PLANNING AND RIGHTS OF WAY COMMITTEE, COUNTY HALL,
13th OCTOBER 2015
Application No:
Proposal:
Site Address
Applicant:
15/01788/OUT
Outline planning application for a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 8 No
dwellings with associated drainage, access, landscaping, and amenity
space (All matters reserved)
Land North Of Emily Davison Avenue, Emily Davison Avenue, Springhill,
Morpeth
NE61 2PL
Agent:
Mr Les Stephenson
None
Northcroft Manor,
Fairmoor, Morpeth,
Northumberland
NE61 3JN
Valid Date:
1 July 2015
Case Officer
Details:
Name:
Job Title:
Tel No:
Email:
Expiry
Date:
30 September 2015
Mrs Kate Blyth
Senior Planning Officer
01670 625546
[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 Under the provisions of the Council’s current Scheme of Delegation, in cases
where applications are to be recommended for approval contrary to a valid objection
from a Town or Parish Council, they are referred to the Head of Service and the
Chair of the relevant Planning Committee for consideration to be given as to whether
the application should be referred to a Planning Committee for determination. The
matter was duly considered under these provisions on at which time it was confirmed
that the matter should be dealt with by Committee.
2. Description of the Proposals
2.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of a minimum of 6 and
a maximum of eight dwellings with associated drainage, access, landscaping and
amenity space on land north of Emily Davison Avenue, Morpeth. All matters are
reserved for subsequent approval.
2.2 The application site lies to the north of Emily Davison Avenue, which also
provides access to the site. To the north and west is open land which slopes away
from the site and the West is a small group of existing dwellings at Newminster
Abbey House.
2.3 The site is located in the open countryside and Green Belt outside the settlement
of Morpeth.
3. Planning History
None
4. Consultee Responses
Sustainable Drainage The LLFA is not a statutory consultee for this application.
Systems
However, due to the location of this development and the
potential increase of flooding elsewhere as a result of this
development, we would request that a Drainage
Statement/Assessment needs to be undertaken in relation to
surface water.
Morpeth Town
Council
This development is outside the settlement boundary as
defined in Policy Set1 - Settlement Boundaries of The Morpeth
Neighbourhood Plan and should be therefore, treated as open
countryside.
Highways
No objections to the scheme subject to conditions relating to
standard access, temporary storage area, road layout plan,
parking spaces, visibility splays, highways damage and
disposal of surface water.
Officers made it clear that the shared surface on Emily Davison
Avenue can accommodate up to 20 dwellings, of which it
already serves 14.
County Ecologist
The current application cannot be assesses until an
appropriate Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey bespoke to the
current application and site has been submitted for
consideration.
In addition the site is bounded by well established woodland to
the north and east with the latter being, in part, ancient
woodland and Local Nature Reserve (part of the wider Carlisle
Park site). It is therefore likely that protection of existing
woodland, trees and hedges on and/or adjacent to the site will
be an issue that is likely to require appropriate survey work at
an early stage such that a tree and hedgerow protection plan
could be put forward if necessary.
Public Protection
No objection
Waste Management South East
No response received.
Northumbrian Water
Ltd
No objection subject to a condition relating to details for the
disposal of foul and surface water.
County Archaeologist
I have recently commented on an application at the adjacent
site recommending that an archaeological evaluation (trial
trenching) would be appropriate. The site is relatively close
(c.170m) to the site of Newminster Abbey (Scheduled
Monument). The Abbey is likely to have had extensive estates
and controlled much of the surrounding land, potentially
including the application site. Archaeological features and
deposits associated with the Abbey may therefore occur on the
present application site. More generally, the location of the site
close to a loop in the River Wansbeck (offering both protection
and access to freshwater resources) may have been attractive
to settlement or exploitation in the prehistoric period. There is
therefore potential for unrecorded archaeological features of
prehistoric date to occur within the site.
In this instance the most effective means of assessment is
likely to be based on a programme of archaeological evaluation
involving the excavation of linear trial trenches to sample the
archaeological potential of the site. Final site layout & house
numbers are not yet confirmed, but the applicant has provided
an indicative layout. In the first instance the archaeological
evaluation trenches should therefore be targeted on the
location of the proposed dwelling houses and associated
landscaping, if appropriate. The results of this exercise will
inform an assessment of the presence / absence and
significance of the archaeological resource and establish
whether or not a programme of archaeological mitigation is
necessary. The assessment exercise should be undertaken
and the results submitted prior to the determination the
application as per para 128 of the NPPF.
I therefore recommend that the application is not determined
until the scope of an archaeological assessment has been
agreed, the work undertaken and an assessment report
submitted to the Conservation Team & LPA for consideration.
5. Public Responses
Neighbour Notification
Number of Neighbours Notified
Number of Objections
Number of Support
Number of General Comments
79
30
0
1
Notices
General site notice, 10th August 2015
No Press Notice Required.
