1. Introduction 1.1 This application is being reported to the Planning and Rights of Way
Committee, as it is a major application that has generated large number of representations both in objection to and in support of the proposal and therefore raises significant issues that merit consideration by the Committee.
2. Description of the Proposals 2.1 Outline permission is sought for the erection of up to 25 dwellings on land at
Southcroft Stables, The Croft, Ulgham. All matters are reserved for future approval. An indicative layout plan has been submitted to demonstrate how the site could be developed.
2.2 The site measures approximately 1.4 hectares in size and lies to the south of
Ulgham Village. The site currently comprises a paddock, exercise area and associated stables. The site is bounded to the north by grazing land with dwellings beyond this on The Croft. The garden of number 22 The Croft bounds the north west corner of the site. Agricultural land bounds the site to the south and west with Ulgham House located to the south east. Ulgham Lane bounds the site to the east which connects to the main road through Ulgham approximately 200 metres to the north.
2.3 All matters are reserved for future approval, however the indicative layout plan
shows access to the site to gained from the east from Ulgham Lane. The planning statement states that the dwellings would all be two-storey with heights of between 7 and 9 metres. The site is located approximately 5 miles to the north east of Morpeth and 1.5 miles to the south of Widdrington Station. The site lies outside of the settlement boundary, as defined in the Castle Morpeth Local Plan.
3. Planning History
Reference Number: C/50/564
Description: Prospect for open cast coal by boring or trial trenches
Status: NOOBJ
4. Consultee Responses
Countryside/ Rights Of Way
No response received.
Ulgham Parish Council
The Parish Council would like to submit the following objections in respect of the above-mentioned application: Planning and Design Statement The Parish Council objects to the statements included in sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.9. See below: Section 2.4 - The Parish Council disputes that the site is brownfield as stated. Section 2.5 - This site has not been used as commercial riding school/stables in recent years. For the last 21 years it has only been a house with equine facilities. The Parish Council would ask that the applicant provide recent and audited accounts that
would prove it has been run as a business. If this cannot be produced the Parish Council would argue that the site is green field. Section 2.6 - The Parish Council objects as this proposal is outside of the village line. A recent application for a dwelling between this site and the Croft Estate was refused for exactly this reason. In the most recent copy of the Core Strategy that is soon to be published for consultation, it clearly states in the small settlements in the green belt section that settlements not in the green belt have defined inset boundaries. Ulgham is in the list of those settlements and this proposed development is outside of the defined village boundary. The Parish Council would argue that the development could not be classed as infill because of this. Section 2.8 - The Parish Council disagrees with the statement included in this paragraph - see objections listed under items 2.4 and 2.5 above. 2.9 - The Parish Council believes this site has a restrictive covenant in place. Whilst the applicant has provided a document stating that the agricultural restriction was lifted in February 1997, no record of this can be found in the County Archives at Woodhorn that houses the former Castle Morpeth BC records. However, there was a condition attached to this order which stated "that any future application for a dwelling within the residential site or stable business/agricultural land will be measured against current council policies relating to development in the open countryside and would be strongly resisted." The Parish Council does not believe that the condition has been lifted. Transport Statement The Parish Council objects to the statements included in sections 4.24 and 4.25 - see below: 4.24 - UPC object to this on the grounds that the figures provided are unrealistic. The applicant states that the site would only generate 17 vehicle movements at peak times. The applicant uses the Croft Estate as an example however our local knowledge shows that the 34 houses in the Croft have 50 cars. Therefore 25 houses of similar style would generate in excess of 35 cars not the 17 stated. Nearby Orchard Close has not been used in our equation. It has 11 houses and 20 cars. The Parish Council dispute that there would be no material impact, in fact there would be significant impact on the B1337/Ulgham Lane junction. 4.25 - The Parish Council objects due to the impact on highways safety and traffic movement grounds. The existing junction is inadequate to cope with an increase in traffic generated by any new development in this area.
