area planning committee west : 19 march...

AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEST : 19 MARCH 2014

Application No:

13/03134/FUL

Proposal: Construction of 18 new dwellings and associated access, landscaping and engineering works

Site Address Mill House, West Road, Ponteland, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE20 9SG

Applicant: Galliford Try Partnerships North Ltd, 2 Esh Plaza, Sir Bobby Robson Way, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE13 9BA

Agent: GVA, Fourth Floor, Central Square, Forth Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne Tyne And Wear NE1 3PJ

Valid Date: 17 October 2013 Expiry Date:

16 January 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 more

than five written objections and a Ponteland Town Council objection and therefore the decision falls to be determined by the West Area Planning Committee under the provisions of the Council’s delegation scheme.

1.2 The application was initially considered by Members at the meeting of the

West Area Planning Committee on 19th February 2014 when the making of a decision was deferred to allow for Members to visit the site. The Committee site visit took place on Monday 10th March 2014.

2. Description of the Proposals 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of 18 apartments and

associated access, landscaping and engineering works at Mill House, West Road, Ponteland.

2.2 The site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land with an area of approximately

0.42ha which is located towards the western edge of Ponteland village centre. The site was previously developed with the offices of Galliford Try which have recently been demolished as part of a consent for the redevelopment of the site with seven detached dwellings that was granted in 2012. The office was a two storey L shaped building constructed of stone and slate that provided just under 5000m2 of office space and associated parking. Due to a change in ground levels between West Road and the main part of the application site the access off West Road is steeply graded.

2.3 The site is located within the settlement boundary of Ponteland and within

Flood Risk Zone 3. The surrounding area comprises a mix of commercial and residential properties with the defined Ponteland Shopping Centre and Office Policy Zones being located immediately to the north and east of the site. The site itself is not allocated for any specific land use purpose in the Local Plan but is partially included within a Landscape Corridor. To the south of the site is the River Pont. Ponteland Park is located to the south east of the site with the existing Scout Hut adjoining the application site boundary.

2.4 The proposed redevelopment of the site would comprise the construction of

one five storey apartment block containing 18 apartments on the western part of the site. Access to the apartments would be via the existing access road and the access upgraded as part of the scheme.

2.5 The apartment block would measure 15 metres in height at its highest point

and 13 metres in height towards West Road. The proposed design has been amended since the original submission and now proposes a complex with a mono pitch roof with stone, render and stone panelling with glazed balconies on the rear. The complex would consist of 15no. two double bedroom apartments and 3no. three double bedroom apartments, a communal entrance with lift and stair access to all apartments. The majority of parking would be located underneath the apartment accommodation which begins at first floor level due to restrictions within the flood risk zone. A number of bays would also be located outside of the built form of development utilising the

topography of the site. There would be a total of 22 car parking spaces and 12 cycle spaces proposed within the site.

2.6 The south elevation of the proposed apartment block would overlook

Ponteland Park. This element of the scheme contains glass balconies to maximise the views over the park. The majority of the proposed living space has been kept to this side of the building with circulation space and bedroom/bathroom accommodation kept to the northern side.

3. Planning History

Reference Number: 11/01399/FUL

Description: Demolotion of existing office building and construction of seven

detached new dwellings

Status: Approved

Reference Number: 12/02601/VARYCO

Description: Variation of Condition 2 relating to planning permission 11/01399/FUL

(Demolition of existing office building and construction of seven new dwellings)

Status: Approved

Reference Number: 12/02876/VARYCO

Description: Variation of Condition 16 (bat mitigation) of 11/01399/FUL (Demolition of

existing office building and construction of seven new dwellings)

Status: Approved

Reference Number: 12/02969/DISCON

Description: Discharge of conditions relating to permission ref 11/01399/FUL

(Demolition of existing office building and construction of seven new dwellings)

Status: Approved

4. Consultee Responses

Ponteland Town Council

Object on the following grounds:

The site is in a prominent position and requires sensitive treatment, but the proposed building is too large; with a scale, mass and height that will dominate the surrounding area and be out of proportion with the neighbouring small scale, traditionally built housing.

The proposed design is unsympathetic to its surroundings as it brings inappropriate urbanisation to a semi-rural area; being adjacent to Ponteland Park and on the edge of the Green Belt.

The street scene would be adversely changed and the landscape corridor seriously undermined.

The allocated number of car parking spaces is insufficient for the proposed 18 apartments.

The access road is very steep (too steep to be adopted) and there are considerable problems with access to and

from the site in bad weather, especially in the winter when there is snow and ice. It is impossible to negotiate the slope in such adverse weather conditions and, during such times, when this site was used for commercial purposes, employees' cars were parked on the roads, pavements and grass verges along the West Road (A696), Ladywell Way and Fox Covert Lane. This caused serious traffic problems on the busy A696 and for local residents; problems which would be exacerbated should such a large residential development be permitted.

Also, the steep slope provides the only access for emergency vehicles, utility vehicles, Environment Agency, local scouts and their families to the scout hut, Ponteland Town Council and the public to the Park and River Pont.

The difficulties associated with this very important access slope, and future arrangements for the maintenance and treatment of it, have not been addressed.

The area where the development is proposed is in a flood plain and in the event of flooding problems will be caused for residents and vehicles attempting to leave and access the site. Also, the effect of flooding on the proposed septic tank that will be installed for foul water gives particular concern with the potential pollution of the River Pont and the millrace.

This is an ecologically sensitive area, being next to the river and Ponteland Park; indeed, a 5m buffer zone for wildlife was required as part of the previous application, but this area has been decimated. This proposal to build so close to this zone and the river bank raises serious concerns and questions over stability, protection and future maintenance along the bank of the river; especially during the construction process and given that it is very possible that there will be erosion of the river bank on the outside of the bend.

Finally, we request that a site visit for West Area Planning Committee Members be arranged to enable them to fully appreciate the detrimental impact of this proposal in this location.

Highways Authority No objection subject to conditions

County Archaeologist No objection

County Ecologist No objection subject to conditions

Trees And Woodland Officer

No objection subject to conditions

Public Protection No objection subject to conditions

Waste Management No response received

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

No objection subject to conditions

Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions

Natural England No objection

Northumbrian Water No response received directly but have agreed to a connection with the mains sewer through the applicant.

5. Public Responses Neighbour Notification

Number of Neighbours Notified 26

Number of Objections 57

Number of Support 0

Number of General Comments 0

Notices General Site Notice, posted 21st November 2013 Press Notice - Hexham Courant, 25th October 2013 Summary of Responses: 57 letters of objection to the scheme have been received in total which includes comments on the original submission and to the amended design changes. Objections have been received on the following material planning grounds:

The building is visually unappealing;

Winter access in snow and ice will cause issues;

Insufficient parking and repercussions of parking outside of site on West Road and residential streets;

Drainage issues;

Concerns over septic tank particularly when it floods;

Too large, to dominant and overbearing;

Design is industrial and out of keeping;

The access is dangerous;

Concerns over the park and its wildlife;

Risk of flooding in general and with reference to the scout hut;

Negative impact on the use of the scout hut and its members;

The scheme is invasive;

Noise and light pollution particularly for the park and wildlife;

The density is out of keeping;

The site is ecologically sensitive and developers have not adhered to the buffer zone imposed in the past;

The site should be developed within the footprint and size of the original Mill House development; and

Materials are inappropriate. 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) C11 Protected species C13 Wildlife Corridors H15 New housing developments PC1 Ponteland: Settlement boundary PC3 Ponteland: Landscape Corridors 6.3 Other Documents/Strategies Castle Morpeth Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) 7. Appraisal 7.1 The main issues for consideration in the assessment of the application are:

Principle of Development Affordable Housing Siting and Design Neighbour Amenity Highways Flood Risk Ecology Archaeology

Principle of Development 7.2 The site is currently vacant due to the demolition of the office block which

previously occupied the site. The NPPF states that a range of sites should be available within town centres, including for residential development, and that Local Planning Authorities should normally approve planning applications for change of use to residential from commercial where there is an identified need for housing in that area. The Council's most recent published assessment of its five year housing land supply position contained within the document "Northumberland Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites 2013 - 2018" which was published in October 2013 identifies that within the former Castle Morpeth area, housing land supply fell short of the former RSS requirement of 799 units (adjusted to reflect a deficit of 43 units for the 2004 -2013 period and the application of a 20% buffer) by 233 units. It is also acknowledged that within Ponteland housing delivery is currently very poor and has been for some time. Given the above, in accordance with the NPPF, the proposal should be considered in the context of sustainable development.

7.3 The site is within the built up area of Ponteland centre and as such is within walking and cycling distance of a significant number of services including local schools, health centres, shops, pubs and restaurants. The site is also very accessible for the bus route which runs through Ponteland and has good transport links both into the centre of Ponteland and to neighbouring settlements. The residents of the proposed flats would also contribute economically to the services within Ponteland. It is therefore considered that the proposal constitutes sustainable development for the purposes of interpreting and applying the advice set out in the NPPF.

Affordable Housing 7.4 There are no Local Plan policies which require the provision of affordable

housing therefore the former Castle Morpeth Borough Council adopted an Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) pending adoption of its Core Strategy. As a result of Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 2009, the Castle Morpeth Core Strategy was never adopted and the IPPAH now forms part of the Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework. However, the IPPAH 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 useful starting point in negotiations for affordable housing provision within development schemes of more than 15 dwellings, only minimal weight can be attributed to it for the purpose of requiring a developer to provide affordable units within a scheme.

7.5 The applicant has submitted a financial viability appraisal with the application

which demonstrates that the redevelopment of the site has marginal profits without the provision of affordable housing and that the provision of affordable housing on-site, or a financial contribution towards off-site provision, would render the scheme unviable.

7.6 Due to the fact that very little weight can be attached to the IPPAH for the

purpose of insisting on the provision of an element of affordable housing within the scheme, coupled with the findings of the applicants submitted viability assessment, it is considered that the mitigating circumstances which have been put forward by the applicant are satisfactory to allow a departure from the IPPAH so that no affordable housing is to be provided on the site.

Siting and Design 7.7 Local Plan Policy H15 seeks to ensure a high standard of design for all new

housing development and in this respect aligns firmly with the good design principles set out in the NPPF. Policy H15 sets out a number of criteria against which proposals for residential development will be assessed including, amongst other things, proposals being compatible with any distinctive vernacular character present in the locality in respect of layout, design and materials, neighbouring residential amenity being protected through the appropriate spacing of existing and proposed buildings, space around dwellings being adequate to allow the proper functioning of gardens for amenity purposes, and adequate car parking facilities being provided.

7.8 The surrounding properties to the site consist of two storey semi-detached properties. There are other apartment complexes within Ponteland itself, albeit not directly adjacent to the site. The proposed block of apartments would be five storeys in height with a mono pitch roof design and undercroft car parking within the ground floor space. By way of comparison the previous permission granted in 2012 consisted of 6no three storey dwellings and one four storey dwelling. The site slopes steeply away from West Road and as such the visual impact of a five storey building would be lessened by the change in levels. The contextual drawings submitted with the application show the relationship between the dwellings opposite the site on West Road demonstrating that the highest point of the roof of the proposed apartment block would be only marginally higher than the roofs of these adjacent properties. It is considered that the sloping nature of the site is such that a development of this scale can be accommodated without adversely impacting upon the wider street scene of West Road. There is a significant drop in ground levels between West Road and the application site with a steep embankment dropping down from the public highway. The entire apartment complex would be situated well beneath the adjacent road level. This is in comparison to the existing permission which proposed four dwellings dug into the embankment. This means that the built form of development on the site would be kept at a lower level and further back into the site than the existing permission and consequently would not be as visually prominent from West Road. Given the change in levels on the site, the impression of the development from outside of the site in the context of the West Road street scene would not appear as a five storey development. The exception to this would be when viewed from West Road heading west out of Ponteland when the full view of the complex would be visible due to the access road opening views into the site. The proposed development would also be visible from within Ponteland Park as was the previous office building. Given the change in levels on the site it is not considered that the proposed apartment complex would adversely affect views into or out of Ponteland Park or have a detrimental impact upon its setting.

