site to a satisfactory condition, in the interests of amenity and highway safety. 12. The area allocated for parking and garage on the submitted plan shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety. 13. Parking spaces shall be provided in line with NCC parking standards. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway. 14. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied unless a turning area has been provided within the curtilage of the site for refuse vehicles in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable vehicles to join the highway in a forward direction at all times, in the interests of highway safety. 15. Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway in accordance with a scheme of details of which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding and to prevent damage to the highway. 16. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the new vehicular access to the site has been constructed in accordance with Type 6 of Northumberland County Council standard specifications, in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve access to and from the site in a manner so as not cause significant danger and inconvenience to other road users. 17. No development shall take place unless in accordance with the mitigation detailed within the ecological reports ('Green Rigg, Medburn, Proposed Development Extended Phase 1 Survey Report' and 'Green Rigg, Medburn Proposed Demolition. Bat and Barn Owl Risk Assessment' Ruth Hadden, October 2013) including, but not restricted to adherence to timing restrictions; carrying out appropriate bat survey work on any trees identified as having bat roost potential to be felled with the results of any such surveys to be forwarded to the LPA along with any avoidance and/or mitigation measures as might be required before the determination of any detailed planning application.' Reason: To maintain the favourable conservation status of protected species. 18. No development, removal of vegetation, hedges or felling of trees shall be undertaken between 1 March and 31 August unless an ecologist has first confirmed that no bird's nests that are being built or are in use, eggs or dependent young will be damaged or destroyed. Reason: To protect nesting birds, all species of which are protected by law.' 19. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the guidance set out in 'Pollution Prevention Guidance: Works or Maintenance in or Near Water PPG9, Environment Agency, 2007.' Reason: To ensure that a watercourse is not polluted or contaminated during development works. 20. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the guidance set out in 'BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction: Recommendations' British Standards Institution, 2012.' Reason: To maintain and protect the existing landscape and biodiversity value of the site.
21. No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted a detailed landscape planting plan including the planting of locally native trees, shrubs and wildflowers of local provenance to be agreed in writing with the LPA and to be fully implemented during the first full planting season (November - March inclusive) following the commencement of development'. Reason: To maintain and protect the landscape value of the area and to enhance the biodiversity value of the site. 22. Development shall not commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of surface and foul water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Northumbrian Water. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding from any sources in accordance with the NPPF. 23. Prior to the submission of a reserved matters application, a programme of archaeological field evaluation shall be required in accordance with a brief to be provided by Northumberland Conservation. The archaeological field evaluation shall comprise three stages of work. Each stage shall be completed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before it can be discharged. a) No archaeological field evaluation shall commence on site until a written scheme of investigation based on the NC brief has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) The archaeological field evaluation required by the brief must be completed in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation. c) The programme of analysis, reporting, publication and archiving if required by the brief must be completed in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation and submitted as part of the reserved matters planning application. Reason: in the interests of preserving heritage assets in accordance with the NPPF. 24. During the construction period, there should be no noisy activity, i.e. audible at the site boundary, on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours: Monday - Friday - 0800 - 1800, Saturday 0800-1300. Reason: To protect residential amenity and ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise 25. There shall be no burning of any material associated with either the construction or demolition phase of the development. Reason: To protect residential amenity and ensure a commensurate level of protection against smoke 26. Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant shall submit a dust management plan to the LPA for its written approval. This dust action plan will
detail how any dust associated with groundwork's and construction will be mitigated. Once approved the dust management plan shall be implemented in full. Reason: To protect residential amenity and ensure a commensurate level of protection against dust 27. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme for surface water management has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent surface water flooding. Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 13/03542/OUT
List and Comments of representations received:-
Name Address Summary of Comments
Mrs Y Moore
South Lodge
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
I wish to object to the proposals for up to 20
houses for the following reasons.
I live at South Lodge which is a property
sandwiched between Green Rigg, its annexe
and North Lodge. The property gains access
onto the C345 via a portion of shared access
at the end of my drive. When I need to drive
out of my property gates to get onto the
shared access portion of the entrance I need
to look both to the left and the right due to the
design of the shared access portion. I have
had a number of near miss accidents when I
have been attempting to leave my property on
the shared access when neighbours have
been about to leave their property. Also on a
number of occasions when I am using the
shared access part of the entrance and a
neighbour has been trying to pull off the C345
to enter their own property I have had to
reverse back into my gateway to let them
safely into their own property, rather than force
them to reverse back onto the C345 to let me
out. This would potentially be a very
dangerous access if vehicles from the
proposed houses were all using the shared
part for access to the C345. On the application
for outline planning permission section 10
there would appear to be provision for vehicle
parking for 60 cars!. The planned access is not
suitable for traffic of up to an additional 60
cars. The width of the proposed lane is 4.8
metres. As no mains gas exists at Med burn all
properties have either oil or calour gas to
provide heating etc. The normal width of an oil
tanker is 2.489m and the lane is not wide
enough to allow 2 tankers to pass one
another. I have an oil usage of at least 2
tanker deliveries a year so the new houses will
need at least 40 tanker deliveries per year.
The reason that I have to look both to the left
and right when leaving my property is that
when the original plan for building a house
was submitted the applicants Mr & Mrs Potts
won an appeal ref APP/T2920/A/03/1120649
to allow the building of 2 new properties rather
than 1. When vehicles leave Green Rigg or the
Annexe these drivers need to look to the right
and when North Lodge drivers leave their
property they have to look to the left. But I
have to look both left and right. I am
concerned that as a lot more traffic will be
coming from the lane to the left that inevitably
there will be an accident with a vehicle on one
side or the other.