Planning Summary Statement The Parish Council objects to the statements set out in sections 4.2 and 4.4, see below: 4.2 - The Parish Council objects to the Presumption in favour statement. Ulgham is not in the south-east housing development area. It is in the north housing area. The north area has met the 5 year supply criteria with planning permission already granted at Widdrington Station, Amble, Shilbottle, Warkworth, Longhorsley and Longframlington. Morpeth is also at present building in excess of 800 houses. 4.4 - UPC objects to the principle of development being accepted. The applicant compares Ulgham to Longhorsley in several cases. They are in no way comparable. Longhorsley is 4 times the size of Ulgham, it has a school, 2 shops, a garage and a public house that is open 7 days per week. Longhorsley cannot be used as a comparison in this application. Comments UPC feels they must dispute several statements made in this application. In paragraph 2.6 of the Planning design access statement it should be pointed out that the Hall is owned by the Women’s Institute and is not a village hall. The adjacent Antiques shop is only open for 3 hours, 3 days a week and the Forge public house is only open on Friday evenings, Saturday lunchtime and evenings and Sunday lunchtime. In Section 3.45 the applicant states that local amenities/shops are within reach within 1 minute by car and 3 minutes by cycle. The nearest shop is almost 2 miles from the centre of the site (1.95 miles). To achieve the stated times the car would have to average 120mph and the cycle 40mph. In section 5.2 UPC disputes that there is strong evidence to support the development of this site. It is not a re-development; the majority of this site is Greenfield. The applicant has not proved that this is a sustainable site, or its importance to Ulgham village. UPC dispute that not granting planning permission on this site will impact in any way on the housing trajectory of NCC. As a point of information there is no woodland to the west of this site as the applicant states. There is only an allotment/large garden. Also how will building houses on this field create an enhanced ecological area attracting wildlife and improve habitat opportunities as the applicant states?
The Parish Council would request that in view of the importance of this application and the likely impact of a development of this size on the village, that the relevant Planning Committee at NCC determines the application.
Highways Insufficient information in order to assess
County Ecologist No objection subject to conditions
Housing Department No objections
Public Protection Request for contaminated land report to be submitted.
Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
No objection
Environment Agency No response received.
The Coal Authority No objection subject to mitigation
Northumbrian Water Ltd
No objection subject to condition
County Archaeologist Further work requested.
Natural England No comment.
5. Public Responses Neighbour Notification
Number of Neighbours Notified 9
Number of Objections 13
Number of Support 37
Number of General Comments 0
Notices General site notice, 23rd September 2015. Morpeth Herald 24th September 2015. Summary of Responses:
13 letters of objection were received with objections to the following:
The infrastructure and amenities in the village could not support the development.
The extra traffic generated with be dangerous on the single lane road and would increase the dangers for people using the play area and sports fields to the north east of the site.
It will increase traffic in the already dangerous T-junction.
There is no school or shop in Ulgham.
Widening of Ulgham Lane cannot be done.
It is outside of the Ulgham Village boundary.
The land is designated for farming only.
The land is Green Belt.
The development is unjustified and unnecessary in the open countryside.
There is no demand for more houses in Ulgham.
Detrimental impact on wildlife.
Impact on the amenity currently enjoyed.
It is a site for the preferred by-pass.
The village hall is not public and not owned by the Women’s Institute.
There is no employment in the village.
There would be a reliance on the car.
Concerns over surface water and foul drainage. 37 letters of support were received raising the following points:
Need to construct more high quality houses.
There are insufficient places for people to live.
Villages need to grow.
There are not enough family houses.
The development could enhance and support current services in Ulgham.
It is on a bus route and close to Widdrington.
Need to support the local economy.
It would generate wellbeing for years to come.
Ulgham is an excellent location for new houses. 6. Planning Policy 6.1 National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 6.2 Development Plan Policy Castle Morpeth District Local Plan 2003 C1 Settlement boundaries C17 Green Belt UGC1 Settlement boundary H15 New housing developments H16 Housing in the countryside RE5 Surface water run-off and flood defences
RE6 Service infrastructure 6.3 Other Documents/Strategies Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework (2009) Northumberland Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2015 (SHMA) Policy S5 of the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan First Alteration (February 2005) Northumberland Local Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2015) Policy 1- Sustainable development Policy 2 – Spatial distribution Policy 14 – Housing provision Policy 15- Delivering affordable housing Policy 20- Strategic approach to Green Belt 7. Appraisal 7.1 In determining, this application the main planning issues to be considered are
as set out below:
Principle of development (including Green Belt) Siting, scale and design Amenity considerations Highway safety/capacity Contaminated land and coal risk Affordable housing Ecology Archaeology Flood Risk/drainage
Principle of development
7.2 The adopted Development Plan for the area, which the application site is
located comprises the: saved policies of the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (adopted in 2003) and Saved Policy S5 of the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan First Alteration (February 2005). Policy S5 establishes the general extent of an extension to the Tyne and Wear Green Belt to the north of Morpeth.
7.3 The application site lies in an area beyond the settlement boundary of Ulgham
as defined in the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (2003). Therefore the site can be considered as being located in an area of open countryside. Following publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the provisions of the saved Local Plan Policies C1, UGC1, H15 and H16 are still relevant in the determination of this application and remain the starting point for determining the proposals. These policies set out the basic principles against which new residential development proposals in the open countryside, outside of defined settlement boundaries (such as the application site), will be assessed with policies seeking to limit new house building in such locations to essential accommodation only e.g. housing for rural workers, in line with advice contained in the NPPF.