7.9 The wider street scene in this part of Ponteland is to an extent protected by

Policies C13 and PC3 of the Local Plan which identify this site as falling within a Landscape Corridor where, in the interests of improving the general amenity of Ponteland, “green corridors” will be encouraged along its main approach roads. As West Road is the main approach road into the settlement from the west the application site is identified as being partially within this designated Landscape Corridor and both policies make clear that a landscaped zone with a depth of not less than 15m should be provided from the edge of the highway for the whole frontage of the development site. Neither policy allows built development within the landscaped zone. The majority of the proposed development allows for this 15m landscape buffer to be retained along the site frontage with the only exception being the north east corner of the building that would come within 14m of the highway edge. This is considered an improvement to the extant permission which allows built development much closer to the road and within the landscape corridor. Given the small nature of the built development being within this buffer zone it is considered that this element would not adversely impact on the landscape corridor and so would be acceptable in visual and landscape terms. It should be noted that the previous office building that occupied the site lay within 11m of the highway

edge again demonstrating that the apartment block being proposed would result in a strengthened landscape buffer along the frontage of the site.

7.10 This part of West Road is strongly characterised by buildings being

constructed in close proximity to the public highway, not least by those residential properties directly opposite the application site on the north side of West Road (known as The Beeches) which are set back only a short distance (approximately 9m) from the highway edge. The proposed development would be located only on the lower part of the site thereby retaining an open and landscaped frontage to the site, particularly when compared to the existing permission which allows development much closer to the public highway. A robust landscaping scheme and subsequent management plan can also be secured through the use of appropriately worded planning conditions. This would accord with the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

7.11 In terms of the appearance of the apartment complex it is considered that the

proposed development would integrate well into the context of the application site and its wider surroundings. The surrounding area is not characterised by any particular architectural style or palette of materials and instead features a wide range of property ages, styles and materials. The materials proposed for the building have been amended to introduce a mixture of stone panelling, timber cladding with a light coloured render. The balconies on the south elevation are now proposed in glass and the amended scheme as a whole is considered an improvement in design terms when compared to the originally submitted plans with high quality materials being utilised and the mix of materials having the effect of breaking up the mass of the building. The proposed materials would comprise a mix of existing materials from the vicinity including stone and render with a more modern contemporary use of timber cladding. The building would be contemporary in design and would contribute positively to the street scene without detracting from the existing visual characteristics of the area.

7.12 Subject to conditions controlling the use of materials and detailed elements of

the scheme it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its siting and design thus according with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H15 in these respects.

Neighbour Amenity 7.13 Although the proposal would result in an intensification of built development

on the application site, and a greater scale of development than the building which previously occupied the site, it is considered that there would not be an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of any neighbouring residential properties. The nearest neighbouring dwellings are located on the north side approximately 30m from the north west corner of the proposed block and 55m from the north east corner. To the south, east and west significant areas of mature planting beyond the site boundaries provide a natural screen for the development from adjacent properties and ensure that no issues of overlooking or loss of privacy would arise from the scheme. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring residential amenity thus according with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H15 in this respect.

Highways 7.14 The proposed scheme, as with the extant permission, proposes to widen the

access road into the site from West Road. The proposed development would have a total of 22 car parking spaces, 18 for the use of the apartments and 4 visitor parking spaces. The majority of car parking spaces would located beneath the accommodation in an undercroft parking arrangement. The Highways Authority has assessed the proposals and subject to conditions has raised no objection to the parking or access arrangements at the site.

Flood Risk 7.15 The proposal site is within Flood Risk Zone 3. A Flood Risk Assessment has

been submitted with the application. As the application would change the use of the site to a more vulnerable use then the exceptions test must be applied. The exception test states that it must be demonstrated that the development provides sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, that the development is on previously developed land and that a flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development is safe without increasing flood risk.

7.16 The development is on previously developed land and a flood risk

assessment has been submitted which the Environment Agency have assessed and have no objections to subject to conditions. In terms of the benefits it is considered that given the site is in an extremely sustainable location close to all local services and amenities, the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the flood risk together with the adequate flood risk assessment.

7.17 The Environment Agency had originally objected to the application on the

grounds that the flood risk assessment submitted was inadequate. Additional flood risk information has since been submitted to the Environment Agency and they have now withdrawn their previous objection. The Environment Agency has no outstanding objections to the scheme and the Council’s SuDS Officer is also satisfied with the information provided. It is therefore considered that the scheme is acceptable with respect to flood risk in accordance with the NPPF, subject to the conditions requested by the Environment Agency for an evacuation plan, mitigation measures and a scheme for surface water disposal.

7.18 Foul sewage was originally proposed to be dealt with via a septic tank.

Following initial objections from the Environment Agency the applicant has met with both the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water and has now agreed a scheme acceptable to all where foul drainage would be connected to the mains sewer system.

Ecology and trees 7.19 Policy C11 of the Local Plan, in line with guidance set out in the NPPF, seeks

to safeguard protected species and their habitat unless it can be demonstrated that any harm to these interests would be outweighed by the reasons for the proposed development. An ecological survey has been submitted with the application. Natural England and the County Ecologist

have assessed the reports and have raised no objection subject to a number of conditions securing the proposed mitigation measures. Subject to the recommended conditions it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact upon protected species or their habitat in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy C11.

7.20 The Council’sTree Officer has also examined the proposals and has no

objection to the scheme subject to tree protection measures for the remaining trees on site being conditioned.

Archaeology 7.21 A programme of building recording took place during the demolition of the

former Mill House which has provided information relating to the history and development of the site. This supports an earlier programme of building analyses. No archaeological features were identified during the archaeological monitoring of the grubbing–out of the floors and foundations of the demolished Mill House building. The earthwork survey of the proposed development area provided information relating to the landscape features in the immediate vicinity of the mill, including the well-preserved remains of the water management system associated with the post-medieval mill.

7.22 The proposed development site retains some limited archaeological potential

in the form of the surviving mill race and pond. However, the earlier archaeological evaluation and the results of the building recording, watching brief and earthwork survey provide a full record of the mill and its associated landscape features. It is unlikely that there are any surviving buried archaeological remains associated with an earlier mill, as was suggested in the earlier Desk-Based Assessment, exist or survive. Given that further archaeological mitigation is unlikely to provide any additional meaningful information relating to the development of the site, no further archaeological mitigation would be required.

8. Conclusion 8.1 The proposal would constitute sustainable development for the purposes of

interpreting and applying the advice set out in the NPPF. The Council does not currently have a five year supply of housing land in the former Castle Morpeth area or County as a whole and the principle of residential development on this site has previously been established through the granting of planning permission for seven detached dwellings in 2012.

8.2 In terms of affordable housing, due to the fact that very little weight can be

attached to the IPPAH and in the absence of any other adopted affordable housing policy, it is considered that the mitigating circumstances which have been put forward by the applicant in terms of the financial viability of the scheme are satisfactory to allow a departure from the IPPAH on this occasion.

8.3 Given the change in levels and siting of the proposed apartment building it is

not considered that the five storey building would appear as a five storey dwelling from West Road and the change in levels would lessen the impact the building would have together with the built form of the development being kept to the lower part of the site. The surrounding area is not characterised by

any particular architectural style or palette of materials and instead features a wide range of property ages, styles and materials. The materials proposed for the building have been amended to introduce a mixture of stone panelling, timber cladding with a light coloured render and is considered a contemporary design which would contribute positively to the area in visual terms.

8.4 Given the separation distances involved there would not be any detrimental

impact on neighbouring residential amenity. 8.5 A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application and the

Environment Agency has raised no objection to the scheme subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions.

8.6 Subject to the recommended conditions it is not considered that the scheme

would cause a detrimental impact on archaeological remains or ecological interests within the site.

9. Recommendation That this application be GRANTED permission subject to the following conditions: Conditions/Reason 01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 02. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following approved plans:

1. Proposed site plan 12032-P-102-RevC 2. Proposed site plan – boundary treatments 12032-P-105-Rev A 3. Ground and first floor plan 12032-P-200-G 4. Fourth floor and roof plan 12032-P-202-G 5. Proposed site plan with constraints 12032-P-103-Rev P 6. Proposed contextual elevations and section 12032-P-301-Rev D 7. Proposed contextual elevations 12032-P-300-Rev D 8. Second and third floor plan 12032-P-201-E

Reason: To ensure that the approved development is carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans. 03. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed landscaping scheme and management scheme for the site showing both hard and soft landscaping proposals, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings not later than the expiry of the next planting season following commencement of the development, or within such other time as may be approved with the Local Planning Authority. The landscaped areas shall be subsequently maintained to ensure establishment of the approved scheme, including watering, weeding and the replacement of any plants, or areas of seeding or turfing comprised in the approved

landscaping plans, which fail within a period up to 5 years from the completion of the development. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the satisfactory appearance of the development upon completion, and in accordance with the provisions of Policy H15. 04. No work shall commence on the development site unless the access to the A696 has been modified in accordance with a design and specification to be approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority and has been fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 05. 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. 06. 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. 07. 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. 08. 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. 09. The dwellings 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 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.

10. The area allocated for parking 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. 11. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a minimum of 22 parking spaces have been provided within the curtilage of the site. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway. 12. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied unless a turning area has been provided within the curtilage of the site 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. 13. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access to the site has been constructed generally in accordance with Type 6 of Northumberland County Council standard specifications with dropped kerbs and tactile paving to the existing footway, 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 which does not cause significant danger and inconvenience to other road users. 14. All trees and hedges within, and to the boundaries, of the site identified on either the approved tree survey or the approved application plans as being retained, shall be retained and protected throughout the course of development in accordance with a detailed scheme of works which shall first be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall be implemented in complete accordance with the approved scheme and shall remain in place throughout the course of the construction of the development, unless otherwise approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or hedges removed without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority, or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the completion of development or up to 12 months after occupation of the last dwelling shall be replaced with trees or hedging of such size, species in a timescale and in positions as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of existing trees and hedges in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF. 15. If during redevelopment contamination not previously considered is identified, then an additional method statement regarding this material shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and measures proposed to deal with the contamination have been carried out.

Reason: To protect the environment and ensure that the remediated site is reclaimed to an appropriate standard. 16. No development shall commence until a scheme to control dust, to be implemented for the duration of the site works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include methods to control dust from works and site management responses to incidents and complaints about dust arising from the site. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and ensure a commensurate level of protection against dust. 17. No development shall take place until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include: i. a timetable for its implementation, and ii. a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. Reason: To ensure the effective disposal of surface water for the lifetime of the development. 18. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) produced by BDN Ltd ref R0218 dated January 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1. Provision of compensatory flood storage as per drawing no. (GA)00_01 Rev P01, and sections (GA)00_03, 04, and 05. 2. Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the development as per section 5.3. 3. Ground floor levels are set no lower than 59.65m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently 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 Reason: 1. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided. 2. To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site. 3. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. 19. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme for emergency evacuation 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 ensure all residents can safely evacuate the development before flooding occurs. 20. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside the watercourse shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision. The schemes shall include: - plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone - details of any proposed planting scheme (native species) - details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of a management plan - details of any proposed fencing, lighting etc and how lighting will be excluded from the buffer zone - plans detailing the protection of the buffer zone and watercourse from silt and other polluted run-off from the site. Reasons 1. Development that encroaches on watercourses has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value. 2. Land alongside watercourses is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is protected. 21. No development until a detailed method statement for removing or the long-term management / control of Himalayan Balsam on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include proposed measures that will be used to prevent the spread of Himalayan balsam during any operations e.g. mowing, strimming or soil movement. It shall also contain measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free of the seeds / root / stem of any invasive plant covered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: This condition is necessary to prevent the spread of Himalayan Balsam which is an invasive species. Without it, avoidable damage could be caused to the nature conservation value of the site contrary to national planning policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109, which requires the planning system to aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. 22. Before development commences samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs of the dwellings hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that a high quality of design is achieved in the interests of the

appearance of the area and in accordance with the NPPF. 23. No lighting shall be installed on any part of the site unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, any lighting shall not be installed other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residential properties in accordance with the NPPF. 24. No development shall commence until a tree felling method statement documenting measures of avoidance of harm to bats has been submitted to the LPA for approval. The method statement shall follow guidance as set out in, ‘Bats & Trees in England’ BCT 2007 and ‘Bats in the Context of Tree Works’ Arboricultural Association Guidance Note No.1, 2011. Once the tree felling method statement has been approved in writing by the LPA no trees with an identified risk of supporting bats shall be felled unless in strict accordance with the approved method statement”. Reason: to prevent harm to a protected species. 25. No development shall be undertaken other than that which strictly accords with the Otter Method Statement - Mill House, West Road, Ponteland, received by email on 4 February 2014, E3 Ecology, which shall include:

All works to the riverbank will be undertaken in daylight hours, avoiding the first hour after dawn and the hour before sunset.