If this planning application was permitted we
would suffer greatly with headlight intrusion
into South Lodge as all vehicles entering the
shared access to drive up the lane into the
new development would all approach in a
direct fashion and in darkness we already
suffer from light pollution into our bedroom
with the vehicles that currently use the access.
The headlights from an additional 60 cars
would have a devastating effect to my privacy
and enjoyment of living in a lovely rural
hamlet.
Also as it has not always been possible for oil
delivery tankers to get onto the neighbouring
property driveways I have on occasion been
blocked into my own driveway and prevented
from leaving.
The paddock on which the proposed houses
are to be built has had flooding problems in
the past. I am gravely concerned that the
affect of building on this land will cause water
displacement and flooding to properties in the
vicinity. The Med Burn which runs along the
bottom of the paddock is also prone to
flooding. I am a horse rider and use the
bridleway which runs from Medburn to the
Crescent at Darras Hall. There is a part on the
bridleway where the rider has a choice of
going through the water of the Med Burn or
going over a bridge which crosses same. I
always prefer to take the horse through the
water as the bridge has no sides built up and if
a horse spooked it could come over the side of
the bridge and probably kill itself and the rider.
However when the Med Burn is flooded I am
forced to ride over the bridge. The water in this
part of the Med Burn is normally very shallow
but when it floods after very heavy rainfall the
water is almost up to the height of the bridge.
Indeed when the Med Burn floods the shallow
stream becomes a river which has broken its
banks and flooded onto the C345, in order to
do this the water level has risen by more than
10 feet. Also the Med Burn is prone to flooding
after snowfall, as when the snow melts and
runs into the stream it causes flooding.
The Design & Access statement is for an
outline planning application of up to 20 houses
at a build of 5 houses to the acre. This would
be very damaging and cause unacceptable
harm to the character of this part of Medburn
and the enjoyment of the people living there.
The proposed new housing would be high
density and not appropriate. The suggested
2.5 and 3 storey houses are not in keeping
with the type of properties that exist in this part
of Medburn. They will be totally out of keeping
and will dominate existing dwellings by their
height and density.
When Deansbury homes bought the plot that
South Lodge and North Lodge were built on,
they built North Lodge first and South Lodge
to follow. After the build of North Lodge
Deansbury Homes told me that they asked the
planners if they could raise the roof height on
South Lodge before the house was completed
but this was rejected by planners due to roof
height restrictions. It was also noted that two
storey houses might cause inappropriate
overlooking of Wood Green.
As previously mentioned I am a horse owner
who uses the bridleway, as very little exists in
and around the Medburn, Eachwick and
Ponteland area the bridleway is heavily used
by riders in the locality. I am extremely
concerned that the extra oil tankers, cars and
other delivery and postal vehicles using the
C345 because of this new housing estate, will
have a detrimental effect on horse and rider
safety and increase the likelihood of rider
accidents.
The C345 is a road which is not regularly
repaired and has a lot of potholes, the road is
not suitable for high density traffic. Medburn is
low on the list of priority for gritting and snow
ploughing and I have been snowed in a few
times over the last few years. Only families
who own 4x4 Jeep type vehicles were able to
drive in the heavy snowy conditions.
The bus service number 74 does not have a
time schedule that would fit into a daily work
routine as it runs only every 2 or 3 hours and
not at all in the evening except on as Friday or
Saturday. The only way to live in Medburn is to
travel by private car and as the planning
request demonstrates it is expected that the
estate will have in the region of 60 cars.
The quality of the telephone service in
Medburn is extremely poor and British
Telecom are seen regularly in Medburn trying
to sort out the quality of telephone lines which
tend to be noisy. The internet is very
intermittent and runs at a very slow speed. We
have weeks at a time with no service at all.
The problem seems to be mainly about the
distance that Medburn is from the Ponteland
telephone exchange. Medburn is at the
furthest point for service and this causes the
issues with quality and speed. In the past
when we have had weeks without service and
the engineers have tried to get us a
connection that does not continually drop out
they have said the problem is caused partly by
not having many spare pairs of wires to swop
us over too and partially due to waterlogged
cables underground, and the fact that we have
Ponteland telephone numbers when we are
closer to the Stamfordham telephone
exchange.
I wish to make the following points about the
design and access statement.
The scheme, as proposed, will be for large
detached dwellings of 2.5 to 3 storeys high
with 5 houses per acre. As Medburn does not
have any houses of this height they will be
totally out of character with this part of
Medburn which has not been built along the
lines of a housing estate. The houses in this
part of Medburn are all on large plots of a
minimum of 0.25 acres and are individual, they
do not share housing estate characteristics.
Houses built previously had a height restriction
and houses of this build type would be very
damaging to the character, ambiance and
uniqueness of Medburn.
I wish to make the following remark about
comments contained in the Planning
Statement.
2.5 North lodge, South Lodge and the annexe
have all been built on land belonging to Mr &
Mrs Potts. Indeed the building of North Lodge
and South Lodge were granted on appeal ref
APP/T2920/A/03/1102649. A condition of
granted planning was to prevent the rear of
any new build dwelling being further east than
the rears of either Medburn Cottage or Moss
Thorn, with condition 9 stating that two storey
houses might cause inappropriate overlooking
of Wood Green.