7.4 In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF weight may also be given to the policies in emerging plans, depending on: the stage of preparation of the plan; the extent to which emerging policy aligns with NPPF; and the extent of unresolved objections to the emerging plan. Therefore weight can be attached to the policies in the Northumberland Local Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy (Cabinet version, September 2015), which comprises a material consideration in the determination of this application.
7.5 The main issues to consider are whether the proposals accord with policies in
the adopted Development Plan; and whether the proposals would undermine the objectives of policies in the emerging plan - the Northumberland Local Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2015). This will include consideration of the need for additional housing; rural settlement policies; impact on the openness of the Green Belt; whether the proposals would result in an unsustainable pattern of development in respect of accessibility to employment, shopping and leisure facilities.
Sustainability
7.6 In terms of sustainability, the NPPF and local planning policies support
development in sustainable locations where prospective residents have easy access to a full range of services and public transport links. The approach to sustainable development within Northumberland is set out within policies 1 and 3 of the Northumberland Local Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy (Oct 2015). In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, it is considered weight can be given to these emerging Core Strategy policies given the stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the level of unresolved objections to these policies and consistency with NPPF.
7.7 Policy 3 of the Northumberland Local Plan pre-Submission Core Strategy
seeks to focus the majority of new development within Main Towns and Service Centres, but does allow for a level of development outside these areas where the development:
-Meets the identified and defined social, economic and/or cultural needs of the local community; -Can be accommodated within or if necessary next to the settlement without impacting on its character; -Is of an appropriate scale for the size of the settlement; -Maintains or enhances local services and facilities; -Provides appropriate mitigation to minimise harm to the countryside; and -Protects the countryside from widespread new development.
7.8 Ulgham has no local facilities and limited public transport links. There is an
antiques shop which opens infrequently, a public house only open on a Friday night, Saturday and Sunday and a hall owned by the Women’s Institute. Bus services are limited and the nearest railway station is located in Widdrington Station, which has a very limited train service. In essence, this is not a sustainable settlement with an adequate range of facilities and services to cater for the day-to-day needs of its residents and the reliance would inevitably be on the private car.
7.9 In such rural locations both national and local planning policies allow new residential development only where it is needed for agricultural or forestry purposes. No such justification has been put forward in this case and the criteria set out in Local Plan Policy H16 have not been satisfied. In the absence of any special need for the development, the proposed housing site would represent an unnecessary extension to the settlement in a less than sustainable location, poorly served by public transport facilities. To allow the development of this site for housing would not accord with national and local planning policies, which aim to ensure that new development is in sustainable locations, where prospective residents can have easy access to a full range of services and public transport links.
7.10 Whilst it would be possible for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling to use
public transport or walk/cycle to nearby village centres (Widdrington Station), it is likely that they would generally rely on private transport to reach the various facilities and services.
7.11 Officers do not consider the proposal is a sustainable form of development.
On the contrary, the granting of planning permission would undermine a core planning principle of the NPPF. The proposal would not be a way to actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, nor would it focus development in a location that currently is, or is likely to be made more, sustainable. Whilst there are other settlements in the surrounding areas, the relative proximity of those areas to more frequent bus services and the availability of pedestrian links to the town/village centres along lit pavements would clearly differentiate the majority of these areas from Ulgham and the application site.
7.12 Having regard to the development plan and emerging policy, it is considered
that to allow the development of this site for housing would conflict with national and local policy which aims to ensure that new development takes place in sustainable locations.
Housing Supply
7.13 The emerging Core Strategy identifies four Delivery Areas. The application
site falls within the South East Delivery Area (SEDA). Current monitoring data confirms that Northumberland as a whole can demonstrate a five-year supply however the SEDA does not have a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites with only a 4.2 year supply. The consequence of this is that in line with the advice set out in paragraph 49 of NPPF, relevant development plan policies which relate to the supply of housing cannot be considered as being up-to-date. In this circumstance and for the purposes of this planning application, it should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the NPPF. For decision taking this means granting permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. In the determination of this application, it is the latter that applies given the unsustainable location and that the site is located in the Green Belt.
