Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of four dwellings on site of former public house/nightclub (resubmission) (all matters reserved).

The Planning Officer, Louisa Ollivere gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Planning Officer, LO advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was an outline application for the erection of four dwellings on site of former public house/nightclub (resubmission) (all matters reserved) and was recommended for refusal, with the reasons set out within the report.

 

The Planning Officer, LO reminded Members of the nearby 195,000 animal chicken farm, commercial livery and veterinary surgery and highlighted the surrounding vegetation and enclosures using plans and photographs.

 

 

It was added there had been no objections from the Council’s Highways Section, subject to conditions and Northumbrian Water and the Coal Authority had noted a lack of details and therefore were also requesting conditions.  It was noted that the Environment Agency had not commented to date.  In relation to internal consultees, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) had reported back on a technical review in relation to noise and odour, with dispersion modelling.  Members were informed that the EHO had noted that there would be potential impact on the nearby business in terms of the closer proximity of Residents which could increase the potential of complaint.  The Planning Officer, LO added that the EHO had considered the potential to cause a statutory nuisance and would object as it was considered that the development was likely to lead to a statutory nuisance and did not consider that conditions could be imposed to mitigate the impact.

 

The Planning Officer, LO added that there were no objections from the Design and Conservation Officer or the Landscape Officer noting the reduction from 6 units to 4 units.  Members were advised as regards the benefits of the scheme as set out by Spatial Policy and there had been no objections from the Ecology Officer, subject to conditions.  It was added that there had been no comments from the Education Officer.

 

The Committee noted that there had been 13 letters of objection from local Residents and businesses, including the owner of the chicken farm, with a summary of objections being set out within the report.  Members noted there had been 10 letters of support for the application, and a letter of support from the Local MP, Kevan Jones, with a summary of the comments in support also being set out within the report.  It was added there was support from the Local County Councillors for the application.

 

The Planning Officer, LO noted that in conclusion, that the site was of low ecological value and issues such as drainage and highways could be dealt with in terms of conditions, however, when considering the balancing exercise of Paragraph 11 of the NPPF it was felt that impacts in terms of residential amenity of future residents in terms of noise and odour and to the agricultural economy in terms of adverse impacts on the operation of neighbouring business would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited housing supply, construction and commercial economy benefits, visual amenity and remediation benefits.  Therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer, LO and noted Local Members were in attendance and asked Councillors D Wood and A Batey to speak in relation to the application.   

 

Councillor D Wood noted, as one of the Ward Councillors for the Pelton Division, he was in attendance to speak in support of the application.  He explained there was a high level of support for the development in the village of West Pelton and in the local area and the development would be on a brownfield site.  He added that he believed that this would be a sustainable development as Residents would be in close proximity to bus routes, a local school and several local shops.

 

Councillor D Wood noted the appearance of the site would be greatly improved by the development and it would provide a greater choice and a different size of property for families that need additional space, but do not want to move away from the village.  He added that nearby residents understood the importance of the poultry farm and that its work could not be achieved without some disturbance, with neither odour or noise disturbances being permanent and residents of properties on Twizell Lane were already well aware of the issues.

 

Councillor D Wood noted that, as highlighted in the Committee Report, no residents had complained to either the Local Authority or to the Environment Agency and he felt that this this shows the level of understanding from the local community that it was a working agricultural area.  He noted a Change of Use application had also been submitted to change an agricultural building to residential use and that application had not yet been determined.  He added that he had read through the associated documents on the Planning Portal and there did not appear to be any reference to likely noise or odour disturbance from the poultry farm, despite the fact it was closer than properties on Twizell Lane, and was on the same side of the road as the farm itself.

 

Councillor D Wood concluded by stating that, for the reason he had outlined, he believed that the development would be positive for the village of West Pelton and would constitute a sustainable development and he would ask that Members of the Planning Committee take the points made into consideration before making a decision on the application.

 

Councillor A Batey explained that it was unusual for Urpeth Parish Council, the West Pelton Residents’ Meeting and the Local Members to all be in agreement as regards an application.  She added that previous applications at the site had been approved by the former Chester-le-Street District Council and the site was a brownfield site that in its current state was a blot on the landscape.  She noted there was a lot of development in the area and this application would be redevelopment of the site.  Councillor A Batey noted that there was a large building diagonally opposite the site and houses at Twizell Farm, redevelopment at the car park of the veterinary surgery, and 14 properties being developed at the crossroads and therefore the traffic generated from the proposed development would be less than those other developments.  It was noted that currently the site was a hotspot in terms of fly-tipping and fires.

 

Councillor A Batey reiterated the point that those choosing to live in the countryside would understand that there would be associated noise and odour such as crop spraying and from farms and that the issues in relation to odour would be dependent upon wind direction and other factors.  She concluded by noting that any improvement at the application site would be an advantage for businesses, school and the surrounding community. 