4.12 The planning statement makes reference
to the appeal decision in relation to Prospect
Farm, That Green Rigg is closer to the bus
stop, bridleway and cycleway. In order to walk
to the bus stop from Green Rigg the
pedestrian has to walk around a blind bend on
a road with no footpath, this in my experience
is dangerous. To access the bus stop from the
Avenue which is how Prospect Farm residents
would get to the bus stop they would not have
to walk around the blind bend on the C345.
The bridleway cannot be seriously considered
as an alternative to private car use to
Ponteland for anything other than leisure. We
have been snowed in at Medburn in the past
and walked along the bridleway to Ponteland
for bread and milk but this is not an easy
journey. Due to the lack of upkeep on the
bridleway it is a difficult walk for pedestrians as
there is serious overgrowth of grasses and
vegetation, also the ground is heavily rutted
and muddy which is caused by horses hooves
damaging the land. It is certainly not a
sustainable method of travel to Ponteland.
Finally the cycleway, well, we do not have a
cycleway and we certainly do not have a
designated cycleway along the C345, what I
mean by this is that we do not have a portion
of the road marked off with white lines to
provide a safe cycle route out of the way of
traffic. The C345 is a minor country road
which is poorly maintained and has a lot of
deep potholes. It is a minor country road that
does not cope well with the level of modern
day traffic as evidenced by the state of it.
If this development was permitted it would
mean up to 2 years of disruption to daily life
with skip wagons removing soil, builders
wagons delivering bricks, concrete mixer
wagons etc etc. These wagons will cause
further damage to the roads and grass verges.
I have a field in Medburn which has an access
for light vehicular use. During other building
alteration jobs, skip wagons weighing many
many tons have used my field access as a
point to reverse up and turn around. The
access cannot withstand such heavy vehicles.
If wagons from the new development used my
entrance on a daily basis, which indeed they
surely would, I would have to rebuild it at a
huge cost to myself. This would be totally
unacceptable to me. I will have to put traffic
prevention upright posts at the end of my
drive, the manufacturers advise me that
these do not require planning permission.
Although the housing market is not a
consideration for planning permission I wish to
say that new housing is not sustainable in
Medburn. We already have 19 houses/plots for
sale in Medburn. This does not include the 14
new houses on land near the Nursery. There
are also a number of houses that are for sale
in Medburn in addition to the ones mentioned
that are for sale privately and not shown on
the Right Move website. There is no demand
for further houses in Med urn. A further 274
houses are currently for sale in the Darras
Hall/ Ponteland area which would better serve
the executive housing market as Ponteland
has shops, restaurants, banks, doctors,
dentists etc which Medburn does not have nor
is ever likely to have.
The proposal for building on this Greenfield
site is contrary to sustainability objectives of
the NPPF, MBH2 and policy H15 of the Castle
Morpeth District Local Plan.
Photos of evidence for flooding will be posted.
Margaret & Robert
Chaytor
Ash Grove
The Avenue
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JD
I wish to object to the above application on the
following grounds:
The proposal is unsustainable and will not
contribute anything to the local economy.
Medburn has no community facilities; there are
neither shops nor schools. Ponteland village
centre is 4 miles away and there are no
pedestrian pathways. Schools in Ponteland
are oversubscribed and car parking facilities in
Ponteland are already under pressure.
The proposal is inappropriate and out of
keeping with the unique rural and agricultural
character of Medburn. There are
approximately 60 houses in the hamlet and a
further 20 new houses would constitute over a
25% increase. There is no proven need for
more executive housing and the proposal does
not offer affordable housing. Presently there
are approximately 8 houses for sale.
Increased traffic flow will have an adverse
impact on highway quality and safety. The
existing infrastructure and road networks are
poorly maintained. Public transport is limited;
the local bus runs every 2 hours and is
invariably cancelled in bad weather. There are
a number of National Cycle routes in the area
and cyclist safety would be further
compromised.
The proposal will increase flood risk. The
existing drainage system is unable to cope
during long periods of wet weather.
Existing power supplies to the area are poor.
There are numerous power cuts.
The proposed area is a haven for wildlife. This
environment should be protected against
urban sprawl and the resulting light pollution,
noise pollution and loss of hedgerows.
Ponteland Squirrel Society acknowledges that
one of the greatest threats to red squirrels in
the area is loss of habitat and food supplies.
Julie Haney
The Orchard
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
I write to object to the proposed development
referred to above. I do so on a number of
grounds.
1.
Loss of privacy
The proposed development will border along
the entire length of my garden. This is
currently a quiet haven of total privacy. This
will be destroyed under the proposed
development, as there will be no position
within the garden where I will not be
overlooked by the new houses.
Furthermore, the development will overlook
the back of my house itself, destroying the
privacy currently enjoyed in my rear bedrooms
and much used garden room.
2.
Physical presence
The above privacy issues are further
exacerbated by the fact that the proposed
houses will be three story design.
3.
Inappropriate development for Medburn - Size
Medburn is a small village. Over development
will destroy the ambience of the community
and, with it, the very reason most residents
moved here in the first place.
The stretch of road the proposed development
is located on is a short, distinct section of a
country lane on the exit of the village, along
which there are currently 14 properties (see
plan of proposal). The application is for a
further 20 large houses - a 142% increase.
This is significantly greater than a strategic
infill, more the adding of an entire estate.
4.
Inappropriate development for Medburn -
Noise
As well as the additional traffic noise that will
be created (see point 5 below), the additional
80 to 100 residents using their gardens will
create a significant noise nuisance
immediately behind my garden.
5.