Green Belt
7.14 Policy S5 of the Structure Plan defines the general extent of a Green Belt extension to the north of Morpeth. The general extent is well defined in that policy. Recent appeal decisions have confirmed the status of Policy S5. The Green Belt extension is adopted policy in the Development Plan and decisions on planning applications affected by that policy must be made in accordance with its intentions. Precise inner and outer boundaries to the Green Belt extension can only be defined through a Local Plan review and this comprises part of the emerging Core Strategy. The Pre-Submission Draft Core Strategy defines the settlement boundary around Ulgham and the application site lies outside of the identified settlement. The proposed boundary in this area is the same as that set out in the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan 2003, which shows a level of consistency in approach. Whilst the Core Strategy may not have reached Examination, the Local Planning Authority has demonstrated a clear and consistent approach with regard to the settlement boundaries around and how they relate to the application site. Having regard to Policy S5 and the Green Belt boundary identified in the emerging Core Strategy, the application site is considered to lie within the Green Belt and should be determined in accordance with relevant development plan policy and other material considerations.
7.15 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that a Local Planning Authority should
regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. It provides a list of exceptions to this, which are set out below:
-Buildings for agriculture or forestry -Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; -The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; -The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; -Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or -Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
7.16 New housing in the Green Belt is considered to be inappropriate development
which is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in special circumstances. Special circumstances have not been demonstrated through these proposals. It is considered in this respect that the proposed development would cause material harm to the Green Belt and approval of the development in this location would conflict with the purposes of designating the area as Green Belt. The applicant has asserted that the land should be considered brownfield given its commercial use as a riding school. The Parish Council disputes this and has said that the site has been in residential use for a number of years. There is no evidence on site of any commercial use, it would appear that the associated buildings now form part of the residential use of the site and the land is used in the main for the grazing of horses. Whilst it could be argued that the buildings in the south
east corner of the site are previously developed, it is officer opinion that the majority of the site is greenfield and the NPPF definition of previously developed land specifically states that it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage of land should be developed.
Siting, scale and design
7.17 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built
environment and, through the NPPF, recognises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, which is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Although the application is submitted in outline, indicative layout plans have been submitted demonstrating how the site could be developed. It is considered that, given the scale of the site and the nature of the surrounding area, a scheme could be designed that would be respectful of the context of the site any identified constraints.
Amenity
7.18 An indicative layout plan has been submitted with the application however, the
application is submitted in outline, with all matters reserved. The location and design of properties would not be determined at this stage however; sufficient information has been presented to demonstrate that a scheme could be developed that would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity being experienced by the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Equally, it is considered that a scheme could be developed that would ensure prospective occupiers would enjoy an appropriate level of amenity. It is considered that the proposal accords with the provisions of policy H15, as far as it relates to amenity considerations.
Highway safety/ capacity
7.19 The application is for outline permission with all matters reserved, therefore
the internal layout of the development and the access proposals are not for determination at this stage. The Highways Authority has examined the proposals and has stated that the indicative proposals for the internal layout would be acceptable subject to detailed scrutiny with respect to road widths, footway widths, junction geometry, car parking provision and turning areas at the reserved matters stage.
7.20 In highway terms, for an outline application, the impacts of the development
on the existing network need to be considered. A Transport Statement was submitted with the application that details the likely level of trip generation from the development site. This has been undertaken using the TRICS database, and whilst a more appropriate methodology may have been to survey the adjacent housing at The Croft as this will reflect the travel characteristics of Ulgham, the level of trips anticipated under TRICS compared to those taken from a survey will not significantly alter the conclusions drawn within the Transport Statement.
7.21 Details within the Transport Statement show the intentions of the applicant to
widen Ulgham Lane to 4.8m to 5.5m between the proposed site access
(location to be determined) and the existing playground access. A footway connection is also to be provided. This widening would be necessary for the development to be acceptable and would be a condition of any approval. On-site observations indicate that there are a number of potential pinch points along this route with existing trees located within the assumed highway boundary and therefore given these pinch points the Highway Authority needs to be certain that the proposed widening is deliverable. The Highways Authority requested a more detailed scale drawing to demonstrate that the road improvements can be delivered, as there would be no benefit in approving the outline permission if this connectivity cannot be provided. This drawing will also be able to demonstrate the deliverability of appropriate visibility splays for the future site access. Improvements to pedestrian connectivity through the provision of dropped kerb crossing points for Ulgham Lane to access the playground and across the junction to The Croft would be requested as part of these improvements. At the time of writing the report the requested details had not been submitted.
7.22 There are also visibility concerns in relation to the B1337 /Ulgham Lane
junction and subsequent intensification of this junction as a result of the development proposals. Whilst it is accepted that this is an existing issue and that there have been no recorded personal injury collisions at this junction, its use will be intensified by some extent. In order to provide the Highway Authority with the satisfaction that this junction remains appropriate, a speed survey on the B1337 in the vicinity of the junction should be undertaken to establish the 85th percentile wet weather speeds in this location. This resultant speed could then be used to determine the appropriate visibility splays under Manual for Streets principles before a decision can be made as to whether further mitigation is required to improve visibility at this junction. At the time of writing the report the requested survey had not been submitted.