Summary of Responses:
A total of 30 objections and one comment have been received in relation to the
application on the grounds of:
-
Dangerous access to the site
Parking issues for existing residents
Inappropriate access for construction traffic
Greenfield site
Loss of wildlife habitat
Emily Davison Avenue is a shared surface without footpaths and is dangerous
to add additional dwellings
High visibility of site from wider area
No need for additional houses outside the settlement boundary
Loss of privacy
Properties are too tall – the properties on Emily Davison Avenue were
required to be bungalows to restrict the impact on the landscape
6. Planning Policy
6.1 National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
6.2 Development Plan Policy
Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (2003)
C1 Settlement boundaries
C3 Areas of High Landscape Value
C12 Wildlife Corridors
C13 Wildlife Corridors
MC2 Areas of High Landscape Value
MC1 Settlement boundary
MC6 Wildlife Corridors
MR1 Informal Country Park
H15 New housing developments
H16 Housing in the countryside
R8 Public footpaths and bridleways
RE5 Surface water run-off and flood defences
RE6 Service infrastructure
6.3 Other Documents/Strategies
Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework (2009)
Northumberland County Council Five Year Housing Land Supply 2014 - 2019
Northumberland Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2010 (SHMA)
Northumberland County Wide Housing Needs Assessment 2012
Policy S5 of the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan First
Alteration (February 2005)
Northumberland Local Plan Pre Submission Core Strategy (Version for Cabinet
September 2015)
Submission Daft Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan (May 2015)
7. Appraisal
7.1 The main issues to be considered are;
Principle of development
Housing Supply
Impact on Green Belt and open countryside
Impact on Amenity
Highways
Impact on Ecology
Impact on Rights of Way
Impact on Heritage Assets
Impact on Archaeology
Principle of Development
7.2 The adopted Development Plan for the area within which the application site is
located comprises the: saved policies of the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan,
adopted in 2003 and saved Policy S5 in 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 boundaries of Morpeth
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
saved Local Plan Policies C1, MC1, 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 this part of Morpeth), 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 the 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 given to the policies in the
Northumberland Local Plan Pre Submission Core Strategy (version for Cabinet,
September 2015), and the Submission Draft Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan (May
2015), both of which comprise material considerations in the determination of this
application.
7.5 The submitted Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan provides greater local detail to
supplement the existing Development Plan policies and policies in the emerging
Core Strategy. Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan define sustainable locations
where new housing development should be located and proposes settlement
boundaries around Morpeth and the surrounding villages. The Neighbourhood Plan
has been through the necessary stages of publicity and has been amended to reflect
representations made during consultation.
7.6 The publicity on the Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan resulted in some
significant and detailed representations. Correspondence from the Independent
Examiner regarding administrative matters indicated that due to the extent and
complexity of the representations made, the time required concluding the
examination would be longer than originally anticipated. Officers are advised that the
Independent Examiner has now completed his review of the plan and has no major
changes to make. The plan is yet to go through referendum and formal adoption but
can now be given considerable weight in decision making.
7.7 The site is a parcel of land which is 0.95ha. The application site lies in an area
beyond the settlement boundaries of Morpeth as defined in the saved Castle
Morpeth District Local Plan Policy MC1 and is therefore considered as being located
in an area of open countryside. This settlement boundary includes the housing on
Emily Davison Avenue, with these properties forming the settlement boundary,
excluding the application site.
7.8 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 emerging plan - the Submission Draft Morpeth
Neighbourhood Plan and the Northumberland Local Plan Pre Submission Core
Strategy (Cabinet version September 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; and the acceptance in terms of highway safety.
Housing Supply
7.9 The emerging Core Strategy identifies four Deliver Areas which comprise
Housing Market Areas. The application site falls within the Central Delivery Area
(CDA). Current monitoring data confirms that Northumberland can demonstrate a
five year supply. The CDA has a 6.1 year supply, which equates to a 123% supply
against the adjusted CDA housing requirement for the 2015-2020 period. Having
regard to paragraph 49 of NPPF, relevant policies for the supply of housing should
be considered up to date because the local planning authority can demonstrate a
five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. For this reason the settlement
boundary policies set out in the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan, which are
considered to be relevant policies in the context of NPPF, must be afforded weight
and the application should be determined in accordance with those policies.
Green Belt
7.10 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 to the north of Morpeth 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 current Pre Submission Draft Core Strategy and
previous consultation drafts have consistently defined the inner boundaries of the
Green Belt extension in the vicinity of the application site. Whilst the Core Strategy
may not yet have reached Examination, the local planning authority has
demonstrated its clear and consistent intent with regard to the inner Green Belt
boundary in this location. Having regard to Policy S5 and the inner Green Belt
boundary around Morpeth defined 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.
7.11 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 as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
7.12 The application is in outline form only, but consideration can be given to the
potential impact on buildings being sited in this location. The site is located on a
sloping area of land between the built up area of Morpeth and the small group of
dwellings including Newminster Abbey House. To the south lie the bungalows which
form the northern edge of Emily Davison Avenue. To the north and east form areas
of Woodland which make an important contribution to the green corridor which
extends from the town, to the West towards Mitford.
7.13 The site is elevated and it is therefore not possible for it to be screened is
visible from a wider area and vantage points within the town. The site is very visible
from the Mitford Road, Dogger Bank and glimpses of the site are given from the
A192 and Oldgate.
7.14 Whilst it is difficult to assess any potential impact at outline stage, it is
considered that the development of any properties, but particularly ones to be two
storeys high would have a severe detrimental impact upon the views into the site
from neighbouring properties, but also from the wider area. It is not considered that
these effects could be mitigated through design or screening. The proposed
development would therefore compromise the openness of the Green Belt and open
countryside in this location contrary to the NPPF and Local Plan Policy MC2.