Inappropriate development for Medburn -
Highway
The proposal includes plans for 60 parking
spaces. Assuming an average of two cars per
existing property on this stretch of lane, that is
an increase in potential traffic of 214% along a
narrow country lane. This will significantly
increase noise levels in a currently quiet
village, and increase the level of danger to the
not insignificant number of walkers, horse
riders and cyclists, including many children of
the village. The lane does not have any
pavement.
6.
Inappropriate development for Medburn -
Amenities
The nearest shops are in Ponteland. Whilst it
could be argued that there is a local bus
service that could be used and footpaths, the
buses are not sufficiently frequent and,
moreover, given the nature of the proposed
properties (ie large executive houses), it is
highly unlikely that the residents will do other
than use their cars to visit the supermarket.
The primary school catchment area is
forStamfordham First School. This is 5 miles
away by road and, although a school bus
could be laid on, again given the nature of the
housing, it is most likely that all children would
be driven by their parents. The same applies
for the middle and high schools.
7.
Inappropriate development for Medburn -
Overdevelopment
There are already a significant number of
individual properties that have been for sale
within the village for many months, even
years, and further developments happening or
approved on individual plots. It is blatantly
obvious that expanding the volume of housing
in the village is inappropriate as there is
insufficient demand.
Whilst this will supress property values in the
village, more importantly, it will create an
abundance of empty properties which are
likely to become neglected (as are some
currently empty plots and houses) and
potentially lead to an increase in crime.
8.
Nature of village
Most residents moved to Medburn for the
peaceful location and the quality of life that
affords. The proposed development will
destroy that. In my case that includes the
views afforded at the rear of my property
(which will be lost entirely), the tranquillity of
my property and garden due to increase noise
levels of traffic and people, the ambience of
the village, and the value of my property.
9.
Unreasonable disruption
The proposed development is a major building
project within a village the size of Medburn. It
will result in huge and unreasonable level of
disruption during the building process.
Moreover, I suspect that, once permission has
been granted, the plots will be sold off
individually as development plots and that is
likely to result in many years of disruption.
This is not acceptable, especially given the
inappropriate nature of the proposal.
Finally, there are a number of inaccuracies
contained within the Planning Statement
submitted by Nicola Allan as part of the
planning application. Specifically:
Para 2.5 states "To the west of the site,
fronting the C345, all of the plots have either
been rebuilt, subdivided or have permission for
redevelopment apart from Green Rigg."
I believe that the North Lodge and South
Lodge were both built on the original plot of
Green Rigg.
Para 4.7 includes the statement that there is "a
strong demand for executive style housing."
This is blatantly not the case. See point 7
above.
Para 4.9 includes the statement, "The
character ofMedburn is predominantly large
individually designed houses in substantial
grounds and lends itself to further low density
development."
Firstly, 20 large executive houses cannot be
considered to be "low density development".
See point 3 above.
Secondly, there is not the demand for these
properties in Medburn. See point 7 above.
Para 4.12 refers to the appeal decision in
relation to Prospect Farm and states that it
"established thatMedburn has the scope to
access facilities and services by means other
than private cars."
I refer to point 6 above. Given the nature of
the houses, the type of resident is unlikely to
use footpaths, bridleways and buses to go
shopping.
Like many other residents within Medburn, I
feel that the proposed development at Green
Rigg is totally inappropriate and will
significantly destroy the very essence of the
village. I therefore request that the proposal
be rejected in its entirety.
Ian McMonagle
Medburn House
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
I note that on the website concerned with this
planning application that my e mail has been
treated as neutral!
Nothing could be further from the truth. In
good faith the information stated that if we
wanted to make representation we could. I
followed this guidance. However to be very
clear I am making a strong objection
I write in response to an outline Planning
Application for residential development of up
to 20 houses on Land North East of Green
Rigg, Medburn , Northumberland.
I wish to make a strong objection against this
development.
The nature of Medburn is a quiet, small rural
area. The proposed scale (up to twenty
houses ) on this plot of land seems entirely
disproportionate for the location.
The character of this quiet place would be
destroyed by the scale of the proposed
development.
We have deer, heron and other wildlife that
surround and use this beautiful quiet area.
The roads in Medburn are particularly poor
and narrow, potholed and in many places
missing top surface,
Many horticultural vehicles also use these
narrow roads.
Very limited public transport necessitating
probably at least 40 cars will dramatically
change the character of this small hamlet.
Access to this site would require significant
changes to the size of the road. There is no
space for roadside parking either
Current traffic would use our drive as a
continual turning point as already happens,
this would only increase,
causing disturbance.
The infrastructure of this road would not be
conducive to an increase of traffic of the likely
scale resulting in this proposed development
I thought that this land was greenbelt and
although Governments may change
designated use, there surely should be some
appropriate conditions to limit the
inappropriate scale of building on this kind of
land.
The noise factor would inevitably dramatically
increase, yet is totally undesirable, in a small
quiet hamlet
Any proposed houses would need to be limited
in height to prevent loss of views and light
from our property
The number of people, cars, delivery vehicles
would result in a dramatic loss of privacy.
What is being proposed would immediately
more than double the number of houses on
one small stretch of road.
I hope the county council will visit the plot to
see the territory not only the map, before
making far reaching decisions
Please inform me that you have received this
and will treat my comments an an objection
Dear Sir or Madam
I write in response to an amended outline
Planning Application for residential
development of up to 18 houses on Land
North East of Green Rigg, Medburn ,
Northumberland.
I wish to make a strong objection against this
development.
The nature of Medburn is a quiet, small rural
area. The proposed scale (up to eighteen
houses ) on this plot of land seems entirely
disproportionate for the location.
The character of this quiet place would be
destroyed by the scale of the proposed
development.