Once the riverbank has been suitably repaired, a 5m exclusion zone will be demarcated along the bank on the river and no plant access into this zone will be permitted.

The use of high intensity lighting which will illuminate the river corridor will be avoided both during the working period and following on from the completion of the project. This will involve the absence of security lighting from the rear of properties adjacent to the river.

Any excavations that are left overnight will either be covered or include a ramp of 45 degrees or less on one face to allow otter and other wildlife to climb out should they fall into the excavation.

Contractors should be made aware that otter may lie-up in stacked pipes or beneath pallets. These features should be inspected daily before the start of works.

Immediately following repair works to the riverbank, the area will be planted with dense scrub planting along the burn to reduce access for increased footfall created through residential development. Appropriate species are holly, bramble, hawthorn, blackthorn, alder and willow.

Should holt or resting sites be identified at any stage during works, a licence from Natural England will be sought prior to further works within 30m of the river continuing.

Reason: to prevent harm to a protected species. 26. 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 PPG5, Environment Agency, 2007’.

Reason: To ensure that a watercourse is not polluted or contaminated during development works. 27. No vegetation clearance 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. 28. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of integrated bird boxes (House Marten, Swift and House Sparrow) and tree mounted boxes shall be submitted for the written approval of the LPA. The scheme shall detail the location, height, orientation, numbers (though no fewer than 20 in total) and specification of bird nesting provision. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to dwellings are occupied. Reason: to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site. 29. Prior to the commencement of development an swept path analysis for refuse vehicles turning left out of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety. Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 13/03134/FUL

List and Comments of representations received:-

Name Address Summary of Comments

Friends Of

Ponteland Park

C/O

51 Eland Edge

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9AY

See attached copy of correspondence

Mr James Basil

Scott

74 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TE

I wish to object to the planning application by

Galliford Try for Mill House West Road

Ponteland. I have tried to follow your web

page and have successfully logged in but am

unable to find how to object to this application.

However I have viewed the plans at the local

council office and wish to object for the

following reasons: Outlook. The views of the

proposed flats are horrible, both from the main

road and from the park. Parking. There does

not seem to be any provision for Winter

access. History tells us that previous

occupants of this site could not drive out of the

access hill. They therefore parked on the main

A696 road and/or Ladywell Way causing traffic

problems. I feel this should be considered

before granting this application. Further the

proposal is for 22 parking spaces in total. If

any of the new 18 residents have more than

one vehicle or more than 4 visitors turn up, are

the surplus going to park on the main road or

Ladywell. Drainage It is a well established fact

that Ponteland is prone to flooding, particularly

the Park. I understand that the proposal is for

a septic tank for the soil water. What happens

when the river Pont floods? Is the park to be

contaminated by the overflow from the septic

tank.

I continue to object to this planning application:

The proposals are visually unappealing.

The problem of where the cars are parked

when snow /ice prevents access to/from the

site continue to concern us. As previously

outlined previous occupants parked on the

A696 West Road or in Ladywell Way. Neither

of these are acceptable.

What happens when the park floods? Will

Galliford Try bring buckets? I still strongly

object to this application.

Dorothy Stainsby

9 Meadow Court

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9RB

I wish to object to this proposed development

on the following grounds;

1. The proposed building is hideous. It is far

too large for the location, is dominating, and its

excessive height would produce an

overbearing effect on the houses opposite.

The proposed design of the building, with its

flat, industrial-style roof and surface is totally

out of keeping with the local streetscape, and

would ruin the townscape at the A696

entrance to Ponteland from the North.

2. The proposed sewage system is not robust

and seems to have serious potential problems,

with a real risk of discharge of raw sewage into

the River Pont.

3. The impact on Ponteland Park. The

clearance of the site has already had a

detrimental impact on the park and its wildlife.

Proposals for a 'wildlife corridor' are derisory

and inadequate.

Professor Richard

Walker

25 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ


Mary Mackley

24 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

I WISH TO RAISE OPJECTION TO THE

PLANNING APPLICATION 13/03134/ FUL -

FOR MILL HOUSE, WEST ROAD,

PONTELAND NE20 9SG

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ

There has already been disturbance to the

wildlife corridor and this will undoubtedly be

further disturbed if this building proceeds,

during construction and when occupied.

The building is completely out character for the

area. It will be too big, all houses nearby are 2

story semidetached. It will have a flat roof

when all near houses have a pitched roof. The

materials are also completely different to

nearby properties.

There is a danger of contamination to the river

Pont from surface run off from the car parking

area.

There is not enough car parking for 18 flats,

some of 2 bedrooms.

Access to West Road (the A696) is

dangerous, increased use will be a hazard.

Mr H Craggs

18 Hadrian Court

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9JU


Mr & Mrs T

Johnson

85 Cheviot View

Ponteland Road

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9BH

We wish to object to the above planning

application. We have examined the proposals

and understand them. We also know the site

well. We attended the public consultation and

had the opportunity to discuss the proposal.

This letter sets out our specific objections.

The proposed building is too large and

dominating in this location, from the view in

both the park and the A696. It is taller than

the nearby houses which creates an

overbearing effect and is not in keeping with

the street scene and the conservation area of

the village.

As well as the size of the proposed building,

the materials used make it appear more like

an industrial unit than private residences and

are completely unsuitable within a village park

area.

Mrs M. M. Taylor

12 Simonside

View

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TF


Dr & Mrs N

Trevarrow

54 West Road

Ponteland

Northumberland

NE20 9SX

We write to express our concerns in relation to

the above proposal. Our concerns particularly

relate to highway and parking issues. Whilst

we do not object to some dwellings being built

on the Mill House site, it is our opinion that

such a large building with 18 apartments is too

many for this location. It is naive of the

developers to think that the 18 apartments will

only require one parking space each. Most

households now have two cars and there is

not enough provision made for this in the

plans. Four extra "visitor" parking spaces will

not meet the need for the number of people

who will reside in the dwelling. The plans

demonstrate inadequate parking

considerations for both the current residents

and the future occupants of the apartments.

At times we have experienced people parking

along West Road either side of the entrance to

the site. It is inevitable that this will become a

permanent situation if these plans are to

proceed as detailed. The issue is that when

there are cars parked on West Road either

side of the entrance to the site, there are

severe safety concerns as detailed below:

o The visibility of drivers wanting to exit

the site of the apartments is compromised and

drivers have to pull out fully into the main road

in order to see and make a right turn. We

have witnessed many near misses as a result

of this in the past.

o Cars parked along West Road will

prevent us having a safe turning space to

access our narrow driveway.

o Cars parked along West Road situated

half on the road and half on the narrow

footpath would leave no room for pedestrians.

The footpath is frequently used, particularly by

young families with pushchairs wanting to

access the park.

o The access to the site is incredibly

steep and not accessible when there is ice or

snow. When the Galliford Try property was

there, the employees parked along West Road

whenever there was bad weather or risk of

flooding. This is how we are aware of the

above safety issues noted. There is no

indication as to how this issue with steep

access to the site is addressed in the plans.

When reviewing these plans, please consider

that West Road is a busy road with heavy

traffic including farm vehicles, large lorries,

army convoys and coaches. We would

suggest you consider double yellow lines

either side of the entrance to the site whatever

the final number of dwellings to address the

safety concerns listed above. We would also

reiterate that 18 dwellings are too many and

are not adequately provided for in terms of

parking within the plans which will lead to a

permanent situation of residents and visitors of

residents parking outside of the proposed site.

A further concern relates to the layout and

siting of the development. The building is

large and five stories high which will be rather

imposing situated as it is adjacent to the park

and in an area of natural beauty.

We would ask that you take these points into

consideration and ask the developers to

propose a building more suited to its location

with enough provision for it to be self

contained within the space they have

available, which includes parking provision.

R W & M Moore

56 West Road

Ponteland

Northumberland

NE20 9SX


Mr And Mrs DA

And F M

Wealleans

1 Ladywell Way

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB


James F Milligan

10 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ


Rob Kinniburgh

6 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ


Richard Walker

1st Ponteland

Scout Group

40 Pembroke

Drive

Ponteland

Newcastle

NE20 9HS

Thank you for your recent letter advising about

the amendment to the above plan.

On behalf of the 1st Ponteland Scout Group I

have examined the amendment and the

changes made in it. As far as I can see the

only changes proposed relate to the external

appearance of the building. Since the Scout

Group's original objection made no reference

to the appearance of the proposed building

nothing in this amendment changes our view

of the proposal. Nothing has been suggested

to address the fundamental issues of access,

inadequate parking provision, increased flood

risk to our premises and wholly inappropriate

plans for sewage disposal. Based on the

"reason for amendment" shown on the new

plan I assume that there have been

discussions between your department and the

applicant and it is very worrying that this is the

only amendment that they have considered

necessary to propose.

I would therefore like to reiterate our

objections to the Planning Application and this

amendment for the reasons detailed below.

Information about the 1st Ponteland Scout

Group

The Scout Group is based in the Headquarters

building just inside Ponteland Park adjacent to

the site of the proposed development. We

deliver Scouting to young people between the

ages of 6 and 18. We currently have 150 youth

members.

Access to our building is through the Galliford

Try site and into the park. This access is

guaranteed by a legal agreement between

Galliford Try (as successors to Kendal Cross),

the Town Council and ourselves.

Most of our activities take place in the

evenings during the week with meetings in the

Headquarters building every evening from

Sunday to Thursday. There are occasional

additional activities during the day at

weekends. Our access traffic is therefore

heaviest outside normal working hours.

Observations made during normal daytime

hours will give no information about the extent

of our use.

The first and foremost responsibility of our

volunteer leaders is the safety and security of

our young members. This can never be

compromised.

Against this background our specific

objections are:

1. Access

We were pleased to see that our right of

access is clearly acknowledged a number of

times in the proposal but we need to be clear

that this access should always be available

and should be sufficient to allow for

emergency service vehicles and other large

vehicles that we use from time to time to take

and return equipment for camping activities

away from Ponteland.

During the construction phase the proposal

implies that access will be closed for periods of

time. This is not acceptable as emergency

service vehicles may be needed at any time.

In addition leaders need to bring and take

away equipment as required for their

programme.

Just as importantly our young members need

to have a safe access through a construction

site and this safety needs to be guaranteed.

After completion of the development access

will remain a problem. The plan shows a clear

access route with designated parking spaces

but unfortunately residents and visitors will be

unlikely to adhere to the plan. There is one

space per residence which is to be designated

to the specific residence and should not

therefore be used by anyone else. This then

leaves four visitor spaces which is unlikely to

be sufficient. The fifth and subsequent visitors

will therefore park wherever they can find a

gap and this is most likely to be on the access

road or obstructing the gate into the park.

People looking to park their cars do not, in

general, show much consideration for others.

The plan for the provision of car parking

spaces is insufficient compared to the County

Council policy (Car Parking Standards in

Northumberland 1996). Since the development

is not in a defined urban area where

alternative public parking is available then the

County Council policy would call for the

provision of 39 allocated residents' spaces (30

if the parking is designated as communal

rather than allocated) plus 4 visitor spaces.

With access impaired the result will be that

parents will park on West Road - a very busy

main road. Unloading and loading young

people on this road is a major safety concern

and should be avoided.

There is no footpath or lighting shown on the

access road. This is a safety hazard for young

people walking up and down what will become

a busy access.

The fundamental problem is that the site is not

large enough to support 18 dwellings.

2. Future Relations with the Residents

Once the development is complete and the

new residents move in there is the potential for

endless aggravation between them and

ourselves. It is unlikely that they will be

informed during the purchase process of the

level of traffic along the access road to and

from our premises during the evenings. This,

together with the noise made by exuberant

young people enjoying their activities, is likely

to cause an unacceptable disturbance to the

residents. Equally we will be displeased when

their visitors, with insufficient parking spaces

block our access into the park.