Impact on Amenity
7.15 The amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of privacy or outlook can only
be assessed thoroughly at reserved matters stage, but it is considered that the
dimensions of the site are such that a satisfactory layout of development could
potential be achieved at the site without compromising amenity, in accordance with
the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H15.
Highways
7.16 The Highway Authority has assessed the impact of the proposed development,
particularly in terms of the impact on Emily Davison Avenue which is a shared
surface (ie there are no footpaths etc at the very top of the cul-de-sac so all users
including pedestrians and vehicles have to share the road space). Highways Officers
consider that the road network can accommodate the additional traffic created by the
proposed dwellings and are satisfied that safe access can be achieved subject to
conditions.
7.17 However, officers have made it clear that the shared surface on Emily Davison
Avenue can only accommodate up to 20 dwellings, of which is already serves 14
which are existing. This application seeks to permit between 6 and 8 further
dwellings, and there is a current application on an adjacent site which proposes to
add a further 4 dwellings. Clearly, the road cannot accommodate all the additional
dwellings and should the adjacent site be granted planning permission, the current
application for between 6 and 8 dwellings would have be recommended for refusal
due to the impact of the additional dwellings on the shared surface. If permission
were not granted for the additional site the current application could permit no more
than 6 additional dwellings without compromising the shared surface, in accordance
with the NPPF which could be restricted by a relevant planning condition.
Impact on Ecology
7.18 The site is located adjacent to a wildlife corridor, close to an area of Ancient
Woodland and in an area designated as ‘Informal Country Park’ under Local Plan
Policy MR1.
7.19 the County Ecologist is not satisfied that sufficient survey work has been
undertaken in relation to the trees and protected species at the site. It is likely that
further to the additional information being received, the development could be
acceptable subject to conditions but at present, this cannot be established and the
proposals would be contrary to the NPPF and Local Plan Policies C12, C13, MC6
and MR1.
Impact on Archaeology
7.20 The site is located close to the remains of Newminster Abbey to the west of the
site. The County Archaeologist has objected to the scheme on the grounds that a
survey work needs to be undertaken and submitted to accompany the application
which should identify the archaeological potential of the site, and whether further
assessment in the form of trial trenching is needed to enable an informed
assessment of the application in accordance with the NPPF. It is therefore
considered that there is not sufficient information to adequate the present
application.
Drainage
7.21 The application has been examined by Northumbrian Water who have no
objections at this stage subject to details of the disposal of foul and surface water
which could be conditioned as part of any approval.
7.22 In addition, the Councils sustainable urban drainage officer has examined the
proposals and has no objection as they are not a statutory consultee on the
application but do recommend that the applicants carry out survey work in relation
the disposal of surface water which would be added as an informative in accordance
with the NPPF.
Affordable Housing Provision
7.23 There are no policies within the Castle Morpeth Local Plan which require the
provision of affordable housing. The former Castle Morpeth District Council adopted
an Interim Planning policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) in February 2008 pending
adoption of its Core Strategy. Subsequently, the Castle Morpeth Core Strategy was
not adopted prior to local government reorganisation in 2009. The IPPAH now forms
part of the Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework and is formally
adopted.
7.24 The NPPF advises that Local Planning Authorities should, in order to deliver a
wide choice of high quality homes, set policies for meeting affordable housing needs
on-site where the need for such provision has been identified unless off-site
provision or a financial contribution can be robustly justified. The Northumberland
Local Plan Core Strategy – Full Draft Plan, published in December 2014 sets out a
target in Policy 15 for the provision of 30% affordable housing which is in line with
the NPPF.
7.25 It has been established in previous applications within Morpeth by the Council’s
Strategic Housing Team, that it is an area of high demand, low availability and low
turnover of affordable homes and in order to deliver affordable housing in areas of
high demand and need the Strategic Housing Team would seek 30% affordable
housing on all sites. In this case the type of housing proposed would be unlikely to
provide an affordable element on site, so in this case an off-site contribution would
be appropriate. No mechanism for acquiring an affordable housing contribution has
been put in place in this case, contrary to the aims of the NPPF.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The site is located in the Open Countryside and Green Belt, outside the
settlement of Morpeth as defined the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan. No special
circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant approval of new development in
this location contrary to the NPPF, Structure Plan Policy S5, Northumberland Pre
Submission Core Strategy (Cabinet Version September 2015) Castle Morpeth Local
Plan Policies C1, MC1, H16 and the Submission Draft Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan
Policy Sus1.
9. Recommendation
9.1 That this application be REFUSED outline planning permission subject to the
following:
Reasons
01.
The proposals would represent non-essential and unjustified development in
the open countryside outside of the defined settlement boundary limits for Morpeth,
contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies C1, MC1 and H16 of
the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan and Policy Set1 of the submission draft
Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan.
02.
The proposed development would be located within the Green Belt. No
special circumstances have been demonstrated and it would therefore be
inappropriate development, which is considered, by definition, to be harmful to the
Green Belt, as defined by Joint Structure Plan Policy S5 and Northumberland Local
Plan Pre-Submission Core Strategy (September 2015) which are supported by
Morpeth District Local Plan Policies C1 and MC1 together with Policy Set1 of the
submission draft Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan.