7.23 Therefore at this time it is considered that there is insufficient information to
determine whether the proposals would have a residual cumulative impact that would be severe.
Contaminated Land and Coal Risk 7.24 Public Protection initially objected to the proposal on the ground that a
contaminated land report was not submitted. Given the use of the site as a stables and a past contaminative use of the land to the west a minimum of a Phase One desk-top assessment has been requested. The applicant has submitted this and Public Protection are currently considering its contents.
7.25 The application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application.
7.26 Appropriate mining information for the proposed development site has been
obtained on behalf of the applicant and has been used to inform a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report (September 2015, prepared by Wardell Armstrong), which accompanies this planning application. The Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report makes appropriate recommendations for the carrying out of intrusive ground investigations in order to ascertain the ground
conditions and to establish the presence or otherwise of shallow mine workings. The Coal Authority has raised no objections accordingly subject to conditions requiring these site investigation works prior to commencement of development. In the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat areas of shallow mine workings to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development, these should also be conditioned to be undertaken prior to commencement of the development.
Affordable Housing
7.27 Northumberland County Council's Corporate Plan and Housing Strategy both
identify the delivery of Affordable Housing as a key strategic priority. The mix and tenure of affordable homes on development sites should reflect our current housing needs evidence base. Sources are Homefinder statistics, the 2015 Strategic Housing Market Assessment, information from other registered affordable home providers, other local housing needs assessments and Neighbourhood Plans.
7.28 The emerging Core Strategy is now at the formal Pre-Submission stage, and
can be afforded weight in the decision making process, having regard to the criteria set out in paragraph 216. The emerging Core Strategy affordable housing Policy 19, sets a plan target for 30% of new homes across Northumberland to be affordable. The 2015 SHMA identifies the affordable housing need requirement over a five-year period. Given the number of affordable housing units forecast to be delivered over the five year period (as evidenced in the Council's Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites report), Policy 19 requires all new proposals for housing to deliver 15% of homes as affordable units (subject to local need and viability). If there is evidence of local need to support a higher proportion of affordable homes, the policy is flexible to require in excess of the 15% required at the County level.
7.29 There are no significant amenities or services at Ulgham. The nearest are at
Widdrington and Pegswood. The applicant considers the site to be a suitable location for affordable homes and is offering to provide discount market value homes. The developer will ultimately carry this development risk. Without this factor, the recommendation would have been to opt for a commuted sum with no on site homes.
7.30 Based on the evidence of housing need and Northumberland Core Strategy
Pre-Submission draft Policy 19, for this site there would normally be a requirement for approximately 4 affordable homes to be provided on site, representing 15% of the overall site homes with a suggested tenure split (based on the 2015 Northumberland Strategic Housing Market Assessment) of 67 % for affordable (social) rent and 33% for Intermediate Housing (including Discount Market Value sale). However, in this instance the scale of the proposal would lead to too few affordable rented homes to be of interest to a Registered Provider and therefore there would be no satisfactory means of providing ownership and management. The applicant has offered 6 no. discount market value homes. As this type of home represents a more financially viable form when compared to providing affordable rented homes, then the suggested number of discount market value homes for this site would be per the applicants offer. The discount offered should be 30% from the market value, which should make the homes affordable to purchasers who
could not afford the full market value - the selling price after discount should be in the region of £80 - £100,000 given market values and the offer in settlements close to Ulgham.
7.31 The council have a process for approving prospective purchaser to ensure
that they are appropriate occupiers of affordable homes. The homes should be offered to local people in the first instance with more details being provided in the section 106 agreement. The Council’s Affordable Housing Team are in full support of the provision of 6 affordable units on the site and this is a material consideration weighing in favour of the proposal.
Ecology 7.32 The County Ecologist and Natural England have examined the proposals and
relevant ecological surveys. The bat surveys revealed no roosts as being present in the existing buildings though regular foraging and commuting bat activity (small numbers of common & soprano pipistrelle, whiskered/Brandt’s bats and a Myotis species) being recorded over the 3 survey visits with the main activity being noted along the site boundaries and between the buildings. Some nesting bird (swallow) activity was noted. Whilst not recorded in the surveys hedgehogs and badgers are likely to forage across the site from time to time. No other protected, threatened or notable species or habitats are likely to be significantly affected by the proposals.