3. Increased Flood Risk to Our Premises

Given our own recent experiences with

flooding we are very concerned about anything

that might impact on the potential for

increased flood risk to our property. The

proposed development results in a net

increase in impermeable area. This increased

run off is likely to go down hill to our

headquarters building. The plans also state

that the new floor level at 59.775 m results in a

loss of flood plain area. Again this puts

additional risk on our building.

As a result of our recent flood history we can

no longer obtain insurance for flood risk. Any

flood damage caused by increased run off will

have to be paid from our own funds.

4. Sewage Disposal

The proposal provides sewage disposal for the

development by means of a septic tank. This

is to be located at the lowest point of the site

which is under the access road immediately in

front of the gate into the park. During the

construction phase this will result in a

significant period of loss of access to the park.

After construction ongoing maintenance and

cleaning will also result in loss of access.

More importantly the discharge of clean water

from the septic tank into the storm water sewer

is at 57.447 m which is well below the likely

flood level. This means that any flooding would

likely result in a reverse flow into the septic

tank and the raw sewage emptying downhill

onto our premises. Cleaning up after a river

flood is bad enough without the addition of raw

sewage.

The sewage disposal should be routed to the

current Northumbria Water sewer which runs

through the site.

5. Site Boundaries

At points the development site shares a

common boundary with the Scout Group. We

need to be certain that these boundaries are

respected and that all boundary fencing is

reinstated to an acceptable standard whilst still

allowing access around our building for routine

maintenance.

Mr J.M Brown

4 Woodlands

Ponteland

Newcastle

NE20 9EU


Mrs Alma Prickett

19 Darras Road

Darras Hall

Ponteland

Northumberland

NE20 9PD

I reiterate my comments of 8th November

2013.

This revised application does not detract in

any way from the objection to this totally out of

place development on Ponteland riverside.

The construction is too invasive on an area so

far protected by vegetation and silence at

night. The size of the building which faces the

river with balconies so near to the river edge

will therefore cause light and noise pollution

which will drastically affect value of the wildlife

corridor through Ponteland. Therefore all

wildlife, otter, kingfisher, bats etc. will be

discouraged from visiting our park.

The height, design and the flat roof of the

building are completely out of place compared

with the old, stone building which was the Mill

House.

Any construction should be of stone to

harmonise with the original atmosphere

created by the original Mill House.

The boundary to the site should be bounded,

both on the riverside and the west side, with

close boarded fence to protect from trespass,

as far as is possible, local wildlife from this

intrusion. The wooded area to the west is of

particularly high value to local wildlife and it is

important that it remains undisturbed.

This fencing should be conditional on any

further permission granted to the applicant.

Given previous disregard by the applicant of

previous planning conditions any further

development should be particularly closely

monitored.

The density of development is completely out

of keeping with any habitation within at least

half a mile and therefore is totally

unacceptable.

Given the likelihood of the site to flood it (see

photographic proof provided elsewhere) and

with the present weather conditions it is

amazing that the Planning Authority could

possibly countenance such a densely

populated construction well within the proven

flood plain.

On behalf of Friends of Ponteland Park we

unreservedly object to the construction of

accommodation of this density in the flood

plain and reiterate our objections of 6th

November 2013.

The damage to wildlife in this area will be

irreversible.

The proposal by the applicant totally illustrates

the lack of care for the environment which is

illustrated by the design and location of the

over large building with the activity thus

engendered with an access to the site which is

both inadequate and vulnerable to the heavy

traffic on the A696.

It is essential that the riverside and the

boundary to the west of the site is protected by

a close boarded fence to protect areas of great

importance to local wildlife.

Alma Prickett

Treasurer to Friends of Ponteland Park

Mr David Butler

8 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

Millhouse Close ¿ proposal to build 18

apartments by Galliford Try ¿ 13/03134/FUL

We are writing to object to the above planning

application on the following grounds:

1. The proposed building is too large and

dominating in this location and of a mass that

is out of proportion to the other buildings in the

vicinity.

2. This building will replace a Northumbrian

stone-built mill; and as such, the proposed

design is inappropriate and out of sympathy

with its surroundings on the edge of the

country park, and with the houses of the West

Road, The Beeches and Ladywell Way.

3. The developers have allocated insufficient

car parking spaces for the number of proposed

dwellings ¿ the developers have stated that

the apartments are designed for young

professionals and those who wish to

downsize. The developer has used totally out

of date criteria (Castle Morpeth figures, agreed

in 2003 and ¿saved¿ by NCC in 2007) to

determine the required number of parking

spaces, 18 for the apartments and 4 for

visitors. Under NCC current car parking

strategy, published under the Preferred

Options document as part of the emerging

Core Strategy

http://northumberland.limehouse.co.uk/file/244

5216 the minimum number of spaces required

for these flats should be 36 plus 4 visitor

spaces.

4. The area where the development is

proposed is in a flood plain. Yes, the

installation of a ground floor parking area

negates the flood risk to the dwellings but, in

the event of flooding of the site, what happens

to the septic tank that will be installed for foul

water ? ¿ pollution of the River Pont !

5. When the area is flooded residents will be

effectively marooned, as floodwater can reach

several inches deep across the whole of the

site.

6. The unadopted access road to the site is

very steep, with an approximate gradient of 1

in 8. We have lived in Ladywell Way for over

30 years, even in mild winters the site is

inaccessible for several days each winter due

to snow and ice, in severe winters it can be

inaccessible for up to 2 weeks. This is in spite

of provision of a salt/grit box at the top of the

slope. What will happen when emergency /

utility vehicles need access to the site? Who

maintains the supply of salt on what is a

private development ?

7. When this site was used for commercial

purposes, employees¿ cars were parked

along the busy A696 opposite the entrance to

Ladywell Way, opposite The Beeches and on

the grass verges at the end of Ladywell Way,

sometimes even blocking the pavements,

especially during the winter. Cars were also

parked down Ladywell Way where they

caused a traffic hazard due to the narrowness

of the road and the proximity of the busy

junction with the A696. If this were the case

when the site was used for business purposes,

how much more so when the site has a

residential use?

8. This size of this development has the

potential to cause severe difficulties for the

local scouts and their families who need clear

access to the nearby scout hut. We realise

that this is not a planning issue, but should be

taken into consideration when drawing up the

conditions that should be applied to this site.

9. The area next to the river and the adjacent

park is ecologically sensitive. This

development has the potential to adversely

affect the delicate ecological balance of both

the park these areas. The developer is aware

that as a condition of building on the site a 5

metre buffer zone must be preserved between

the development and the river. When the site

was cleared prior to development under the

previous planning application 12 months ago,

this condition was completely ignored and the

resulting devastation to the river bank can still

be seen today. It is essential to the health of

the wildlife in the area that this condition be

stringently observed and measures put in

place to ensure that this will continue in

perpetuity. Northumberland Wildlife Trust

would be the obvious organisation to monitor

this wildlife corridor, but any measures that are

put in place must be written into the

conditions.

We have no objection in principle to the

development of this brownfield site, but not of

this magnitude and not this design. Serious

consideration must be given to amending the

design so that is has much less visual impact

on the surrounding environment, reducing the

size of the development, and to providing a

realistic number of parking places. Such

amendments would go a long way towards

meeting many of our concerns.

Could I re-iterate my strong objections to these

proposals please ?

The applicant has modified some of the details

which affect the appearance of the building,

but these go nowhere near satisfying one of

the main planks of my opposition to these

flats.

There have been several instances in the past

five years, during which time I was chairman of

the Ponteland Town Council planning group,

where planning officers refused an application

based upon a new building/extension being

'out of keeping' with the surrounding

properties, generally under C.M.L.Plan policy

H14 (Proposals ... will be permitted if all of the

following criteria are met :- etc. etc.)

I submit that the proposed design of the

building is NOT in keeping with surrounding

properties, which are 1930's - 1960's

traditional houses, and will have an adverse

effect of the street scene.

The proposed design would not look out of

place on Newcastle Quayside, where there is

a mix of new designs, but in a residential area,

at the entrance to the village, definitely not.

I support the need for development on the site,

but surely the design could be more in keeping

with what was there previously (a stone clad,

two to three storey block) which did enhance

the area.

I understand that the developer needs to

maximise his return on the site, but profitability

should not be taken into account when

deciding a planning application, so reducing

the height of the building to have 12 flats for

example (i.e. losing the top floor) would be

preferable to what is proposed.

I trust that my previous comments on this

proposal will still be considered.

John Hague

12 High View

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9ET


Mr P C Cooper

4 The Cloggs

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9UJ


Mr thomas

armstrong

48 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Northumberland

NE20 9TE

Myself and my wife wish to raise our

objections to the Mill House proposal of 18

new dwellings to be built to be on this site. Our

reasons are that the proposal is to large for the

area available. The site proposes car parking

for the properties that would not be sufficient.

We as occupants of the Ladywell estate have

suffered from when the property was an office

site and the workers did not have enough car

parking spaces , so they parked on the West

Road which made access to and from our

estate very difficult and also created traffic flow

problems on the West Road.As you know this

is a major link to the Borders and to the

A696.We feel that the developers should

revise their plans and propose a much smaller

development that hopefully would not impact

visually on neighbouring properties and as we

believe will cause traffic flow problems on a

major road.The parking issue is a very

important issue to be considered as history

from when it was an office shows the problems

incurred then.

Mr And Mrs RB

And J Oliver

38 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TE


Mr thomas

armstrong

48 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Northumberland

NE20 9TE























incurred then.

Mr Andrew Gonnet

14 Rothley Close

Ponteland

1) Size, in particular number of floors,

ground/parking & 4 floors. The building is

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TD

much higher than the building it replaces,

ground & & 1 floor. I am unhappy that it will be

clearly visible from the main road. In addition,

this building will be clearly visible within the

park, & being effectively in the park it could be

seen as the start of developments within the

park.

2) The style of the new building is not in

keeping with other properties in the vicinity.

3) Inadequate parking. There are only 18

allocated + 4 visitor spaces, residents may

park second vehicles on the highway. When

cars park opposite the end of Ladywell Way

this creates a traffic hazard for drivers using

the Ladywell Way junction. Also, cars parked

on pavements, create a hazard for

pedestrians.

4) The bank is very steep, it is difficult to use in

icy or snowy winter conditions. This will

increase the likelihood of cars being parked on

the main highway.

5) Flooding is a serious risk. The Scout hut

has been flooded in recent years. While this

building would be marginally higher than the

Scout hut, with changing weather patterns,

flooding is highly probable.

6) Safe access to the Scout hut for the

children is high priority. The safety of these

children will be reduced by having a greater

number of cars using the access road. Also,

access & parking for parents taking &

collecting children in cars will be an issue.

7) Environment: Wildlife, trees & plants. I am

very unhappy with the way the bank has been

torn apart. Trees & ground cover have been

violently removed with little consideration for

wildlife. I see very little consideration in the

plans for future provisions.

8) Environment: Energy. There are

opportunities here that have been missed. For

example, the building could be heated using a

heat pump extracting heat from the river Pont

& the roof of the building could be green roof,

providing habitat for insects & wildlife while

helping cool the building in summer & keep it

warm in winter.

I have reviewed the changes to this

application. These do not address my previous

concerns, listed below.

1) Size, number of floors, ground/parking & 4

floors. The building is much higher than the

building it replaces, ground & & 1 floor. I am

unhappy that it will be clearly visible from the

main road. In addition, this building will be

clearly visible within the park, & being

effectively in the park it could be seen as the

start of developments within the park.

2) The style of the new building is not in

keeping with other properties in the vicinity.

3) Inadequate parking. There are only 18

allocated + 4 visitor spaces, residents may

park second vehicles on the highway. When

cars park opposite the end of Ladywell Way

this creates a traffic hazard for drivers using

the Ladywell Way junction. Also, cars parked

on pavements, create a hazard for

pedestrians.

4) The bank is very steep, it is difficult to use in

icy or snowy winter conditions.

5) Flooding is a serious risk. The Scout hut

has been flooded in recent years. While this

building would be marginally higher than the

Scout hut, with changing weather patterns,

flooding is highly probable.

6) Safe access to the Scout hut for the

children is high priority. The safety of these

children will be reduced by having a greater

number of cars using the access road. Access

& parking for parents taking & collecting

children in cars will be an issue.

7) Environment: Wildlife, trees & plants. I am

very unhappy with the way the bank has been

torn apart. Trees & ground cover have been

violently removed with little consideration for

wildlife. I see very little consideration in the

plans for future provisions.