03.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposals would not have a
significant detrimental impact on local ecology, and the proposals are therefore
considered contrary to the NPPF and Local Plan Policies C12, C13, MC6 and MR1
in this respect.
04.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposals would not have a
detrimental impact on potential archaeological remains from the nearby Newminster
Abbey, contrary to the aims of the NPPF.
05.
No mechanism for acquiring an affordable housing contribution has been put
in place in this case, contrary to the aims of the NPPF.
Date of Report: 16.09.2015
Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 15/01788/OUT
List and Comments of representations received:Name
Address
Summary of Comments
Mr Peter Gavin
26 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
My wife and I wish to object to the proposed
use of Emily Davison Avenue as an access to
this proposed development and also the
construction of six to eight dwellings.
The Avenue is a single lane housing estate
road with speed bumps and was presumably
designed for the purpose of household access.
At the top of the Avenue there are no
footpaths at roadside and therefore
construction traffic would present a danger to
pedestrians and children. The road allows two
cars to pass each other but construction traffic
will cause congestion, also the road shows
signs of cracking and increased traffic flow is
bound to worsen this.
The approach to Emily Davison Avenue along
either Church Walk or Abbot's Way is totally
unsuited to construction traffic. At school drop
off and pick up times especially the road is
virtually single lane.
Our house is to the right of the new access
into the field and our boundary is therefore
adjacent to the new road which is to be
created. The current access to the field is via
an approx. 2.mtr wide gate and it is difficult to
see how large lorries can navigate this
entrance without encroaching on to our site.
The developer has indicated that he would
wish to purchase some of our land but there
have been no formal discussions with him
regarding this.
There is evidence of wildlife (badgers, deer,
foxes, bats and pheasants) using the field over
which the new road is planned and therefore
the impact of disturbing habitats has to be
taken account of.
Our objection to planning application
14/03332/OUT, which envisages the use of
the proposed road, remains.
Mrs Catherine
Harbour
Mrs & Professor B
& F Arthur
3 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
I objected to 4 housed being built at the north
of Emily Davison Avenue and now I am
informed there could be up to another 8 house
built, making 12 houses. My objection is where
will this end? No doubt more and more houses
will be built opening up onto Mitford Road and
creating a school 'rat-run' through our small
and narrow street.
Emily Davison Avenue is very narrow with
some speed humps, children regularly play in
it and cars are regularly parked. It is used
constantly for school drop-offs for Abbeyfields,
thus many small children are in the area at
school times.
Also I object to the destruction of wildlife
habitat and the obvious increased noise and
disturbance caused to a small private estate
which, I fear, will become in time a main
through road, causing damage and danger.
The Stables
Newminster
NE61 2YL
Objection to 15/01788/OUT
Mrs B. and Professor F. Arthur
The Stables
Newminster
NE612YL
15/07/15
1.
Our home borders on the land on which
the above development is proposed. The
reasons for our objection are set out in the
paragraphs below.
General Points
2.
The core strategy, published after
taking account of 16,500 contributions, affirms
that the ' western boundary should be tightly
drawn to the existing settlement edges.' Since
the Core Strategy was published in the
autumn of 2014 there have been 4 planning
applications i.e. 14/03332/OUT,
14/03603/FUL, 15/01916/FUL,15/01788 , all
of which, to a greater or lesser extent, will
have an adverse effect on the quality of our
life. More importantly, their cumulative effect is
to shift the western edge the settlement
boundary from that identified in the Core
Strategy to Lowford bridge and the private
road on which our home is located.
3.
The Core Strategy makes clear that in
order to protect the green infrastructure
boundary areas such as the Wansbeck River
Valley and Scotch Gill Woods then the
western settlement boundary should be tightly
drawn. If all four applications (see para 2
above) are approved the lower end of the
settlement boundary will coincide with the
entrance to Scotch Gill Woods !!!!!
4.
Some 9 months ago the previous
owners of Newminster Abbey House claimed
they personally held a covenant which
prevented any more than 5 houses being built
on this location. If that covenant is still in place
then this application is invalid.
5.
The application is in a field which the
Core Strategy designated as being a Green
Field site.
6.
The development is in direct conflict
with the Core Strategy objective that,
'Wherever possible development will have
been directed away from our most sensitive
and valuable natural assets, habitats and
species towards less sensitive areas.' Both
this development and that of 14/03332/OUT
are being built in an area well used by badgers
and their families. The advice of Natural
England for the care of badgers is that they
can be harmed by noise, additional lighting
and vibration. It's difficult to understand how
you can build 10-12 houses without producing
all these conditions.
7.
Springhilll House, which is attached to
Newminster Abbey House ,and borders the
road and one of the houses proposed in this
application, is not identified on the plan
associated with the application. Given that we
made the same comment in our objection to
14/03332/OUT it is disappointing the Planning
Authority have let the error go through again.
8.
Don't understand the colouring on the
plan of existing properties. However, just to
ensure that readers are not misled, neither the
land ( including its garden) belonging to the
Stables nor that associated with Springhill
House belong to Newminster Abbey House.
9.