7.33 No objections to the proposals on ecological grounds are raised on condition
that the avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in the submitted report are carried out in full.
Archaeology 7.34 The proposal site has not been subject to an archaeological assessment. No
archaeological features are recorded on the site, though this may in part be due to the lack of an assessment. The site is of sufficient area that significant unrecorded archaeological features may be present on the site. In this area the greatest potential for unrecorded archaeology relates to features dating from the pre-historic period. The County Archaeologist has requested a programme of archaeological assessment to establish the presence / absence and significance of any archaeological features present on site. In the first instance this should take the form of an archaeological desk-based assessment. It is likely that in this instance a programme of archaeological fieldwork will be required; potentially comprising combinations of geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation (though if the site has been used for equestrian activities and if there is potential for metallic debris to occur across the site, this might not be effective). It is Officers opinion that given the application is in outline, the requested programme of work could be conditioned to be undertaken prior to the submission of reserved matters and to refuse planning permission on this basis would be unreasonable at outline stage.
Flood risk/drainage
7.35 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was submitted with the application. The site is located an area of lowest risk from flooding (Flood Zone 1 - Environment Agency). A detailed drainage scheme has not been submitted within the application, however the FRA states that it may be possible to drain water to ground either through soakaways, or by providing a positive drainage system which connects to a communal infiltration basin. If this is not possible, other options also exist. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and Northumbrian Water have examined the proposals and have raised no objections subject to condition(s) being attached that would require the approval of a surface water scheme.
8. Conclusion 8.1 The proposed development is located in an area defined as open countryside
in the Development Plan. The site is also located in an area of Green Belt defined through the emerging Core Strategy and Saved Policy S5. Residential development in this location would conflict with the intention to protect areas of open countryside and would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt thereby conflicting with national and local planning policy in this respect.
8.2 Determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the
Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In assessing these proposals weight should be given to the policies in the relevant emerging plans.
8.3 In terms of Green Belt, as described in Structure Plan Policy S5 and the
emerging Northumberland Local Plan Pre Submission Core Strategy (Cabinet version September 2015), the site is considered to be clearly within the extension to the Green Belt. Accordingly, Green Belt policies should apply to the determination of the application.
8.4 It is clear that the policies contained within the Castle Morpeth Local Plan are
not supportive of development in this location. Saved Structure Plan Policy S5 sets the extent of the extension of the Green Belt around Morpeth and the land’s status as Green Belt has been defined in the emerging Core Strategy. The NPPF is clear in its guidance as to the treatment of development proposals in the Green Belt, particularly the final bullet point under NPPF paragraph 89, when read in conjunction with NPPF paragraph 88. It is on this basis, that the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
8.5 Having regard to the relevant policies in the Development Plan and in giving
due weight to emerging plans and national policy, it is considered that the principle of the development is not acceptable in this location. The construction of dwellings on the application site comprises development in the open countryside within the Green Belt and represents an inappropriate development, which is in conflict with Green Belt policy and will cause detriment to the appearance of the surrounding area. The proposals are therefore contrary to the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Northumberland Local Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy.
8.6 Whilst it is accepted that the proposal would bring some benefits in terms of
boosting housing supply, providing affordable housing and economic benefits during construction and in potential increased spending from future occupiers, it is not considered that these benefits would outweigh the identified harm to the openness of the Green Belt and open countryside, in addition to the proposal being considered an unsustainable location for new housing.
9. Recommendation
That this application be REFUSED outline planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would be located within the Green Belt. No
special circumstances have been demonstrated and it would therefore be inappropriate development, which would be harmful in terms of its impact on the openness of the Green Belt, as defined by Joint Structure Plan Policy S5 and Northumberland Local Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2015) which are supported by Morpeth District Local Plan Policies C1 and UGC1.
2. Insufficient information has been submitted for the Highway Authority to fully assess that Ulgham Lane and the B1337 junction with Ulgham Lane can safely and adequately accommodate the proposed development and that it would not result in a residual cumulative impact that would be severe. The proposal is contrary to the NPPF in this respect.