We have deer, heron and other wildlife that
surround and use this beautiful quiet area.
The roads in Medburn are particularly poor
and narrow, potholed and in many places
missing top surface,
Many horticultural vehicles also use these
narrow roads.
Very limited public transport necessitating
probably at least 38 cars will dramatically
change the character of this small hamlet.
Access to this site would require significant
changes to the size of the road. There is no
space for roadside parking either
Current traffic would use our drive as a
continual turning point as already happens,
this would only increase,
causing disturbance.
The infrastructure of this road would not be
conducive to an increase of traffic of the likely
scale resulting in this proposed development
I thought that this land was greenbelt and
although Governments may change
designated use, there surely should be some
appropriate conditions to limit the
inappropriate scale of building on this kind of
land.
The noise factor would inevitably dramatically
increase, yet is totally undesirable, in a small
quiet hamlet
Any proposed houses would need to be limited
in height to prevent loss of views and light
from our property
The number of people, cars, delivery vehicles
would result in a dramatic loss of privacy.
What is being proposed would immediately
more than double the number of houses on
one small stretch of road.
I hope the county council will visit the plot to
see the territory not only the map, before
making far reaching decisions
Please inform me that you have received this
and will treat my comments an an objection
I have now seen the application and flood risk
report and I am concerned with the flood risk
report that makes no mention of the effect of
the wetlands aspect and the flow of the
Medburn, towards the direction of my home.
What assurances can you give me that the
existence of the wetlands area will not cause a
build up of water that will back up the water to
cause a problem of flooding of my property at
Medburn House. We have never been
flooded,but I want assurances of what will be
done to ensure that this does not happen. I
would like to meet with you at the earliest
opportunity to discuss this with your experts on
water flow.Failing assurances being given and
any subsequent flooding occurring please take
this as notification of my concern and a basis
for future legal action
Naren Deen
North Lodge
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
We understand that Eric Potts has applied for
outline planning consent for a residential
housing development on the Development
Site.
We are the owners and occupiers of North
Lodge in Medburn. As you will be aware, the
boundary of our property directly abuts the
Development Site. We attach some
photographs showing the position of our
boundary in relation to the Development Site.
North Lodge will be directly affected by any
development on the Development Site.
We object to the proposed development for
the following reasons:
1. We understand that the Development
Site in question is designated as greenbelt
land and/or agricultural land. We cite all of the
objections raised in relation to a recent
planning application for residential
development on land adjoining Western Way
in Darras Hall. The objections raised in that
application are relevant to this application in
relation to change of use.
2. There is an existing building line in this
part of Medburn and the proposed
development would breach that building line.
3. The proposed development would
radically alter the nature and character of
Medburn. The change would be negative.
Medburn currently has a distinct and 'semi-
rural' character that distinguishes it from other
areas such as Darras Hall. The proposed
development would undermine that distinction.
4. Whilst we have not seen the specific
proposals for the layout of the Development
Site it is clear from the geography of the site
that access to the proposed development
would be constricted, congested and
potentially dangerous.
5. Medburn is not capable of hosting
sustainable development. The area is poorly
served by utilities (no mains gas supply, very
poor broadband connection and very limited
mobile network coverage) There are no shops
or other amenities in or around Medburn.
Medburn is very poorly served by public
transport, meaning all residents will need to
use private cars in order to access any
services. Our understanding is that this is
contrary to various planning policy guidelines
and to the overarching requirement to create
sustainable development.
6. Medburn is accessed via a narrow
single carriageway from Stamfordham Road.
The road surface is in a poor state or repair.
The road floods at several points on a regular
basis. In winter the road is not gritted and
becomes treacherous and almost impassable
without a four wheel drive vehicle. The road is
so narrow that buses and coaches have to
cross onto the other side of the road when
turning around various corners. This has led to
many accidents and near-misses. There is no
footpath at the side of the road meaning that
pedestrians must walk on the already narrow
road surface. The road is not suitable for the
current volume of traffic using it. Adding further
traffic volume would be dangerous.
7. There is little demand or requirement for
additional housing in Medburn or the
surrounding area. You will be aware that
planning consent has been granted for a
number of existing development sites in
Medburn but that those sites have not been
built out. Our understanding from discussions
with the relevant parties is that the sites have
not been built out as there is insufficient
demand for housing in Medburn. Building on
greenbelt or agricultural land is supposed to
be an absolute last resort, in circumstances
where there is intense pressure for additional
housing and no alternative 'brownfield' sites
available. The situation in Medburn is the
reverse. There is little demand for new
housing and a glut of residential development
sites that have not been built out.
8. If the proposed development were to
proceed the construction process would cause
severe disruption and loss of amenity for
nearby residents. Once the proposed
development was completed it would have a
substantial and negative impact of the
amenity of nearby residents.
As you will be aware, many planning
applications have been submitted in respect of
the Development Site. After due consideration,
each application has been rejected. The
Development Site is simply not suitable for
sustainable development.
I submitted an objected to the original proposal
within the relevant time limits and received an
acknowledgment from you however I note at
my objection has not been published on the
website. Please clarify.
In relation to the revised application, I confirm
that I object to the development for reasons
previously cited in relation to the earlier
application.
In particular, I note that the revised application
still show houses exceeding 1.5 storeys. When
we recently applied for consent to extend
North Lodge you insisted that any
development be limited to 1.5 storeys on the
grounds of amenity of surrounding properties. I
understand that you adopted the same
approach with our neighbours at Farric View. It
would therefore be patently, indeed,
Wendsbury, unreasonable to permit houses in
the field adjoining us at a height substantially
exceeding the limit placed on us. Such a
decision would be illogical unfair and subject
to review.