The 14/03332/OUT and
15/01788/OUT proposals seek to build up to
12 houses. However, no mention is made of
contributing to the Core Strategy target that
30% of new homes should be affordable
housing - and this objective applies to any
development where there are more than two
units.
10.
Dr England draws attention to the fact
that the properties at the edge of the field
where the development is proposed are
bungalows with a raised bank,' to obscure
their view from the Mitford Valley' and for the
same reason the field was not developed. At
the time, nine years ago, we purchased our
home our solicitor gave us the same advice.
11.
Much of the application is simply
padding which has been lifted from previous
applications. Mixed among them re assertions
which have a serious impact on the nature of
this application . Examples of both types
include,
o
Para 3.37. This section affirms that to
widen the gate entrance serious discussions
have been held with properties on either side.
In their representation Mr and Mrs Gavin, who
live on one side of the entrance gate state
reject the veracity of the affirmation by stating
firmly that,' no formal discussions have been
entered into with Mr Stephenson.'
o
Para. 2.6 .Views into the site are
limited- he's wrong. We, and we know others
have as well, a clear view both from our
house and our garden.
o
Para 3.31. The applicant , as he did in
14/03332 seriously understates the time to get
to Morpeth in order to strengthen his case. He
claims it would take 8 minutes to walk to
Morpeth Town Centre. Even if it were possible
for any resident on the site to get to Town in
this time, and we don't think so, then they
certainly couldn't manage the uphill return
journey in anywhere near that period.
o
Para 5.15. The development empowers
local people to shape their surroundings. This
is a ridiculous claim . The first we know about
developments involving Mr Stephenson is
when we receive a letter from the Council.
Most of Newminster residents opposed the
original (14/03332) development and there has
been no consultation on this application - in
fact two of our neighbours did not even know
about it until we told them. Indeed, the plans
put forward in the application are in direct
conflict to major objectives of the Core
Strategy (which had 16,500 contributors).
o
Para 3.9. Any building of 10 metres
mean height will certainly be visible from our
property. The assertion , here, of a mean
height of 10 metres is in conflict with the
statement in para 3.21 that the properties will
be no taller than 10 metres.
o
Para. 2.13. The assertion that Morpeth
is only 8 miles from the City of Newcastle is
misleading in that it represents the distance to
the City's outer boundary. The AA route map
shows that Newcastle Haymarket is 16.5 miles
from Morpeth (even Gosforth High Street is 12
miles).
o
Para 5.15. Applicant claims the new
development (15/01788) is conserving and
enhancing the natural environment. It's doing
the opposite.
o
Section 5. We smiled when Section 5
was referred to as stakeholders' consultation.
We think we are stakeholders given that our
home is on the edge of the developments in
14/03332 and 15/01788. We have not been
informed, or consulted on any feature of these
developments.
o
Para 2.8. Don't understand what the
applicant means by the main garden area on
the 2.7 acre site.
Access to the Site/Homes
12.
What is actually being requested, in
terms of access, is difficult to determine. The
final target route from the highway to the
site/homes continues to be camouflaged. The
planning authority may be able to throw some
light on it but the situation is as follows:
o
In November 2014 Mr Stephenson
made an application (14/03332/OUT) for four
houses on the garden of Newminster Abbey
House (NAH). This involved accessing NAH
from the private road starting at Lowford
bridge and the demolition of two garages at
NAH. Protests from residents and highways
led to a change of mind.
o
An amended plan was produced (in
December) where access was via the Bellway
field and the accompanying letter from Mr
Stephenson firmly stated that there would only
be one entrance and exit via Emily Davison
Avenue. However the amended plan retained
the garages ,thus providing the potential for a
vehicle route through to Lowford bridge for
residents of Kirkhill and the new houses. We
brought this to the attention of the planners
and suggested Mr Stephenson presented an
amended plan which prevented this so-called
rat run. However, there has been no
amendment to the 14/03332/OUT plan that
was submitted in December ensuring that this
did not happen.
o
In early July the Council sent us
notification of a further development 15/01788)
OUT on the field adjacent to our garden.
Section 3.7 of that application states, 'Only
one new access points (sic) will be created
onto Emily Davison Avenue. This will not be
brought into use until the new traffic
management system on the Lowford Bridge is
implemented.' If there is no intention of
allowing a route from the new developments
(14/03332 and 15/01788) to Lowford bridge
what on earth has a traffic management
system at Low ford bridge got to do with
vehicular access to these developments ?
13.
In a previous application 14/03332 a
number of objections drew attention to the
unsuitability, including enhanced risk to
residents, of Emily Davison Avenue for site
traffic. There are further similar objections (e.g.
from Mrs Harbour and Dr England) to this
application . We endorse these concerns.
14.
There are three potential routes to
Emily Davison Avenue, viz.
o
Via the Whalton Road, High House
Lane (over a weight-limited bridge)and Kirkhill
estate.
o
Via Oldgate and Curley Kews.
o
Using the entrance by the Sun Inn to
access Kirkhill Estate.
All of the routes are manifestly unsuitable in
that they include hazardous stretches,
exacerbate congestion in the Town, pass
close to one or more primary schools and to a
retirement home. The well-being of all the
residents along these routes will be adversely
affected.
15.