Date of Report: 24 November 2015. Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 15/02767/OUT
List and Comments of representations received:-
Name Address Summary of Comments
Mr Mark Flatman
84 Addycombe
Terrace
Heaton
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
NE6 5SQ
see documents tab 16/9/15
Ms Katie Patton
21 Hillgate
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 1XX
see document tab 18/9/15
Mr William
Richardson
1 Derby Street
Stockton On
Tees
TS18 2EF
see document tab 21/9/15
Mr & Mrs Paul &
Joanne Stewart
235 Elderberry
Drive
Davenport
FL, 33897
USA
see document tab 21/9/15
see document tab 21/9/15
Mr & Mrs Malcolm
& Irene Stewart
13 Albion Way
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 5BW
see document tab 21/9/15
see document tab 21/9/15
Pam & Bill
Langlands
24 Solingen
Estate
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 3EP
see document tab 21/9/15
see document tab 21/9/15
Mrs Ann Dawson
Chibburn House
Mile Road
see document tab 21/9/15
Widdrington
Station
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 5QR
Ms Claire Burton
47 Bolburn Leam
Lane
Gateshad
NE10 8XB
see document tab 21/9/15
Kim & Andy
Davies
3 Gosforth Park
Villas
Newcastle
NE13 4PP
see document tab 22/9/15
see document tab 22/9/15
Mr matthew
nicholson
1 Forge Estate
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3AJ
I object to this planning application, for the
following reasons. theinfrastructure of the
village would be unable to cope with the extra
burden placed on it by the extra houses the
extra traffic generated would be aconsiderable
danger to children using the play area that is
less than 100 metres from the proposed site.
Not mention the T junction where the minor
road meets the b 1337 which is not a very
good junction at the best of times. Villagers do
know what is best for our village not people
living elsewhere.
Mrs Debra Booth
15 The
Westfields
Cheswardine
Market Drayton
TF9 2PJ
See documents tab 12/10/15
Ms Joanne Dixon
30 Ford Drive
Cowpen Farm
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 5DY
Ms Joanne Dixon
30 Ford Drive
Cowpen Farm
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 5DY
See documents tab 12/10/15
Mr Brent Booth
15 The
Westfields
Cheswardine
Market Drayton
TF9 2PJ
See documents tab 12/10/15
Mr & Mrs Gary &
Leanne Main
16 Priory Grange
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 5BA
See documents tab 29.09.2015
Mr & Mrs Ivan &
Dorothy Lowe
16 Plessey
Avenue
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 3JR
See documents tab 30.09.15
Mrs Barbara Jones
20 The Croft
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3BB
I am totally against this proposal.
Ulgham Lane is a narrow road, in a bad state
of repair. The junction to the main road does
not give a clear view of oncoming traffic. The
junction cannot be improved because of
existing properties.
The infrastructure of the village does not lend
itself to such a large increase in properties. I
also do not believe that , once planning has
been granted, the application will change into
a greater number of houses.
The paths in the village are narrow and cars,
lorries and tractors speed through the village,
endangering pedestrians.
There is no school or shop.
As most households will have at least two
cars, there will be a substantial increase in
traffic down Ulgham Lane and will result at
some stage in an accident at the junction.
I also find it rather strange that many of the
letters of support have the same wording (and
spelling mistakes) and that many of those
support letters are from people who do not live
locally.
Barbara Jones
Mr Scott Munro
9 The Croft
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3BB
I write to support the principle of development
at Ulgham Village.
I am a great believer that we need to construct
more quality housing in Northumberland.
Understandably development on the edge of
villages, once deemed to be outside of
settlement limits, will give rise to some
concern. However it is a fact that there are
insufficient viable opportunities for
development within places that people want to
live. As such no village is sacrocanct, and all
must take a share of development in order to
satisfy future and emerging needs.
Villages cannot be preserved in aspic. They
need to grow and they need to contribute their
fair share to the needs of a growing
community. My personal experience tells me
that there are not enough family houses being
constructed of the right type and in the right
location. A development such as that
proposed can enhance Ulgham and will suport
its current services, including the local public
house, and the continued use of the village
hall, and the wide range of clubs and services
provided therefrom.
Whilst Ulgham has no school, nor a village,
shop, it is not unlike other locations where
development has been approved, and/or is
proposed, i.e. Medburn, Hepscott Park,
Netherton Park, St Mary's Hospital, etc.
Sustainability and accessibility are relative.
Ulgham is on a main bus route, and services
can be accessed in Widdrington, less than 2
minutes drive from Ulgham. Widdrington offers
a full range of opportunities including shops,
restaurants, schools, and Doctors. Indeed
Ulgham is not without its own services,
providing a public house and restaurant, a
church, an antiques shop, and a village hall
that offers a variety of groups and classes as
well as movie evenings.
I will also submit that developments of this
form can give rise to loss of amenity if not
carefully managed and controlled. It is
essential that the impact of the development is
assessed. It is my opinion that a great deal of
thinking has gone into the development layout
as proposed. It is a fine balance between the
provision of housing and the relationship of
such to neighbouring residences. It should be
for the Planning Authority to carefully assess if
there may loss of privacy or whether the visual
impact is so great as to warrant the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
Some matters will require attention. Ulgham
Lane surface is not of good quality.