8) Environment: Energy. There are

opportunities here that have been missed. The

building could be heated using a heat pump

extracting heat from the river Pont & the roof

of the building could be a green roof, providing

habitat for insects & wildlife while helping cool

the building in summer & keep it warm in

winter.

Mrs Jennifer Ham

1 Lynwood Close

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9JG

The developers have not adequately studied

the history and landscaping of the site .

A five storey building is inappropriate. Inspite

of developer comments, it would be higher

than those houses opposite.

The building is too large and European in style

- it will not be

disguised by any extra trees/greenery which

might be planted on the

street side and be a complete eyesore in the

rural park to which it would be adjoining. It

would conflict with the buildings already along

the A696 West Road and the whole of

Ponteland Town Centre. Please note that

even the Waitrose supermarket building was

built some years ago in surface treatment

(stone) to tie in with surroundings.

Surface treatment of the building is

inappropriate - stone and brickwork have

been avoided .

I do not believe that the proposed wild-life

corridor nor the distance quoted from the River

Pont will be sufficient . Otters in particular are

regularly at the site.

I am concerned that the building WILL be

subject to flooding ,

(causing concern to those elderly

"downsizing" residents whom the

developers intend to attract.) I wish to quote

the research on flooding matters undertaken

and submitted by Mr. John Blundell.

Importantly the sewerage system proposed

would not be sustainable and

"fool proof". Failures could easily cause

much damage to the

natural ecology of the site and River Pont.

(18 x 2 bedroom

flats, 18 discharges from washing machines

and dishwashers...

blockages.... etc. not to mention pump

breakdown. possible improper maintenance of

the equipment etc )

There is no proper path down the slip road to

the site, and the only other access is a very

steep flight of steps at the far end of the site

from the A696. Much railing would be needed

for safety purposes and the

flight of steps would need to be staggered .

How could wheel chairs

and motorised buggies cope with the steep

drive.?

Car parking is inadequate,, and how would

essential service

vehicles such as those for refuse collection

safely access the site

from the A696. - particularly in bad weather,

ice, snow and when

fallen leaves cause problems. ? Not to

mention fire and ambulance

services.

The stability of the banking has been

compromised between the site and the A696

not only the western edge but behind the

Scout Hut where an area of dolomite has now

been spread because of Japanese

Knotweed..

There is a tri-partite arrangement regarding

parking on the site between Galliford Try

(formerly with Kendall Cross Holdings ltd), the

Ponteland Town Council and the First

Ponteland Scout Group.

This in itself precludes a larger development of

dwellings in view of the many vehicles of the

Scout movement using the site regularly every

evening.

The applicant has made such errors in his

development of the site and

he should be made to comply with an S106

agreement - no exceptions

should be made here which would create a

precedent.

In all, I believe that such is the sensitivity of

the site that in view of all the above factors

and, if the developers still wants to build

flats,he should be held to the provision of a

STONE BUILT building ON THE FOOTPRINT

OF THE ORIGINAL MILL HOUSE, NO

HIGHER AND NO LARGER.

Philip Ham

1 Lynwood Close

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9JG

On behalf of the Ponteland Civic Society, I

object to the above Application. This letter

should be read in conjunction with

PONT.APS.2013.14.doc forwarded by our Mr.

John Hague on the same subject, but which

was concerned with very important visual and

related aspects.

1. The proposed car-parking provisions are not

adequate. Under the provisions of the

Retained CMBC Policy T11 and

Northumberland County Council Parking

Standards (1996) for "Communal" parking, at

least 18 places would be required.

2. According to a Tripartite Covenant originally

drawn up between Ponteland Parish Council,

the Ponteland Scout Group and Kendall Cross

(Holdings) Ltd., we understand that car

parking was not permitted on the sloping

access road leading down to this site from the

A696. Presumably Galliford Try Ltd. are still

bound by this Agreement but appear to have

ignored it.

3. The steep access road is not of adequate

width for the simultaneous safe passage of

pedestrians and motor traffic, and the

proposed pedestrian access steps could also

be difficult and unsafe - particularly in winter

conditions. These matters are of some

importance since the Applicant has indicated

(in discussion) that these flats are particularly

aimed at elderly buyers who are trading-down

from larger Darras Hall properties.

4. The view of the proposed building from

Ladywell Way and adjacent houses along the

north side of the A696 is extremely

overbearing. The surface treatment of teak,

larch, brick, render and glass panels is over-

complex and intrusive. The width of the

building would give rise to a much greater

angle in the horizontal plane than in the

previous case where seven houses had been

approved.

5. Although the height of the building is

claimed to be no more than that originally

approved for seven houses, the building as a

whole will be completely out of character with

the existing houses on the A696 by reason of

the dominance of the proposed five-storey

structure and its entirely inappropriate flat roof.

Only pitched roofs were proposed in the

original Application for seven houses. For

these reasons we consider that, if the

Application is allowed, a pitched roof of

compatible materials must be specified

together with the removal of the 5th storey (to

lower the sight line) and the possible use of

dormer windows.

6. We do not consider that the narrow "Wildlife

Corridor" squeezed in between the proposed

building and the north bank of the River Pont

is fit for purpose.

7. We note that the original Application for

seven houses was recommended for approval

in spite of the Environment Agency's (E.A.)

objections on the grounds of Flooding Risk.

The National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) specifically states that building should

not take place on areas subject to Flooding

Risk (pp. 100 & 103).

8. It would appear that the latest data from the

E.A. has not been referred to in the present

Application; no account would appear to have

been taken of the effect of heavy debris

carried round the sharp turn in the river at this

point and impacting on the building itself; the

lower floor level (parking) above datum would

not appear to be high enough to avoid the

possibility of flooding of the parking floor -

which includes the access and escape routes

for the whole building as well as the car park.

9. No acceptable scheme for the disposal of

sewage has been described. A surface water

storage tank under the car park is shown with

a volume of approx. 72 cu. m.

and this is connected to a restricting device

(Hydrobrake MH) of which the only outlet is

directly into the River Pont. All Foul Water is

shown as taken to a Package Sewage

Treatment Plant, the effluent from which is

also taken to the Hydrobrake MH before being

discharged into the River Pont through the

same outlet. There is no indication that E.A.

permission for discharge into the Font would

be forthcoming.

10. It would appear from the drawings

provided that a main sewer runs across the

site but that there is no intention by the

Applicant to connect to it. The E.A. document

PPG6 states, in connection with the approval

of Package Sewage Treatment Plants, that "…

consents are not normally granted where a

public sewer is available … "

11. Package Sewage Treatment Plants (such

as that provided by Balmoral Tanks Ltd., for

example) rely on an electrical pump to

continuously aerate the sewage together with

a steady flow of effluent in order to keep the

micro-organisms alive. They thus require

regular maintenance. According to the

provided drawings, the Plant would be located

substantially below ground-level (at a point

interfering with access by waste-disposal

vehicles and potentially blocking car-parking

spaces) and at a level where other drawings

indicate that a flooding inundation could occur.

A failure of the Plant resulting in very serious

contamination of the River Pont could thus be

possible. The whole proposal for disposal of

Sewage is therefore not sustainable.

Dear Sirs,

Planning Application 13/03134/FUL

Construction of 18 New Dwellings and

Associated Access, Landscaping and

Engineering Works.

This letter is in response to amended

proposals by the applicant, as referred to in

your letter dated the 21st January 2014. It

supersedes and replaces our letter dated

the 5th of November 2013 which should

therefore be deleted from the record.

On behalf of the Ponteland Civic Society, I

object to the above Application. This letter

should be read in conjunction with

PONT.APS.2013.14.doc previously forwarded

by

our Mr. John Hague on the same subject, but

which was concerned with very

important visual and related aspects. Our

separate technical objections are:

!. Refer to Drawing (DR)S278, identified as:

MillEXTRA_SUDS_INF.pdf which

illustrates the proposals for flood alleviation. In

particular this shows the proposed

location of a Foul Treatment Plant which

discharges into the River Pont through an

intermediate restriction described as a

Hydrobrake MH.

The close proximity of car parking allocations

14 to 18 incl. indicates that the

Treatment Plant will necessarily be located

below the car park level, whilst the

presence of a Kiosk immediately adjacent

would indicate that the Treatment Plant is

almost certainly of the aerobic type which

requires an electric pump to aerate the

effluent on a continuous basis. However,

effluent passes through such a system by

gravity and therefore the outlet must be lower

than the inlet, which itself will be below

ground level at the point of entry. Such a

system will require regular maintenance but

we note that the necessary arrangements for

this are not adequately described.

The Hydrobrake device has no moving parts

but is designed to restrict the total

outflow by inducing a vortex when the inlet is

higher than the outlet by a prescribed

amount. There is no mechanism whatever to

restrict back-flow through the

Hydrobrake and into the Treatment Plant if the

river level should reach that of the

outlet from the Treatment Plant. In these

circumstances the holding tank shown

below the ground floor car park could fill with

river water in a short space of time,

shortly followed by the Treatment Plant.

This would immediately lead to the possibility

that (a) the operation of the Treatment

Plant would be adversely affected and it could

fail imminently (b) untreated sewage

2

could exit through the land drains and/or into

the river and (c) backing up of effluent

flow from the lower flats may occur.

The submitted photograph entitled

Mill_LADYWELL_WAYPic.pdf clearly shows a

recent flood level which would appear to be

above the level of the car park. A copy of

this photograph is appended at the end of this

letter, together with a diagrammatic

illustration of the water levels which could

occur in the future.

In view of these possibilities, full calculations

and diagrams are required to show the

relative entry and exit levels for the Foul

Treatment Plant, the Hydrobrake and the

associated surface water drains, relative to the

river levels for all possible river level

situations. Additionally, much fuller information

on flow levels, maintenance

procedures, screening methods, etc., are

required before the proposals can even

begin to be regarded as viable. In the absence

of such information the operation of

the proposed treatment Plant and SUDS

schemes cannot be accepted as

sustainable.

We consider, in view of the requirements in

the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF, Paras. 94, 100) to make due

allowance for climate change ,that

historicallyderived

data for flooding levels must be regarded as

minima, and NCC has a duty to

adopt fully adequate additional margins as a

requirement at this location.

2. We note that the original Application for

seven houses was recommended for

approval in spite of the Environment Agency's

(E.A.) objections on the grounds of

Flooding Risk. The NPPF specifically states

that building should not take place on

areas subject to Flooding Risk (pp. 100 &

103).

3. As a further factor with regard to flood risks,

it would appear that no account has

been taken of the effect of heavy debris

carried round the sharp turn in the river at

this point and impacting on the building itself;

the lower floor level (parking) above

datum is not high enough to avoid the

possibility of flooding of the parking floor under

any circumstances; note also that this level

includes the access and escape routes

for the whole building as well as the car park.

We also do not consider that the

proposed raised entrance to the site where it

joins the A696 will be adequate always

to avoid an inundation of water down the

access ramp from the A696 under all

foreseeable weather conditions.

4. The proposed car-parking provisions are not

adequate. Under the provisions of the

Retained CMBC Policy T11 and

Northumberland County Council Parking

Standards

(1996) for "Communal" parking, at least 18

places would be required.

5. According to a Tripartite Covenant originally

drawn up between Ponteland Parish

Council, the Ponteland Scout Group and

Kendall Cross (Holdings) Ltd., we

understand that car parking was not permitted

on the sloping access road leading

down to this site from the A696. Presumably

Galliford Try Ltd. are still bound by this

Agreement but appear to have ignored it.

6. The steep access road is not of adequate

width for the simultaneous safe passage

of pedestrians and motor traffic, and the

proposed separate pedestrian access steps

could also be difficult and unsafe - particularly

in winter conditions. These matters

are of some importance since the Applicant

has indicated (in discussion) that these

flats are particularly aimed at elderly buyers

who are trading-down from larger Darras

Hall properties.

7. The view of the proposed building from

Ladywell Way and adjacent houses along

the north side of the A696 is extremely

overbearing. The surface treatment remains

over-complex and intrusive. The width of the

building would give rise to a much

3

greater angle in the horizontal plane than in

the previous case where seven houses

had been approved.