As council taxpayers we would expect
that documents presented to the planning
committee are unambiguous and factually
correct. That is not the case here and we
assume the LPA has a process of rectification
which is open and transparent to all residents
affected by this proposal.
Mrs B. and Professor F. Arthur
Mr & Mrs J V
Soames
Springwell House
Wellway
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 1BJ
We wish to object to the above application,
which is on land abutting our property, for the
following reasons:
1.
The site is outside of the settlement
boundary in the Morpeth Local Plan, and is
protected by policy MC2 which designates it
as within an area of high landscape value. The
proposed development is detrimental to the
long-term policy objectives of protecting the
Wansbeck Valley from inappropriate
development. To comply with this, bungalows
were built along the boundary of the existing
site and obscured from the Valley by a raised
bank planted with trees. In contrast, the
proposed new housing, 7.5-10 metres in
height, would be potentially highly visible.
2. The proposed access to the development
could be seriously detrimental to road safety
and to the wellbeing of the residents on Emily
Davison Avenue. The road is narrow, and,
towards the entrance of the proposed access
there are no pavements. It is not suitable for
access by construction vehicles.
The road is a shared surface, which
already serves 14 houses. In their Consultant
Comments, the Highways Development
Management states that Northumberland
County Councils Residential Roads and
Footways guidelines prescribe a maximum of
20 dwellings served by a shared surface,
leaving potential accommodation for a
maximum of six dwellings. However the
Application includes a variety of proposals,
which together with the proposed build of 4
houses in the garden of Newminster Abbey
House, all exceed the prescribed maximum of
20 dwellings.
It is not clear what route vehicles
associated with the development would follow
to access the proposed new road off Emily
Davison Avenue, although it states in the
application that there would be no access via
Mitford Rd and Pottery Bank junction. It also
states that no construction would take place
until "the new traffic management system on
the Lowford Bridge is implemented". This
statement requires explanation as the
residents are not aware of any "new traffic
management system". Indeed, a similar
attempt to get such a signal controlled system
implemented, in order to access the proposed
construction site for 4 houses in the garden of
Newminster Abbey House, via the private
drive, was dismissed by The Transport
Projects team. We are concerned that the
applicant is may be trying to re-open
discussion on access via the private drive to
the proposed site, as well as from the Emily
Davison side.
3. The ecological survey is inadequate, as
pointed out in the Consultant Comments of Mr.
Colin Marley, who states that "it is not bespoke
for this site or this application". Although
Section 6 of the application "Summary and
Conclusions", refers to "sustainable ecological
landscape", "sufficient green space enhancing
the ecological characteristics and biodiversity",
and "enhanced area attracting more wildlife
habitat", there is no evidence to support any of
these statements.
In conclusion, in view of the comments
above, we feel that the application is
inappropriate for the location and should be
rejected.
Mr mike burgess
11 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
A petition has been raised objecting to this
application on the grounds of danger to
pedestrians on the Springhill Estate,
destruction of a wild life corridor and blighting
of the Wansbeck Valley skyline. This petition is
in addition to the petition raised objecting to
14/03332/OUT which all intend to use Emily
Davison Ave as access. It therefore follows,
that more development will increase danger,
destroy more wildlife and further blight the
Wansbeck Valley skyline.
Most of the signatories/objectors live in the
Springhill Estate and surrounding streets.
There are over 220 signatories.
I would like to object to this application on the
grounds that all the objections pertaining to
application 14/03332/OUT, and there are a lot,
also apply to this application since both
applications want access through Emily
Davison Ave. In fact the concerns are now
multiplied since the danger from industrial
traffic and domestic traffic will increase further
and there will be more destruction of habitat
and wildlife. Also, Emily Davison Ave was
never designed to support a development
such as this.
See documents tab 06.08.15
1 Blagdon Close
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
Dear Mrs Blyth,
Mr Eric Kennett
Please consider my objection to the proposed
use of Emily Davison Avenue for access to the
NE61 2PH
area outlined by the application reference
15/01788/OUT. This objection is similar to that
raised for Planning Reference 14/03332/OUT.
Emily Davison Avenue is a relatively narrow
residential road ending in a cul-de-sac and
seems unsuitable for the routine use of
vehicles other than those associated with the
present residents. My objection is based on
the possible increased risk to persons,
property, and infrastructure, and increased
traffic noise.
15 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
Our comments relating to a prior application
(14/03332/OUT), for 4 houses at Newminster
Abbey House, stand and have greater
significance now up to 8 further dwellings are
proposed.
Mrs Jane Craske
This is a Greenfield site, a wild-life corridor for
foxes, badgers and deer. Note 2:8 mentions
"very few intermittent features or trees of
merit". Trees were recently cut down and now
the vista will be destroyed too.
Access to Emily Davison Avenue is already
hazardous. Cars are parked on both sides of
the road at Church Walk and, during school
drop-off times, parked on the pavement at the
entrance to the estate.
The road past Blagdon Close has no
pavement and the stretch from there up to the
proposed access is regularly used by children
as a play area. As demonstrated during the
Planning Committee site visit in Feburary, twoway traffic is impossible and construction
traffic could not pass parked cars.