Development traffic will make this surface
worse. If the development is approved
conditions should be imposed to ensure that
remedial measures are put in places. Attention
should also be paid to the timing of
movements of construction traffic.
Sheila Peterson
30 The Croft
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3BB
See documents tab 30.09.2015
Mr Adam Dixon
30 Ford Drive
Cowpen Farm
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 5DY
See documents tab 30.09.15
Mrs Jenny Baeten
6 The Nook
Mancot
Deeside
Flintshire
North Wales
CH5 2BQ
See documents tab 08/10/15
Ms Wendy Bains
20 Till Grove
Ellington
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 5ER
See documents tab 09/10/15
Mr Christopher
Bains
42 Cotswold
Drive
Wansbeck Manor
Ashington
Northumberland
NE63 0HR
See documents tab 09/10/15
Mrs Jayne Welsh
4 Kenmore Close
Wardly
Gateshead
NE10 8WJ
See documents tab 09/10/15
Mr Len Baeten
6 The Nook
Mancot
Deeside
Flintshire
North Wales
CH5 2BQ
See documents tab 09/10/15
Mr Darren Dixon
30 Ford Drive
Cowpen Farm
See documents tab 06/10/15
Blyth
Northumberland
NE24 5DY
Mr Jeffrey
Bowman
13 Shibdon Park
View
Blaydon On Tyne
NE21 5HA
See documents tab 05/10/15
G.H Lough
Fieldholme
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3AH
See documents tab 05/10/15
B.A Lough
Fieldholme
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3AH
See documents tab 05/10/15
Mr Bryan Scott
18 The Croft
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3BB
The junction at Ulgham Lane and the main
road is narrow and difficult to view oncoming
traffic. Additional traffic from the proposed
development will create a bottleneck and there
is the potential for residents from the Croft
having to wait in order to access Ulgham lane
at peak periods.
Widening Ulgham Lane would be impossible
near the junction due to existing properties.
The proposed speed limit of 60mph from the
development to near the playground is a
concern due to the distance required to reduce
speed by 30mph !
Facilities in the village are limited as there are
no school, shop or Doctors/Dentist in the
Village and the only amenities are the Local
Pub and Antique Shop which both open at
weekends only.
People need to travel outside of the village for
basic facilities and the additional houses could
lead to potentially an extra 50 cars using
already inadequate roads.
Many letters of support have the same
wording and come from people either abroad
or from outside the village.
Mrs Aileen Stewart
21 Whernside
Place
Southfield Lea
Cramlington
Northumberland
NE23 6PG
See documents tab 08/10/15
Mr Billy Stewart
21 Whernside
Place
Southfield Lea
Cramlington
Northumberland
NE23 6PG
See documents tab 08/10/15
Mr Graham Welsh
4 Kenmore Close
Wardly
Gateshead
NE10 8WJ
See documents tab 08/10/15
Stuart Grey
GL Ford
Springwell Road
Wrekington
Newcastle
NE9 7AB
See documents tab 08/10/15
Mrs Andrea
Tilmouth
14 Stirling Drive
Bower Grange
Bedlington
Northumberland
NE22 5YF
See documents tab 08/10/15
Mr Andrew
Tilmouth
14 Stirling Drive
Bower Grange
Bedlington
See documents tab 08/10/15
Northumberland
NE22 5YF
Danny Orange
1 Castle View
Ovingham
Prudhoe
Northumberland
NE42 6AT
See documents tab 08/10/15
Mr & Mrs Garry &
Vicki Gillis
412 Ballyshannon
Davenport
Florida
33897
USA
see document tab 1/10/15
see document tab 1/10/15
J.W Hunter
Broom House
Forge Estate
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3AJ
See documents tab 06.10.2015
Mr & Mrs Malcolm
& Janice Ingleby
40 Russell Road
Rhyl
Flintshire
LL18 3DS
See documents tab 06.10.2015
Mrs F.J Barugh
59 Myrtle Road
Eaglescliffe
Stockton On
Tees
TS16 0AP
See documents tab 07.10.15
Mr A Richardson
18 Myrtle Road
Eaglescliffe
Stockton On
Tees
TS16 0AP
See documents tab 07.10.15
Mr Nicholas
Snelling Thornlea Lodge
Ulgham
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 3AH
I wish to object to the above plans.
Ulgham is a village that has neither the
facilities nor infrastructure to support further
development. Journeys using cars will have to
be undertaken several times per day to access
facilities such as shops and schools which will
add significantly to traffic using a dangerous
junction in the village. This increased traffic will