8. Notwithstanding that the height of the

building is claimed to be no more than that

originally approved for seven houses, the

building as a whole will be completely out

of character with the existing houses on the

A696 by reason of the dominance of the

proposed five-storey structure and its entirely

inappropriate flat roof. Only pitched

roofs were proposed in the original Application

for seven individual houses; the

proposal is now for 18 dwellings which is

greatly in excess of what was then

approved.

A pitched roof of compatible materials should

be specified together with the removal

of the 5th storey (to lower the sight line) and

the possible use of dormer windows.

9. We do not consider that the narrow "Wildlife

Corridor" squeezed in between the

proposed building and the north bank of the

River Pont as at present shown is fit for

purpose.

In conclusion, may I add that, whatever

interpretation may be placed upon meetings

which the applicant may have had with the

public in Ponteland, our understanding

from a wide knowledge of the residents is that

this proposal is almost universally

opposed.

J & D Westbourne-

Riley

5 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

With regard to the proposed planning

permission for the construction of an 18

apartments block of flats on the Mill House

site-West Road,we wish to raise our following

objections to the above scheme with regard to

HIGHWAY/PARKING ISSUES.ETC

1 The development has been provided with 22

parking spaces. amere 1 per apartment and

only 4 for visitors.Considering the steep

access to the apartments - where are the

additional visitors going to park? Surely not on

the existing main road (A 696) which is already

busy without additional parked vehicles.

Certainly not on the existing Ladywell Road

which is difficult enough when residents have

their own visitors (without adding more) to get

in and out of same.

2. What arrangements have you considered

for drainage to these properties, considering

that most of Ponteland's effluent, flood water

etc. is relying on limited Pumping Stations.

3. In the event of flooding and heavy

snowfalls, where are everybody going to park

because they cannot get their vehicles down

to their own homes?

4. In the past, Galiford Try's personnel had

difficulty at the end of their working day getting

out of their works access onto the main road

(A 696). What arrangements have been made

for this happening daily occurance?

5. Finally, with regard to the cutting down of

existing trees (some of which have already

been done on the Park side) and the pruning

of others, this scheme will have a detrimental

impact on natural habitats and existing

amenities.

We look forward to receiving your answers to

our planning/highway/parking issues as we

believe there is a deadline for recording

objections by 10 November, 2013.

Richard Walker

40 Pembroke

Drive

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9HS


K M Kelly

23 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TE


G D Stainsby

9 Meadow Court

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9RB


Miss J B Hardy

15 Ryehaugh


Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9BA

Red Halkyard

7 Lynwood Close

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9JG

It seems to me, that building a Block of Flats

on 4 floors, above a Garage Space at ground

level, is not an appropriate swap, and

represents 8 Flats, which have more

accommodation capacity, than the 7 houses

previously proposed. This building equates to

5 levels with a flat roof, in order to creep below

the height of the existing adjacent houses

Ridge Roof Line. I suggest a reduction of one

Accommodation Floor, but with the addition of

a sloping pitched roof, would be more in

keeping with this Residential Area.

It is totally unacceptable for any Foul Water

Discharge into the River Pont, in which

Children play. This would be a major potential

Health Risk.

For the attention of Caroline Jones Planning

Officer.

Dear Madam,

Further to my previous comments dated 5/11

13, I still believe the height of the Flats is not in

keeping with the area.

However, after the news about the Somerset

Levels flooding and the increased risks to

health due to sewage seepage from tanks and

contamination, this is my main concern. Such

tanks need to be flood tight, with automatic

valves fitted to ventilators and with watertight

joints on all access covers, so that in the event

of flood water covering the tanks, no

contamination escapes into the river, which

would be a potential Health Risk to children.

Muriel Sobo

39 Beech Court

Darras Hall

My original objections stand. I wish to

emphasise the following points.

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9NE

1 This area is subject to flooding. It is not

a question of 'if' but 'when'. We all know that

flooding is happening more frequently and with

greater intensity than in the past. The foul

water system would be overwhelmed on such

occasions. It is not viable to put in such a

system in such a position. I have not the

technical expertise to give details about its

unsuitability but do the planners and

councillors have the required knowledge of

these systems?

2 There is no definition between the river

and the development and this means that a

so-called 'wild life corridor will not work in such

a position.

3 The proposed 5 storey building with a

flat roof is completely inappropriate for this

situation. The previous building was well

hidden by trees and was only 2 storeys high.

The proposed building will dominate the street

scene. The hotch-potch of colour and

materials in what is still a traditional village

setting is inappropriate.

4 The steepness of the site mitigates

against the development of 18 dwellings. 18

cars in and out, pedestrians, children and

Scouts mixed in. What a nightmare!

5 Lastly, who will pick up the bills after

flooding? Who will pick up the bills after any

road collapse?

It is no good saying 'I told you so'. We need

the planners, the councillors and the highways

people to come and assess this site. It cannot

be done on paper.

Dr Chris Wright

21 The Beeches

Ponteland

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ


Mr Andrew Pile

63 Middle Drive

Darras Hall

I am a regular user of the park and can be

certain that having such a low number of

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9DN

parking spaces associated with this

development is going to cause major problems

and serious safety issues due to cars parked

inconsiderately when all of their spaces are

full. I believe that the reason why the council

have published parking space standards and

why the NCC Core Strategy document

currently under consultation contains the same

rules as the current document is that these are

what are required for the trouble free operation

of a new development. If NCC is correct then

why are you ignoring your own standards, this

is not a development in a town centre where

there are alternative parking spaces and you

should therefore be useing 'Column A' figures,

which state 39+4 if they are allocated spaces

(as we are told is intended), or 30+4 if

communal spaces. To ignore these standards

will cause traffic problems on West Road,

causing serious danger for the Cubs, Scouts

and Beavers that will end up having to get in

and out of cars on a busy main road and show

a serious lack of consideration for local

residents.

Also having a septic tank located where it is

will cause problems of pollution when the tank

floods, which will then cause more problems

for the adjacent Scout HQ, as well as causing

greater health risk for the children who you

always see in the park during the floods and to

Waitrose and other businesses in the village

who are affected by flood water.

Although I am not opposed in principle to a

new building here, I believe that this design is

out of keeping with the rural village feel that

Ponteland has generally. It replaces a stone

built Mill House and should be more in keeping

with that (I accept that not all properties on the

main road are in keeping but that's not an

excuse for further blight - we need to improve

Ponteland as the opportunities arise). The

property is also too large for it's location and

the size and number of dwellings should be

reduced.

I am a regular user of the park and can be

sure that having such a low number of parking

spaces within this development will cause

major problems and serious safety issues due

to cars parked inconsiderately when all of their

spaces are full. I believe that the reason why

the council have published parking space

standards and why the NCC Core Strategy

document currently under consultation

contains the same rules as the current

document is that these are what are required

for the trouble free operation of a new

development. If NCC is correct then why are

you ignoring your own standards, this is not a

development in a town centre where there are

alternative parking spaces and you should

therefore be useing 'Column A' figures, which

state 39+4 if they are allocated spaces (as we

are told is intended), or 30+4 if communal

spaces.

To ignore your standards will cause traffic

problems on West Road, causing serious

danger for the Cubs, Scouts and Beavers that

will end up having to get in and out of cars on

a busy main road and shows a serious lack of

consideration to local residents.

Also having a septic tank located where it is

will cause problems of pollution when the tank

floods, which will then cause more problems

for the adjacent Scout HQ, as well as causing

greater health risk for the children who you

always see in the park during the floods and to

Waitrose and other businesses in the village

who are affected by flood water.

Although I am not opposed in principle to a

new building here, I believe that this design is

out of keeping with the rural village feel that

Ponteland has generally, even with the recent

minor design changes. It replaces a stone built

Mill House and should be more in keeping with

that (I accept that not all properties on the

main road are in keeping but that's not an

excuse for further blight - we need to improve

Ponteland as opportunities arise). The

property is too large for it's location and its size

and number of dwellings should be reduced.

Mr Bob

Richardson

121 Edge Hill

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9JS

Opposition to Planning Application No

13/03134/FUL Galliford Try were granted

planning permission for a totally unworkable

development at Mill House Ponteland. The

result was that the site was left an eyesore

with serious erosion problems to the bank

which was inevitable after tree felling. It seems

that in order to claw back lost expenditure a

second application has been submitted which

appears to be exploiting the use of this land to

the full. It is high density and particularly

insensitive to the surroundings, without taking

due consideration of the environment, sewage

disposal or flood risk, not only to the site itself

but in the adjacent area. It is to be hoped that

this does not result in a second abortive

attempt to develop this site. The current plan

will result in over development.

Planning Ref 13/03134/FUL

Construction of 18 New Dwellings at Mill

House, Ponteland NE20 9SG by Galliford Try

Parnership North Ltd

Dear Sirs

I have considered the amended proposals

referred to in you letter of 21 January and

reiterate my objections on the grounds that

this scheme remains a significant

overdevelopment with consequent adverse

effects on local residents, to scouts and to

park users relating to car parking, traffic

congestion, exacerbating the flood risks and

environmental problems associated with the

sewage disposal.

Mrs June

Richardson

121 Edge Hill

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9JS

I would like to object to the above application

on the following grounds:- Over development

with subsequent adverse effects on traffic

congestion, flood risk and environmental

problems associated with Sewage Disposal.

Planning Ref 13/03134/FUL

18 New dwellings Mill House NE20 9SG

In response to your letter dated 21 January re

above planning application.

The amended plans do not deal with the

concerns that I raised previously ie

environmental issues re sewage disposal and

possible flooding, congestion, dangerous

access for prospective residents, scouts, park

users and above all emergency services.

In view of the fact that the original

development proved unworkable and left the

site an eyesore and liable to erosion I would

like to be assured that members of the

planning department have actually done a site

visit to see the potential problems for

themselves.

J L Wallace

5 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB


Barbara Darling

21 Willow Way

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9RF

Knowing a little about the way various types of

septic tanks and sewage treatment plants

operate I decided to write.

I have seen the very sketchy plans of the

development of the new dwellings and am

very puzzled and concerned.

The plans indicate a treatment plant

underneath car parking areas.

Any plant needs maintenance and access to

deal with problems arising.

I question the efficiency of the fall and outlet

into the Pont burn.

I also question the sense in establishing a

septic tank system in such an area renown for

flooding.

There has been much publicity recently in

areas elsewhere in the country which have

unexpectedly flooded in the last eighteen

months and where septic tanks have been

previously built as the only option and as a

safe, or was, method of sewage disposal.

Comment has been made several times on

radio and TV about the raw sewage floating

around in these affected areas. That sewage

had come from flooded septic tanks.

There is one option for sewage disposal from

the proposed new build in Ponteland .

That is very definitely not the method

suggested.

There is a main foul drain on the west road.

Barbara Darling

Heather Forshaw

42 Runnymede

Road

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9HG

Galliford Try failed to observe conditions

imposed when previous planning permission

was granted, causing damage to the wildlife

corridor of the River Pont by drastic clearing of

all vegetation down to the water's edge. The

buffer zone along the river of at least 5m laid

down in the conditions of approval was totally

disregarded. Many trees were also felled

leaving the site bare and sterile.

I feel that approval of this new application will

lead to further environmental damage to this

sensitive area.

Environmental impact

The planned building is sited very close to the

river, making a credible wildlife corridor very

unlikely. This stretch of the river is used by

otters, which rely on the cover of undisturbed

vegetation. Light and noise pollution would be

inevitable in a building constantly in use by

many people. When The Mill House was used

as offices, light and noise ended with working

hours. These factors would be very

detrimental to otters, bats, birds and other

wildlife.

This site is adjacent to unspoiled woodland, of

local wildlife importance. Any planning

permission granted should be conditional on

secure, close-boarded fencing protecting this

area - erected before development and

enforced! The buffer zone, to be effective,

should also be fenced.

Flooding

The River Pont is prone to flooding and at

times of high water levels the Scout

Headquarters adjacent to the site has been

inundated, as have large areas of Ponteland

Park. The proposed building would be similarly

affected. As the trees whose roots

consolidated the bank at the bend in the river

have all have been cut down, it is quite

probable that the river edge will be eroded

during floods, undermining the stability of the

site.

Pollution

The River Pont supports a healthy range of

fish and invertebrates. The construction of a

large building on the brink of the river must

pose great risks of pollution entering the

watercourse. Subsequent run off from hard

surfaces and contamination from motor

vehicles is also a concern. The most worrying

aspect is the septic tank with an outlet through

a processing system to the river. This poses a

threat, particularly at times of flooding, of

sewage contaminating the river and homes

and businesses downstream.