The estate roads are already too narrow to
accommodate passing traffic and large
delivery vehicles are unable to negotiate the
right-angled bend at the top of Emily Davison
Avenue so frequently drive over lawns. There
is no doubt that construction vehicles would
have difficulty manoeuvring around the bend
and would most certainly create congestion
and cause damage.
The road and speed bumps are already
showing signs of damage and that would be
exacerbated by increased flow.
The proposed access is too narrow to
accommodate site traffic and would affect the
privacy of adjoining homes.
If approved, the 10 - 12 extra houses would
make little impact on Morpeth's housing
requirement and presumably, a rather a large
one in the developer's wallet.
The bank at the rear of the bungalows on
Emily Davison Avenue was created to obscure
the properties from view of the other side of
the valley. New houses, 10metre high would
be visible from Lancaster Park and beyond,
and would impact on the privacy of the families
living in the bungalows.
Ms carol patterson
11 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
I object to this application on the grounds that
not everyone who is impacted has been
informed. Only a few houses at the top of
Emily Davison Ave have been informed yet the
whole of Emily Davison Ave is intended to be
the gateway to this development. Therefore,
everyone on Emily Davison Ave is impacted.
Also this impacts residents on Church Walk
and Abbot's Way who will also have to deal
with increased traffic, congestion and road
safety issues. They have not been informed
either.
All my previous comments logged against
planning application 14/03332/OUT still stand
and also apply to this application.
In addition, approval has been given to build
1000 new homes in Morpeth, so do we really
need a further 10-12 houses and the resulting
destruction of a wildlife corridor.
The Wansbeck Valley is beautiful are we really
going to destroy it.
I am very concerned about safety. The
roadway leading through Emily Davison Ave to
the cul-de-sac is very narrow and it is difficult
for pedestrians now, so any increase in traffic
would just add to the danger.
Mrs Kathryn
Heaton
Morpeth And
District Civic
Society
7 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
This development poses the same issues of
safety as the previous application for the 4
houses behind Newminster Abbey House .The
Springhill estate has roads which were
planned as cul-de sacs not thoroughfares
,they contain speed bumps which lorries
struggle to manoeuvre and this has resulted in
items falling from lorries onto roads where
children play. There are no pavements after
Blagdon Close and the roads are narrow and
frequently contain parked cars. Since this
estate is used as a parking area of Abbeyfields
school parents it is extremely busy at school
dropping off and pick up times and access to
Springhill Estate is very narrow with young
children heading to and from school.The
access onto the Springhill Estate is via Church
Walk which usually has cars parked on both
sides of the road .Blagdon Close is used as a
footpath to go through the wooded area
adjoining Curley Kews and hence contains
large numbers of older school children and
adults heading to their schools and the town
centre . The construction traffic of this
development poses a great number of Safety
issues and is completely inappropriate for the
addition of 6-8 houses which spoil the sight
lines from Mitford Road and produce their own
ensuing traffic .
The Oaks
10 Ridley Close
Springhill
Morpeth
See document management system - 4.8.15
Northumberland
NE61 2PJ
Mr Wiiliam
Kearney
Mrs pauline
mccourt
18 Ogle Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PN
Further to my Objection to Planning
application Ref: 14/03332/OUT.
I object to the application 15/01788/OUT which
intends to build an additional 6 to 8 dwellings
on the greenbelt land highlighted in the
application.
The increase in traffic on Emily Davidson
Avenue to gain access to the site will create a
very hazardous situation on Church Walk due
to the number of residents cars parked on
each side of the road with no alternative place
to locate the vehicles.
In addition the entrance to the Springhill estate
is used Morning and Afternoon for parking by
parents taking their children to School.
With the proliferation of applications for house
building in Morpeth over the last two years
surely there must be a limit on how much
green belt land is eliminated by contractors out
to increase their profit margins.
The land in question in this application has
been a wild life corridor for many years and
once destroyed will never be recovered.
It would seem that the developer who
purchased the land assumed that access
would be granted regardless of the
surrounding neighbourhood and it's residents
14 Ogle Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PN
In commenting only on the highway issues at
this stage, i question whether access can be
left for future consideration (as a reserved
matter).
The site entrance itself is bordered on each
side by private gardens (and therefore not in
the applicants control) which contain
vegetation and a driveway where parked
vehicles and existing and future tree or shrub
planting may seriously impede the vision
splays 2.4mx90m, required by the Highways
Officer.(suggested condition 5).
Comments of The Highways Officer on the
council web site have been made following ?
site observation and other material
considerations? . Those comments could have
included some reference to the OUTLINE
Application 4 dwellings - Land at Newminster
Abbey House - [reference 14/03332/OUT],
which if rejected but allowed on appeal, would
make the total number of dwellings in excess
of what the Highways department regard as
acceptable. Is that application to be
withdrawn?
In considering the total number of dwellings
that could use the shared surface highway of
Emily Davidson Avenue some thought may
also be given not only to the 4 dwellings
already proposed in application 14/03332/OUT
but also to the possibility of existing
Newminster Abbey properties obtaining
vehicular access (potentially with parking on
part of the land), if it were introduced after an
access was constructed in this application.
Could this scenario be controlled or might it
not even require planning permission?
Highway safety and Construction traffic are
major concerns highlighted in the application
14/03332/OUT and those concerns will be
exacerbated by the impacts of this proposal,
which could result in the route being used by
far more dwellings than have been identified in
the documents of this application.