W R Moore
South Lodge
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
1. I object to the above proposal on the
following grounds.
The proposed development is contrary to
Policy MBH2 because it does not constitute
infill development, the proposed dwellings are
to be situated behind Green Rigg and
therefore do not constitute infilling of a small
gap within an otherwise continuously built up
frontage.
Proposals should not result in the loss of
amenity of adjoining residential properties.
This development of a 20 house estate
creates such a loss in a number of respects.
a) Access would be from the C345 where
a shared access is currently in use for 4
properties, namely Green Rigg, its annex,
North Lodge and South Lodge. This situation
for South Lodge requiring viewing to left and
right before exiting would be rendered
ridiculous by the addition of 20 houses all with
multiple car ownership. I have had a number
of near miss accidents when trying to exit my
drive onto the shared part of the access when
vehicles from the adjoin properties have also
been wanting to exit. I have also numerously
had to reverse back into my driveway to allow
incoming vehicles onto the shared access
rather than force them to reverse back onto
the C345. The new housing would make this
already difficult situation much more
dangerous for ourselves. When Green Rigg
and annexe use the shared access they only
need to look to the right and when North
Lodge exit onto the shared access they have
to look to the left but we have to look both left
and right.
b) The rural environment of tranquillity and
country views would cease to exist for all the
properties in the current building line. Current
properties would suffer noise and light
pollution from headlights at night.
c) The proposed site is liable to flooding
as evidenced by photographs to be submitted
by post. Water would be displaced to the
current dwellings by such a large
development.
d) The development is unsustainable in
terms of all modern environmental
considerations, in that the only bus service,
that of the 74 runs sporadically at best and
ceases completely in the evenings. It is
dysfunctional from the point of view of school
runs and commuting to and from work. Each
property would require 2 or more cars.
e) There is no gas in Medburn, houses are
fuelled by oil delivered by large tankers. These
heavy units already damage verges and take
up most of the width of the C345 when
operating. A further 20 houses requiring this
service would significantly deteriorate the road
surface (already poor) and cause further
damage to grass verges. These tankers would
all have to use the shared part of the access to
gain entry to the new housing and this level of
extra heavy traffic would be destructive in all
respects.
f) Medburn is an equestrian area with
significant horse ownership and riding out on
the C345. The proposed site is only 150 yard
from the bridleway. The increase in vehicular
traffic would be dangerous and unwelcome
and radically change the character of
Medburn.
g) The proposed high density housing
development would serve to erode the
character of this part of Medburn.
h) A number of executive style house
remain unsold in Medburn and some have
been removed from the market. Such houses
are in competition with nearby Darras Hall
which has many amenities which Medburn
lacks. An addition to this situation has no
merit.
Finally it is clear from the applicants
willingness to demolish his own home and that
of his daughter and son in law ( Annex) and
move elsewhere, that the application is a hit
and run affair for profit with no thought for the
well being of other residents in this currently
quiet and pleasant community.
Medburn is not a suitable place for a city
suburb which the proposed development is. It
has no purpose other than the enrichment of
the applicant
Mr James Turnbull
Woodhill
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
As the owner of the neighbouring property in
principal I have no objection to the proposed
development but I do object to the height of
the proposed dwellings and the plot sizes
Current guidelines for any development in
Medburn restricts the height of a dwelling
house to 1.5 stories.
I believe precedents have been set with
previous planning consents enforcing
compliance with this restriction.
The current published policy for Medburn
states that any new dwellings have a plot size
of 0.24 hectare.
Can the planners take note of these
objections.
Mr Alastair
Woodruff
Field House
The Avenue
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JD
The proposed development is outwith the
greenbelt and Medburn has been deemed to
be a sustainable location in terms of the NPPF
by 2 Planning Inspectors.
The development of this site will take pressure
off the expansion of Ponteland and provide
needed executive housing.
The Council should ensure that the
development of this site does not land lock
other sites and that access into adjoining land
is provided by this site for future development.
Mr Richard Moore
Farrick View
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
I have no objections to the land East of Green
Rigg being developed. But I feel I should point
out an error in the Planning Statement.
Section 2.5
To the West of the site, fronting the C345 all
the plots have either been rebuilt, subdivided
or have planning permission for
redevelopment apart from Green Rigg.
Actually North Lodge and South Lodge were
built on land from Green Rigg and the Annexe
was a change of use from a garage.
So this statement strikes me as a bit of a
misrepresentation of fact.
As regards the design and Access Statement.
Section 3
The scheme will be for large detached
dwellings of 2.5 to 3 storeys on individual plots
at a density of approximately five dwelling to
the acre. The scheme will be designed to
reflect the open character of the village.
The planners enforced a restriction of 1.5
storey properties
with a minimum of 0.25 acre for the properties
mentioned in the Planning Statement to the
West of Green Rigg.
Most of these properties have land adjoining
the proposed development site.
I see no reason to lift the enforced restrictions
that myself and others have had to conform to.
Mr R Elliott
Crest View
The Avenue
Medburn
See attached copy of correspondence
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JD
Jenny Clark
Kildale
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
As the owner of the neighboring property and
a long term Medburn Resident, I wish the
council to take the following points into
consideration when determining this proposed
development:
Land Zone:
The area outlined for development falls within
the local Green Belt and more specifically
within the area designated as MBH2 in the
current submitted and approved Medburn local
plan - an area where no residential
development would be permitted.