Size and design

The size and design of the proposed building

is totally inappropriate to the site. The original

mill building fitted unobtrusively into the

surrounding land and was constructed of

muted, traditional materials. The proposed

block of flats would dominate the street scene

of Ponteland due to its size, height, flat roof

and gaudy urban surface finishes. This design

is totally alien to the existing homes in the area

and would loom oppressively over them.

Access and Parking

This site has a steep access road joining the

West Rd near a bend and another junction.

The number of vehicles associated with this

application, belonging to residents, visitors and

service vehicles must pose a risk of accidents

when emerging onto this busy road. Parking

available on the site also seems inadequate

for18 flats, risking congestion and impairment

of access to the Park and Scout Headquarters.

I oppose this planning application and urge

that any future applications submitted should

have as a primary consideration remedial

measures to repair the great damage done to

the site and the wider environment of

Ponteland Park.

Donald Chambers

4 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

1. The architectural treatment of the proposed

five storey block is quite out of keeping with its

location in a semi-rural position immediately

bordering Ponteland Park. The current

proposal is entirely suitable for an urban

location, but in a village setting it will be an

eyesore. I suspect that the Developer would

be unwilling to go to the expense of providing

full stone cladding to all elevations, which

would be far more appropriate at this location.

Tastefully designed brick facing would also be

acceptable.

2. Are the County Council and Northumbrian

Water satisfied with the waste disposal

facilities proposed. The original Mill House

apparently operated with a septic tank

installation, but the new installation will be

required to cope with far greater quantities of

effluent, with 18 apartments occupied 24/7. As

everyone is aware, that site has been flooded

many times in the past, and will undoubtably

be subject to further flooding in the future.

What will happen to the effluent if the septic

tank installation floods? Is foul water likely to

pollute the river? Additional expense would be

involved in connecting to the main drainage

system, but this would result in a far safer and

more reliable arrangement.

3. The access to the A696 is via a steep

unadopted road. Who will be responsible for

the upkeep of this road, will this be down to

the residents to organise? The road will

require gritting when snow and ice are present

in the winter months, and full access will be

required at all times of the year for the

possible entry and exit of emergency vehicles.

Since the Council do not take responsibility for

this road, how are these matters to be

handled?

4. I think the visual aspect would be improved

if the building were to be sited as far back as

possible from the main road and parallel with

the main road rather than at the substantial

skew currently proposed.

Professor Ellis &

Mrs Julie Ellis

23 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ

NOTICE OF OBJECTION

CONTEXT

The site of the proposed development is close

to the north-west entrance to Ponteland village

on the A696 and is effectively within Ponteland

Park, which bounds it on all sides except to

the north, where the boundary is the A696.

Current semi-detached dwellings on the

opposite side of the road here (The Beeches)

are of conventional design.

The site was previously occupied by the

Mill House, which was unobtrusive and

attractive because of its architecture and

materials, and surrounding mature trees, and

complemented it's surroundings. As it was

previously used as offices disturbance due to

noise, light and traffic was minimal and limited

to daytime.

OBJECTION TO CURRENT PROPOSAL

I object very strongly to the current proposal

on a number of grounds.

1. Disturbance

Previous commercial use of the site caused

little disturbance, and was confined to

weekdays. The current proposal for

conversion to a large residential complex with

up to 18 family units will inevitably lead to a

major increase in noise and light pollution at

any time of day or night, affecting not only

residents but wildlife using the river and park.

The impact of car usage is under-estimated in

the plans. Estimated walking times to village

amenities given in the Planning Statement are

inaccurate. For example, the nearest bus stop

is about 8 minutes away at a steady walking

pace, and not 3 minutes suggested in para

6.51. As the site is at the edge of the village,

many residents will use their cars to visit the

supermarkets and other facilities. Car parking

around the site is likely to be a significant

problem, since provision of only 18 resident

parking spaces (1 per unit), and 4 visitor

parking spaces, seems very optimistic, and

parking on the A696 (a busy main road with

heavy traffic at times) by residents and their

visitors is almost inevitable. As the access

road is so steep, it is predictable that some will

leave their cars on the A696 and adjacent

residential streets when there is snow/ice.

Previously, users of the Scout Hut have been

able to park on the Galliford Try site in the

evenings but, in future, when the proposed car

park is likely to be occupied by residents' cars,

the A696 will be used by the scouts for parking

and dropping off, as has been happening

since the site was cordoned off. This presents

an increased danger.

2. Visual impact

The proposed building is highly obtrusive and

out of character for this part of the village

(adjacent to parkland and 250m from the

nearest farmland), both in its unsympathetic

design and massive size. It will have not only

an overbearing visual impact on those living

opposite and those passing it, but also a major

detrimental effect on the character of

Ponteland Park since it will be obtrusive and

unavoidably visible from virtually everywhere

in the western side of the Park, significantly

damaging its amenity value. Correspondingly,

one of the 'opportunities' recognised in the

SWOT analysis in the Statement prepared by

the architects is 'views across the park'. This

'eyesore' would irrevocably change the park,

which is highly valued by the many residents

who use it.

3. Ecological impact

As the site of the proposed building is

effectively within Ponteland Park, there must

be major concerns about its potential

ecological impact. The Park is an important

resource for residents of the village and

visitors, and the plants and animals within it

provide great pleasure and enjoyment. The

proposed development will be detrimental not

only due to its severely obtrusive visual

impact, but also the concomitant increase in

disturbance, noise and light pollution, which

will inevitably have a negative effect on

wildlife. It is perhaps surprising that the

Ecological Appraisal prepared by Wardell

Armstrong does not address these issues, but

only deals with impacts directly impinging on

the development site itself.

The heavily wooded area immediately

adjacent to the west boundary of the site

(erroneously described as being on the east

side by Wardell Armstrong) is currently a

secluded part of the Park with limited human

disturbance (since access to it is difficult) and

is therefore a refuge for wildlife. This does not

appear to be recognised in the current plans

and, unless restricted, access from the

development site into the Park along the west

boundary would lead to major disturbance in

this ecologically important area.

The strip of land along the river on the south

side of the site is recognised as an important

wildlife corridor, despite which trees and

vegetation within this strip were inexcusably

and inexplicably destroyed during the recent

demolition and ground works on the site. Other

trees were also removed at that time, with a

consequent negative impact. It is to be hoped

that any future activity on the site pays greater

heed to its ecological and aesthetic

importance, and potential effects on wildlife

using the park and river.

Summary

In conclusion, the proposed building is

completely inappropriate for this site, since it

would, among other objections, be visually

obtrusive, significantly detract from the

amenity value of Ponteland Park, lead to

dangerous parking along the A696, and have

an unacceptable ecological impact.

Mr Bruce & Susan

Kirtley

26 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

We write to express our objections to the

proposed above development on the following

grounds

o environmental impact of the

development

o lack of sufficient car park provision

potentially resulting in street parking mainly on

North Road and Ladywell Way

o visual impact, not in keeping with rural

surroundings

o future access to scout hut being

impacted by residents parking

o public right of way being compromised

In summary we feel this development is not

suitable for this sensitive location and would

ask that these points are giving serious

consideration

in the planning process

Gillian Melton

84 Eastern Way

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9RE

I object to the plans to build a 5 story block of

flats between our park and the A 696

There is a substantial problem with flood risks,

as you are certainly aware.

The proposed block is huge, and completely

out of scale with the surrounding buildings-

normal houses. The materials and flat roof

design are completely unsuitable for the area,

muddled and confused. This is a harmonious

area of stone walls, brick houses and trees

lining the street. The block would be a real

eyesore here, a design suitable for a city

centre, not on the edge of a rural village,

whose character we all want to preserve.

It overwhelms the site, and would be a huge

visual blot on an attractive, tree lined semi-

rural entry into Ponteland from the West.

It would threaten our park, and the wildlife on

the river bank. Galliford Try has already done

huge damage to the area by reckless and

unauthorised destruction of trees and shrubs

on the site. This would be a further

desecration of the area.

There is inadequate parking for the number of

cars-probably 30. Access onto the busy A696

would be dangerous.

It is also clear that sewage disposal is a

potential problem, as our Civic Society has

pointed out.

We in Ponteland feel we are threatened by

several unsuitable schemes by builders at the

moment. We are very pleased that you turned

down the plans of the Lugano group, and look

to you to reject this equally unsuitable plan,

and help us preserve the attractive, semi-rural

character of our village.

THank you for reading my comments.

Mr thomas

armstrong

48 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Northumberland

NE20 9TE























incurred then.

A Craig

6 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

I have tried repeatedly this evening to get on

to the public access part of the site to make a

formal objection to this planning application

but have been unable to do so.

Please can you submit the following to the

relevant department and acknowledge receipt.

I wish to object to planning application number

13/13134/FUL by Galliford Try for NE20 9SG

on the following bases:

1 The allocation of 22 parking spaces is

inadequate for 18 flats and will quite clearly

result in congestion, dangerous and

inappropriate parking in the adjacent area,

specifically West Road and Ladywell Way;

2 The area is already suffering from the

removal of trees in preparation for the building

works by increased surface water/water run-off

and I worry that the flooding issue in this area

will only increase as a result of any build;

3 The scout hut and the park are central to

Ponteland village and heavily used. Only last

week there was a queue of traffic down to the

scout hut as I returned home from work one

night and I wonder how this is going to be

managed once new residents are living in the

proposed new flats; I can envisage discontent

easily ensuing and I can see the traffic on

West Road being affected both in terms of

congestion and dangerous and inappropriate

parking. I also worry about the impact on

traffic and parking in this part of the village

with young children myself;

4 The proposed design of the flats is not

appropriate or in keeping with Ponteland

village; it is typical of the type of development

that is seen in more urban areas such as the

Quayside, Newcastle and Royal Quays, North

Shields. In such locations this design can look

impressive but next to Ponteland park it would

look out of place and would detract from what

is a rural area;

5 What measures are going to be put in place

to enable year round access to the parking at

the flats? When Galliford Try itself was based

at the Mill House, as soon as there was ice or

snow the staff parked on West Road which

caused congestion, hold-up and difficult

access to Ladywell Way. This cannot happen

with any new development on the site and

needs addressing. This is not addressed in

the plans submitted.

I strongly object to the plans submitted and

suggest that a smaller, more traditional

development with better parking arrangements

would be more suitable in light of the position

of the site.

Mr G A Taylor

12 Simonside

View

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TF


Mrs Lesley Noble

93 Cheviot View

Ponteland Road

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9BH

The original application for 7 dwellings was

recommended for approval in spite of

numerous objections. The Environment

Agency objected on the grounds of flooding

risk.Construction of a large block of flats does

not mitigate the flooding risk and the developer

has not adequately addressed this within their

application.

The proposed building is not in keeping with

the character of Ponteland and, should this

permission be granted, would become an

eyesore as you enter the village. It would

dominate the landscape.

The roof design is inappropriate and will

produce an unacceptable effect as you enter

the village - it is not in keeping with

surrounding properties.

The appearance of the building is horrendous,

the proposed modernistic approach

demonstrates a lack of insight by the

developer into the character of Ponteland.

The developer has not allocated adequate car

parking spaces for the size of the proposed

development.

Mr Roy Preston

20 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

I wish to make a formal objection to the

proposed development at Mill House,

Ponteland NE209SG on the following

grounds:-

1) The provision for visitor parking is wholly

inadequate and will inevitably lead to vehicles

being parked in Ladywell Way. This is already

occurring and also vehicles have been parked

on the grassed area near the post box and on

the grass hardstanding where the police

speed-recording vehicle stands.

The entrance into Ladywell Way becomes very

dangerous when vehicles are parked there, as

I have experienced many times recently.

2) The entrance into the Mill House site is at a

very dangerous part of the main road which is

heavily trafficed with vehicles in both directions

through Ponteland.

3) The proposed development is very low-lying

and in close proximity to the river Pont. Is the

risk of flooding not a serious concern?