 

The Chairman thanked the Local Members and asked the Planning Officer, LO to comment on the points raised.  The Planning Officer, LO noted existing residential properties were around 100 metres or more away from the farm, with the usual stand-off distance being 400 metres. 

She added the application site was only 55 metres away and that odour would be expected all year round, and noise in weeks during the summer.  The Planning Officer, LO explained that the previous approval at the former Chester-le-Street in 2008 for 8 units pre-dated the NPPF and that decision was considered flawed.

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer, LO and asked the Applicant, Mr K Levitt and their Agent to speak in relation to the application.

 

The Mr K Levitt noted he loved the Twizel Lane area and had lived locally for 53 years with noise and odour.  He added that should the application be approved he would be a resident at the site, and was aware of the volume of traffic that passed through the village.  He reiterated that currently the site was brownfield, and that the Local Planning Authority had agreed the site was sustainable.  Mr K Levitt noted that bringing the site back into use would help tackle the issues in terms of anti-social behaviour.  He noted that he believed that the information in terms of noise and odour were fundamentally flawed and that hypothetical information should not be given weight over actual evidence.

 

A Lang, Agent for the Applicant explained that an expert survey carried out on behalf of the Applicant by an Environmental Consultant had come to a different conclusion to the EHO, and that it was felt that the positives of the application outweighed any perceived negatives.  He reiterated that the application had support from Residents that lived locally and the Local Members and the Case Officer had noted many other reasons why the application could be supported, other than the perceived issues in terms of noise and odour.

 

The Chairman thanked the Speakers and asked the Planning Officer, LO to address the comments made.  The Planning Officer, LO noted that while the site could be considered an eyesore, it was not considered to be a blight.  She added that if it was considered a blight, the Local Planning Authority would be able to direct in terms of clearing of the site.

 

The Senior Environmental Health Officer, Mark Anslow noted that his view did contradict that of the Applicant’s Environmental Consultant, however, he reminded Members that he reported and provided independent technical advice to the Planning Department on planning applications.  He noted that the comments made appeared to be on the impact on a short-term basis, with his opinion being there would be impact over a considerable period of the year and there would also be noise, as expected, in terms of clearing out and extractor fans.  He added that issues would also be linked to temperature and that his opinion was as set out within the Committee report.

 

The Chairman thanked the speakers and Officers and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

 

Councillor G Darkes noted he had visited the site and noted the smell was quite pungent and issues with noise.  He felt that future residents should not be subjected to such issues.

 

Councillor D Boyes noted he could agree with a number of the points raised by the Planning Officer, supporting development of a brownfield site, as had been by the former Chester-le-Street District Council.  He noted the support of residents and the Local Members and MP, and noted the absence of complaints in terms of noise and odour.  He felt that on balance the application had more benefits than negative impacts and therefore he moved that the application be approved.

 

Councillor A Shield asked for the site plan to be shown and asked for clarity as to whether the application was considered ribbon as being development, outside of the settlement boundary.  He noted he felt that the application could not be refused solely on the proximity to the poultry farm, especially given the conflicting views from the environmental surveys.  He added that he felt that if there was such an issue as the case made by the EHO then a number of complaints would have been submitted in relation to odour and noise.  Councillor A Shield noted that he felt if the application was considered ribbon development then it should be refused on that basis, else he felt that he would support approval of the application.

 

Councillor M McKeon noted she felt torn over the issues raised in the application.  She noted the very compelling case made by Residents and on their behalf by their Local Members.  She noted the former use of the site, and therefore it being a brownfield site that could be brought back into use.  She added, however, that she could also see the issue in that while those that may occupy the 4 properties now, once developed, may not have an issue with noise and odour, future owners may do so.  She noted she was worried in terms of setting a precedent and currently was undecided.

 

Councillor A Hopgood noted she recalled the public house that had previously occupied the site and acknowledged that use was different to that of private residential dwellings where owners would want to sit outside.  She asked if it were possible to condition such that occupiers of those houses had no right to complain in terms of noise or odour as she felt it was important not to potentially harm the existing established business.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development explained that it would not be possible to place a condition that prevented future complaints, as those could be legitimate complaints in terms of a statutory nuisance.  Councillor A Hopgood asked if complaints were received in the future, could there be possible restrictions applied to the business.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that potentially this was the case, if it was established that there was a statutory nuisance and noted the Senior Environmental Health Officer may wish to clarify.  The Senior Environmental Health Officer noted that a person who moved into one of the proposed property would be at liberty to raise a complaint and this would be investigated by the Council or the Environment Agency and issues such as Environmental Agency permits could be looked at, and directions may be given for the business to bring its standards up to “best practical defence” against a statutory nuisance.

 

The Area Planning Team Leader (North), Andrew Farnie reminded Members of the existing business and that unreasonable restrictions should not be placed after they were established. 