Any approvals in this area would create a
precedence that will lead to further
development of other areas of the green belt in
the Ponteland area in contradiction of the
adopted policy.
Drainage:
The current surface and foul water drainage
systems from this area of the village have
been previously cited as operating at flow
rates far above their designed capacities by
the local utilities provider and prior to the
council already granting planning permission
for 22 plus houses in the Medburn curtilage.
The main foul drainage line along 'The
Avenue' in particular is undersized, as has
been demonstrated in the past and currently
by an increase incidences of water discharge
from manholes and the flooding of local
properties currently connected to this system.
Can the planners please obtain a definitive
statement from the main utility provider as to
the adequacy and system's overall capacity?
It is essential that any upgrades required are
implemented prior to any new proposed
development commencing to eliminate any
risk of further flooding?
The land where this development is proposed
is at present extremely waterlogged and the
ground has no further absorbance capacity
due to the predominantly clay composition of
the soil. The installation of roads,
hardstandings and any run off associated with
18 houses as proposed will further reduce the
lands capacity to absorb rainfall thus resulting
in an increase in surface water discharge to
the river Medburn, with the associated
increase in flood risk to properties located
further downstream.
How do the council intend to address the risk
of this increased flooding to property owners
downstream?
Can the planners please give an undertaking
that a full hydraulic study for the current
drainage system is carried out by the utility
provider and the results of any such studies
are published and made available for public
scrutiny?
Road Access:
The present village main access road (C345)
is in an appalling state and maintenance levels
are well below those generally accepted as
industry minimum standards for the traffic
volumes currently being experienced, this
development will add further traffic volume
thus exacerbating the problem.
Can the planners please obtain a definitive
statement from the highways department with
a proposed timetable for the current
degradation of this road to be permanently
addressed?
Housing density:
The current published policy for Medburn
states that any new dwellings have a plot size
of 0.25 hectare and any replacement dwelling
0.1 hectare - it is important that this be
retained to preserve what little character is left
within the village.
- Will the planners please give assurances that
these ratios will be retained?
Housing Types:
Current published policy guidelines for any
development in Medburn restricts the dwelling
house height to 1.5 stories. - precedence has
been set with previous planning consents
enforcing compliance with this restriction - it is
important that these restrictions are
maintained.
- Can the planners give assurances that these
guidelines will not be breached?
Local Amenities and Services:
The First, Middle and High schools in
Ponteland are at their maximum capacity -
based on the standard demographic density
figures this development could potentially
require the local schools to provide for up to
another 40 places.
Please provide a definitive statement from the
local schools that these proposed increases
can be accommodated?
Similarly there is severe pressure on the
Medical and Dental services locally that are
also at maximum capacity.
Would it be possible to check that these
essential local medical services also have
spare capacity?
Nimmy Deen
North Lodge
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
I refer to your letter of 20/01/14 and confirm
that I object to the application for the reasons
given by Naren Deen. In particular I am
concerned that the proposed development will
take a lot of our privacy away. The proposed
housing estate will totally change the nature of
the area. The planning statement says that the
development is in keeping with the rural nature
of the area but this is quite obviously not the
case. Executive housing estates are not
consistent or in keeping with rural or semi rural
locations. The density of the proposed
development is totally inappropriate for the
area.
The proposed development is described as
being on garden land, this is not the case. A
tiny proportion of the site is existing garden.
The vast majority of he site is greenfield green
belt land.
The Med Burn floods regularly and building
over a natural soak away like this site will only
exaserbate the existing flood problem.
Mr David Butler
8 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
Please find, listed below, my reasons for
objecting to the above application :
1. Medburn as a settlement is very poorly
served by services/facilities, has an extremely
limited access to the public transport network,
and as such is not a sustainable location for
new housing development. Permission has
been granted for up to 20 properties during the
past 18 months, and this application will
increase that by 100%. I do not believe that
such an increase in the size of the hamlet is
sustainable, given the points outlined above.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the
sustainability objectives of the NPPF.
2. The proposal for the construction of up to 20
dwellings on agricultural land north east of
Green Rigg would constitute new housing
development on greenfield land in a part of
Medburn where only infill development on
brownfield sites is permitted. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Policy MBH2 of the
Castle Morpeth District Local Plan.
3. The proposal also represents backland
development in an area where only limited infill
development is permitted. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Policy MBH2 of the
Castle Morpeth District Local Plan.
4. The construction of up to 20 dwellings in
this location would have a detrimental impact
on the largely undeveloped and rural character
present in this part of the settlement contrary
to Policy H15 of the Castle Morpeth District
Local Plan.
Mrs W Jackson
44 Darras Road
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9PA
I wish to object to the planning permission for
the new housing development at Land North
East of Green Rigg.
Medburn is a small rural hamlet which has no
amenities, no pavements, cycle ways, street
lighting, shops, church, pubs or restaurants.
There is a very limited public bus service with
a timetable which would not fit into a resident's
working day.
The new development which is essentially a
new housing estate would rely heavily upon
residents using private cars. The C345 is a
road in poor repair and the extra traffic would
have an impact for all other road users with
the increased number of cars needing to travel
back and forth to work, school runs, shopping
etc. The plan shows parking for 60 cars, the
increase in traffic would have adverse effect
on road safety. Another 20 houses which
could mean between 40 and 80 new residents
depending on the size of the household would
also have an impact on local services for
Ponteland as all of these people would have to
register at a doctors surgery and people
already have, too often, wait for over 2 weeks
to get an appointment. This development
would exacerbate this situation.