Phil Errington

27 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TE

With reference to the revised planning

application for a block of 18 flats to be built at

Mill House, West Road, Ponteland I wish to

make the following comments:-

1. Whilst there has been a two storey building

on this site for many years until late last year it

was largely hidden from the main road and

adjacent properties being in a valley and

surrounded by mature trees. The proposed

development significantly changes the visual

impact. (And could do more so in future - see

No. 7. below)

2. Within the past 40 years this site (including

the Scout Hut) has been flooded at least twice.

It is often communicated by the Meteorological

Office that we will experience more heavy and

persistent rain in the coming years so it would

appear that any new property in this location

would also come be flooded.

This may bring the additional risk of people

being stranded if the proposed building is

surrounded by flood water. Also potential

damage to the building itself due to the river

flow and any debris a river in spate may carry.

3. The additional housing developments which

have been agreed over the years in Darras

Hall and Medburn have added to the rapid

surface water drain-off into the River Pont.

This effect is twofold as each and every

building and hardstand covers absorbent land

which slows the drain-off into water courses.

Each additional development increases the

risk of flooding in Ponteland as the A696 road

bridge over the R. Pont is affectively a dam

once the water level rises to the height of the

arches.

3. The construction of yet another building will

further add to the rapid surface water drain-off

into the River Pont exacerbating the possibility

of flooding in the village immediately down

stream of the Mill House site.

5. The developer's proposal to hardstand even

more absorbent surface in the Ponteland Park

for additional car parking space (ostensibly,

sic) for the use of Scout Hut users is a further

lack of environmental impact foresight.

6. I cannot understand how the proposed

provision of 18 car parking spaces plus 4 for

visitors is considered adequate for 18

accommodation units. More than 50% of

households now own more than one car -

would this average not apply to the proposed

development? In fact, I understand, new

buildings are required to have minimum

parking for two vehicles 'off road'.

It seems inevitable, if the development request

is granted, that there will be additional car

parking on the adjacent main road (and

Ladywell Way) potentially restricting the

junction and the attendant risks that raises.

7. In coming to a decision whether planning

permission is granted I would hope the

likelihood of a future request to add a pitched

roof to the flat roof proposal is taken into

account. In my experience most low slope 'flat'

roofs eventually leak and there are many

examples of flat roof housing having pitched

roofs retrofitted. This would further raise the

elevation of the proposed development.

8. There certainly seems to be a lack of due

diligence on behalf of the developer of this

land.

Firstly, the apparent ignorance of the necessity

of the existing bank up to the main road in

being essential for supporting the road. The

cost of the additional work to support the road

relative to the value of the 7 properties

originally proposed.

Secondly, the lack of detailed specification for

service vehicle access, sewage disposal and

flood damage prevention in the second

proposal.

These two items alone make me wonder what

else may be subsequently 'botched' if

permission to build was given. Is the developer

not a very professional builder? - would you do

business with him?

John Blundell

2 Riverside

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9PU


Mr Neil Mackley

24 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ


Michael And Sarah

Curry

26 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ


Mr James F

Milligan And

Margaret A

Milligan

26 The Beeches

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9SZ


Lesley, John

Christopher And

Daniel Robson

11 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TE


Mr And Mrs Taylor

12 Simonside

View

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne


Northumberland

NE20 9TF

Mr Michael R

Pearce

29 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TE


Mr David Blackley

7 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

I am writing to voice my objection to the above

proposed development for an 18 apartment

dwelling at Mill House, Ponteland. My objects

are on the basis as per the below:

Visual Impact:

The proposed development is out of character

with other housing in the immediate locality

which are all two storey semi-detached

houses. The density of the development is

very high for the location overlooking a park

and is not complimentary to the environment in

which it sits.

Height is significantly greater than the original

building on the location and although appears

to be at a similar height to other housing

across the road, gives a far more imposing

appearance partially due to having a flat roof

but also due to its size.

Environmental Impact:

The building is located immediately adjacent to

Ponteland Park and the River Pont. The park

is home to many animals and birds. The

Friends of the Park are continually trying to

improve to retain and encourage wildlife, not

least the red squirrel and bats. The increase in

activity will have an impact on wildlife in the

immediate locality.

It is also noted that the drains from the

development will not be directed into the public

sewers system but into the River Pont.

Although on-site treatment is to be provided,

there is an inevitable increased risk of pollution

into environment and particularly the River

Pont.

Traffic and Parking:

It is noted that the parking allocation for the

development is one per apartment plus four

visitor spaces. As per the 2011 census, there

are 12 cars per 10 households on average

across England and Wales. For an affluent

area such as Ponteland this will be greater, of

which many households have a minimum of

two cars. It is therefore inevitable that parking

of additional cars will be on the main A696.

This is a main thoroughfare in and out of

Ponteland and a major route to Scotland, used

extensively by tourist traffic, heavy goods

lorries and military vehicles. The lack of

adequate on-site parking will lead to

congestion along this stretch of the A696 and

will result in an increased risk of a serious

accident. On the days that the Scout hut is in

use, parking on the A696 increases and it is

noted that this results in a traffic hazard

particularly for those leaving Ladywell Way.

From experience, during winter when there is

snow on the ground, traffic cannot safely

negotiate the steep access to the site. During

these times it is noted that vehicles park on

both the A696 and Ladywell Way which again

leads to the additional risk of accidents at a

time when road conditions are already

dangerous. It is noted in the Planning

Statement that the grit box at the head of the

entrance to the Site will remain. When the Mill

House was used as offices, the existence of

the grit box was not sufficient to secure safe

access to the site in bad weather and vehicles

frequently parked on the main road or on

Ladywell Way.

It is also worth mentioning, that the

configuration of the junction with the A696

results in vehicles which are leaving the site

and turning left towards Belsay, generally only

do so by crossing onto the other carriageway

first. This is another potential risk of an

accident with oncoming traffic and particularly

for vehicles turning left out of Ladywell Way.

Until now, access to and egress from the site

has been restricted to the beginning and end

of the business day: residential use of the site

will result in traffic using this junction far more

frequently.

Access for emergency and utilities vehicles:

Development of the site does not appear to

have given consideration for access of

emergency vehicles and utility vehicles. The

steep incline to the development site means

that safe access for such vehicles difficult, if

not dangerous particularly during winter

months when snow is on the ground.

Other issues:

Although there was a community consultation

in Memorial Hall prior to the submission of the

planning application, there are no signs posted

locally to the proposed development advising

that such an application has been made.

Therefore, not all affected or interested parties

will be aware of the planning application.

With reference to the ¿Statement of

Community Involvement¿, section 4.3 shows a

pie chart showing the response to the question

¿Do you support the principle of

Redevelopment of the Site?¿ This is followed

by a statement in section 4.4 that the figure

¿shows that a significant portion of those

attending the event are in support of the

proposals to redevelop the site.¿ The question

was the principle of redevelopment, whereas

the statement misleadingly gives the

impression that the support was for the

development as actually proposed. Support for

the redevelopment of a site which has been

abandoned does not equate with support for

the proposals in this planning application It

should also be noted that the proportion of the

57 attenders who completed the form is not

stated, and also that from the pie chart an

equal number rejected the principle of

redevelopment as supported it.

With reference to the Planning Statement,

page 3, section 2.4, reference is made to a

Drop Off Bus Stop being adjacent to the site.

This is not correct; the nearest bus stop is in

the village close to Waitrose Supermarket

approximately half a mile down the road.

Yours Faithfully,

Mr D Blackley

I am writing to voice my objection to the above

proposed development for an 18 apartment

dwelling at Mill House, Ponteland. My objects

are on the basis as per the below:

Visual Impact:

The proposed development is out of character

with other housing in the immediate locality

which are all two storey semi-detached

houses. The density of the development is

very high for the location overlooking a park

and is not complimentary to the environment in

which it sits.

Height is significantly greater than the original

building on the location and although appears

to be at a similar height to other housing

across the road, gives a far more imposing

appearance partially due to having a flat roof

but also due to its size.

Environmental Impact:

The building is located immediately adjacent to

Ponteland Park and the River Pont. The park

is home to many animals and birds. The

Friends of the Park are continually trying to

improve to retain and encourage wildlife, not

least the red squirrel and bats. The increase in

activity will have an impact on wildlife in the

immediate locality.

It is also noted that the drains from the

development will not be directed into the public

sewers system but into the River Pont.

Although on-site treatment is to be provided,

there is an inevitable increased risk of pollution

into environment and particularly the River

Pont.

Traffic and Parking:

It is noted that the parking allocation for the

development is one per apartment plus four

visitor spaces. As per the 2011 census, there

are 12 cars per 10 households on average

across England and Wales. For an affluent

area such as Ponteland this will be greater, of

which many households have a minimum of

two cars. It is therefore inevitable that parking

of additional cars will be on the main A696.

This is a main thoroughfare in and out of

Ponteland and a major route to Scotland, used

extensively by tourist traffic, heavy goods

lorries and military vehicles. The lack of

adequate on-site parking will lead to

congestion along this stretch of the A696 and

will result in an increased risk of a serious

accident. On the days that the Scout hut is in

use, parking on the A696 increases and it is

noted that this results in a traffic hazard

particularly for those leaving Ladywell Way.

From experience, during winter when there is

snow on the ground, traffic cannot safely

negotiate the steep access to the site. During

these times it is noted that vehicles park on

both the A696 and Ladywell Way which again

leads to the additional risk of accidents at a

time when road conditions are already

dangerous. It is noted in the Planning

Statement that the grit box at the head of the

entrance to the Site will remain. When the Mill

House was used as offices, the existence of

the grit box was not sufficient to secure safe

access to the site in bad weather and vehicles

frequently parked on the main road or on

Ladywell Way.

It is also worth mentioning, that the

configuration of the junction with the A696

results in vehicles which are leaving the site

and turning left towards Belsay, generally only

do so by crossing onto the other carriageway

first. This is another potential risk of an

accident with oncoming traffic and particularly

for vehicles turning left out of Ladywell Way.

Until now, access to and egress from the site

has been restricted to the beginning and end

of the business day: residential use of the site

will result in traffic using this junction far more

frequently.

Access for emergency and utilities vehicles:

Development of the site does not appear to

have given consideration for access of

emergency vehicles and utility vehicles. The

steep incline to the development site means

that safe access for such vehicles difficult, if

not dangerous particularly during winter

months when snow is on the ground.

Other issues:

Although there was a community consultation

in Memorial Hall prior to the submission of the

planning application, there are no signs posted

locally to the proposed development advising

that such an application has been made.

Therefore, not all affected or interested parties

will be aware of the planning application.

With reference to the ¿Statement of

Community Involvement¿, section 4.3 shows a

pie chart showing the response to the question

¿Do you support the principle of

Redevelopment of the Site?¿ This is followed

by a statement in section 4.4 that the figure

¿shows that a significant portion of those

attending the event are in support of the

proposals to redevelop the site.¿ The question

was the principle of redevelopment, whereas

the statement misleadingly gives the

impression that the support was for the

development as actually proposed. Support for

the redevelopment of a site which has been

abandoned does not equate with support for

the proposals in this planning application It

should also be noted that the proportion of the

57 attenders who completed the form is not

stated, and also that from the pie chart an

equal number rejected the principle of

redevelopment as supported it.

With reference to the Planning Statement,

page 3, section 2.4, reference is made to a

Drop Off Bus Stop being adjacent to the site.

This is not correct; the nearest bus stop is in

the village close to Waitrose Supermarket

approximately half a mile down the road.

Yours Faithfully,

Mr D Blackley

The amendments to the above planning

application are minor and do not address the

significant concerns raised in my previous

submission. My objection to the development

remains.

The amendments to the above planning

application are minor and do not address the

significant concerns raised in my previous

submission. My objection to the development

remains.

Mr Roy Preston

20 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

I wish to make a formal objection to the

proposed development at Mill House,

Ponteland NE209SG on the following

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

grounds:-

1) The provision for visitor parking is wholly

inadequate and will inevitably lead to vehicles

being parked in Ladywell Way. This is already

occurring and also vehicles have been parked

on the grassed area near the post box and on

the grass hardstanding where the police

speed-recording vehicle stands.

The entrance into Ladywell Way becomes very

dangerous when vehicles are parked there, as

I have experienced many times recently.

2) The entrance into the Mill House site is at a

very dangerous part of the main road which is

heavily trafficed with vehicles in both directions

through Ponteland.

3) The proposed development is very low-lying

and in close proximity to the river Pont. Is the

risk of flooding not a serious concern?