 

He suggested Members may wish to think of the situation where a new poultry farm was being applied for, less than 100 metres from existing properties.  He concluded by reiterating that Officers, on balance, did not feel the application could be recommended for approval.

 

Councillor A Bainbridge noted the comments of the EHO as set out at paragraph 49 of the report and the importance placed on computer modelling over a “sniff-test”.  He noted that the computer term “garbage in, garbage out” and asked what data was put into the modelling.  The Senior Environmental Health Officer referred to the paragraphs in the report that contained his advice on the application.  He explained that within the report he acknowledged the different models and methods.  He added that in terms of a “sniff-test” carried out over a 2 week period was a very short snapshot of any potential issues and a number of mitigating factors could be at play, for example wet litter, that could impact on the level of odour.  The Senior Environmental Health Officer explained that his view was a balanced one looking at the various models, tests and assessments.

 

Councillor C Martin noted the types of rural businesses located in the area, including the poultry farm and livery and the odours and noise that could be generated.  He added that, especially in the context of any implications on such businesses that could come from the exit from the European Union, he would not wish to see any additional pressures in order to tidy up a brownfield site.  He moved that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Chairman asked the Planning Officer, LO as regards the question from Councillor A Shield.  The Planning Officer, LO noted that the development would not be considered ribbon development, other sites at Twizell Lane being green field and therefore if Members were minded to approve the application this would not set a precedent.

 

Councillor A Shield noted he seconded Councillor D Boyes’ motion for approval.  Councillor G Darkes added he seconded Councillor C Martin’ motion for refusal.

 

The Chairman noted the order of the motions and that Councillor D Boyes’ motion for approval would be voted upon first.

 

Councillor J Robinson noted the numerous letters of support and lack of evidence in terms of prior complaints in terms of odour and noise.  He asked if the need to include a contribution in terms of public art was essential or a red herring, and if a requirement did this need to be included.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it was a Saved Local Plan Policy requirement if approval was sought and a relevant Section 106 (s106) Legal Agreement in this regard would be required, in addition to the usual suite of conditions with delegated authority for Planning Officers to set out.  Councillor O Milburn asked if an occupier of one of the potential properties sold it in the future, would they need to disclose issues in terms of noise and odour.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted it was not a relevant consideration for the Committee in relation to the application, and he believed such disclosures were in terms of disputes or complaints and other issues would be for a potential purchaser to make enquiries.

 

 

Councillor M Davinson noted that the Officer’s report stated at paragraph 109 that “…no public art provision has been proposed nor has a 106 agreement been requested given the unacceptable nature of the proposal…”, however, a slide within the Officer’s presentation referred to the Applicant being “…unwilling to enter into a s106 agreement…”.  Councillor M Davinson added that there had been 4 fly-tipping incidents since January and the site would be better developed to prevent this.  He noted that the Electoral Division was “Pelton” and added that any potential purchasers of the proposed properties would not likely miss the very large poultry farm nearby.  Councillor M Davinson noted he had ran past the area 36 time in the last year at various times of day from 9am to 9pm and had not noted a problem with any smell.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he would defer to the Planning Officer, however, suspected that a s106 Agreement was not advanced as the recommendation was for refusal.  The Planning Officer, LO noted that both the report and slide were correct, at the time of the report that was the case, with discussions after publication of the report, but prior to the Committee with the Applicant noting at that time that they were not willing to enter into a s106 Agreement.

 

A Lang noted that the Applicant would be willing to enter into a s106 Agreement regarding public art, however he felt that as the development would fall below the £500,000 threshold, it would not be an issue.  He reiterated that the Applicant would be willing to include the public art contribution by s106 or by condition.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development explained that as previously noted the contribution would need to be via a s106 Legal Agreement, not by condition, and would be in line with the relevant Saved Local Plan Policy and threshold as set out.

 

The Chairman asked the Planning Officer, LO to give an indication of the types of conditions that would be required should Members be minded to approve the application, noting details to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Assets.  The Planning Officer noted they would include: time limits in relation to a Reserved Matters application; appearance, landscaping, layout and scale; access; approved plans; drainage; noise mitigation; contaminated land; bat/bird boxes; highways upgrading; lighting restriction, addressing coal mining legacy.

 

Councillor M Davinson asked if a condition in terms of the Applicant liaising with the owners of the Poultry Farm in terms of timings to minimise impact on their business would be useful.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that it was not necessary to impose such a condition, the Applicant would need to resolve any issues with neighbours.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted for clarity, prior to voting on the motion put forward by Councillor D Boyes, the approval would be subject to the conditions outlined by the Planning Officer, LO with delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Assets of the detailed wording, and subject to a s106 Agreement for a contribution to public art, as set out in the Saved Local Plan Policy.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be approved subject to conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Assets and a s106 Legal Agreement securing a contribution for public art.