There would be a detrimental impact with the
loss of open space; the rural nature of
Medburn would be damaged by the loss of
rural feel.
I do not feel that the development is
sustainable as many executive houses and
building plots remain unsold in Medburn, a
great many having been on the market for a
considerable length of time. (years) there is no
demand for further housing.
The land is greenbelt and I feel that the
application is contrary to the sustainable
objectives of the NPPF, it is not a brownfield
site and this will not be infill development. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Policy MBH2.
Nearby Darras Hall has many executive
houses for sale which could better fill demand
for housing needs, if such existed, having the
amenities such as Restaurants, Doctors
Surgeries, Dentists, Schools, Shops, Banks,
Public Houses, Estate Agents, Hairdressers,
Regular Bus services, Post Office, Parish
Church etc etc. Notwithstanding all of this,
many executive houses stand unsold in Darras
Hall.
Medburn contains none of the 'above
amenities nor indeed is likely to acquire them
in the foreseeable future.
Mrs Wyn Jackson
44 Darras Road
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9PA
I wish to object to the planning permission for
the new housing development at Land North
East of Green Rigg.
Medburn is a small rural hamlet which has no
amenities, no pavements, cycle ways, street
lighting, shops, church, pubs or restaurants.
There is a very limited public bus service with
a timetable which would not fit into a
resident¿s working day.
The new development which is essentially a
new housing estate would rely heavily upon
residents using private cars. The C345 is a
road in poor repair and the extra traffic would
have an impact for all other road users with
the increased number of cars needing to travel
back and forth to work, school runs, shopping
etc. The plan shows parking for 60 cars, the
increase in traffic would have adverse effect
on road safety. Another 20 houses which
could mean between 40 and 80 new residents
depending on the size of the household would
also have an impact on local services for
Ponteland as all of these people would have to
register at a doctors surgery and people
already have, too often, wait for over 2 weeks
to get an appointment. This development
would exacerbate this situation.
There would be a detrimental impact with the
loss of open space; the rural nature of
Medburn would be damaged by the loss of
rural feel.
I do not feel that the development is
sustainable as many executive houses and
building plots remain unsold in Medburn, a
great many having been on the market for a
considerable length of time. (years) there is no
demand for further housing.
The land is greenbelt and I feel that the
application is contrary to the sustainable
objectives of the NPPF, it is not a brownfield
site and this will not be infill development. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Policy MBH2.
Nearby Darras Hall has many executive
houses for sale which could better fill demand
for housing needs, if such existed, having the
amenities such as Restaurants, Doctors
Surgeries, Dentists, Schools, Shops, Banks,
Public Houses, Estate Agents, Hairdressers,
Regular Bus services, Post Office, Parish
Church etc etc. Notwithstanding all of this,
many executive houses stand unsold in Darras
Hall.
Medburn contains none of the ¿above
amenities nor indeed is likely to acquire them
in the foreseeable future.
Mr David Hobson
32 Willow Way
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9RF
I support the proposal to construct 20 new
dwellings on land north east of Green Rigg at
Medburn.
The County Council has indicated that there is
a shortfall in land available for housing
development in Ponteland Parish and has
suggested that Green Belt deletions will be
needed.
The application site lies within an inset into the
Green Belt and would deliver 20 dwellings
without need for Green Belt deletion.
The development would therefore mitigate any
need for development in the Green Belt to
which great importance is attached by the
Government.
The location of the application site lies
between housing to the north, which is set
back from the highway (C345), housing
fronting onto the C345 and housing located
along the Avenue. It is therefore essentially
infilling between existing developed areas.
Medburn is a well established settlement and
the proposed development would be of an
appropriate scale and layout which would
benefit the overall shape of the developed
area in Medburn.
The site can be safely accessed from the
C345 and utility services are locally available.
Medburn is close to the village of Ponteland
where local services, including shops, schools
and health services are easily accessible.
The development is therefore demonstrably
sustainable development. The National
Planning Policy Framework has introduced
presumption in favour of sustainable
development and approval should therefore be
granted.
Carol McMonagle
Medburn House
Medburn
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 0JE
I am writing to register my concern and
objection to the planning application of
potential houses being built on land North East
of Green Rigg, Medburn, Northumberland.
I am very concerned about the impact that
new buildings would have on the water table
on this area of Medburn. The narrow road
along this part of Medburn is on a steep incline
which is quite dangerous when there is heavy
rain or snow. At the present time the green
open land being considered for planning,
absorbs a great deal of the water during rain
or snow, but if this area was covered by
tarmac and buildings there would be an
adverse affect with regard to standing water,
with nowhere for the run-off water to be
absorbed there could be potential flood risk to
all the existing properties.
There is already pressure on the utility
services in Medburn, there is no main Gas
Supply, main sewage services have to be
considered and at present we experience
frequent electricity power cuts. There is very
poor quality broadband service, BT telling us
there is difficulty enabling any more capacity
due to Medburn being half way between
Ponteland and Stamfordham exchanges.
As Medburn is a rural location there are poor
facilities for disabled accessibility as there are
no pavements which means that it is
dangerous for wheelchairs and pushchairs on
the narrow 'C' road. There would inevitably be
a huge increase in residential car use
increasing the maintenance of the road which
is already prone to potholes. There is a limited
bus service (2 hourly at present) which would
require new residents to use their own
transport, that would result in an increase in
road use.
I am objecting to the proposed plan of so
many houses being built on such a small area,
which would change the quiet, character of
this peaceful hamlet, causing a great deal of
disruption during the development stage and
permanently thereafter.