Dr Michael Davies
19 Ogle Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PN
I do not believe this development is
appropriate for the following reasons.
The land in question is currently a wild life
corridor for badgers, foxes and deer.
The access via Emily Davison is inappropriate
for the large vehicles which would be required
to deliver building materials:1/ the road already is already cracking and
subsiding following normal use and would
therefore need significant repairs if approval
were given to this development.
2/ it is impossible for two cars to pass when
traveling at the speed limit. There is certainly
no space for large delivery vehicles to pass
without damage to gardens.
3/Emily Davison Avenue was built without
pavements from No 11. i.e. it was not
designed as a through road. Therefore there is
a significant increased risk of car collisions on
this road due to increased usage as well as
the more important ones of human collisions
with cars, especially young children, should
approval be given to this development.
4) Access to Emily Davison Avenue is chaotic
to say the least at school start and finish times
and having extra through traffic along this
route from delivery lorries will only make a
dangerous situation worse.
5) There is a danger that this will become a rat
run if there is a road between this proposed
development and the 4 house development in
Planning Application Ref 14/0332/OUT for 4
new houses in Newminster Abbey House
garden.
6) This proposed new development would be
visible from well outside the Morpeth town
boundary.
7) The land is green belt in the new local plan
for which I understand the planning committee
has had input to.
G H & V Langston
16 Ogle Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PN
Amended Planning Application No.
15/01778/OUT - 6/8 No. Dwellings
We wish to object to the above application for
the construction of 6/8 dwellings at land North
of Emily Davison Avenue and the proposed
access via Emily Davison Avenue on the
following grounds:
1.
Confused Application
There is no mention of the planning application
for 4 executive dwellings to be built on land
located South East of Newminster House
reference No. 14/03332/OUT. This planning
application also proposes to use the same
access from Emily Davison Avenue. We
consider that both applications should be
submitted as one. The statement from
Northumberland Highways states that a
maximum of 6 houses can only be accessed
from Emily Davison Avenue. With both
developments we are looking at proposals for
10 to 12 houses to be built.
This is also the third time I have written to
object to these developments and wonder how
many times a developer is allowed to apply for
planning permission?
2.
Environmental
Since our objection to the planning application
No. 14/03332/OUT dated 27/12/2014 with
regard to the proposed new access road we
have seen that trees have been felled/cut back
in the land to the North of Emily Davison
Avenue. We were under the impression that
this field was classified as a conservation and
green belt area?
3.
Historic
A previous planning application was made
some 10 years (?) ago for access via the gate
located off the top of Emily Davison Avenue
and development was refused. We assume
that the reasons for refusal are still valid
today? We would reiterate other people's
comments on how unsuitable Emily Davison
Avenue, Church Walk and Abbots Way would
be for construction traffic and subsequent
additional traffic flow to and from the
development. Moderately sized cars
sometimes struggle to negotiate the many
parked cars on these roads never mind large
lorries! Some private drives on the Springhill
Estate are used by parents to park their cars
when taking their children to & from
Abbeyfields School. How are you going to
guarantee their safety together with other local
children?
4.
Construction
We have also read of Northumberland Water
Authority concerns with regard to surface
water and foul sewage in respect to the 4
proposed properties (ref. planning application
No. 14/03332/OUT). A further 6 to 8 houses is
not going to make a solution any easier. The
height of the proposed dwellings being up to
10m in height is a lot higher than the height of
the existing houses in both Ogle and Emily
Davison Avenue. Bellway homes had to
reduce the height of their proposed
development by building bungalows on the
north facing side of Emily Davison Avenue.
Bellway even had to construct an earth wall to
hide the bungalows from Mitford Valley.
5.
General
The need for this type of housing is unjustified
with recent planning applications being
granted for a large number of new house
builds in Loansdene, Stobhill and St Georges.
There is also an outstanding planning
application for executive housing on the old
Northumberland Water Site off Mitford Road
(west of the River Wansbeck).
It is unclear whether the proposed access road
will link directly with Newminster Abbey House.
If the proposed access road links with
Newminster Abbey House then additional
traffic will use this access as a short cut to the
town. If the development of Newminster Abbey
House into apartments goes ahead then even
more traffic will access this route.
On the basis of the above we ask the planning
authority to investigate fully all aspects of the
application so that the impacts are properly
assessed. We also reserve the right to make
further comment if more information becomes
available.
G.H. Langston and Mrs V Langston 16 Ogle
Avenue, Morpeth. NE61 2PN
Date: 23/07/2015
Mr Duncan
McDonald
Mr Colin
Waterston
9 Blagdon Close
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PH
I strongly object to this proposed development
on the following grounds.
1) The road leading to the proposed access is
narrow, and unsuitable for construction traffic.
2)Why should the residents of Emily Davison
Ave and surrounding streets who currently
enjoy a peaceful existence, be subject to the
noise, disruption and pollution a building site
and it's traffic creates. I think it unfair that we
(the majority) would have our peace, quiet and
surroundings devastated for the self serving
financial benefit of the few.
3) The roads in and around Emily Davison Ave
are populated by families with young children,
so any increase in traffic either temporary or
permanent will be a source of danger to these
young people.
4) There are already a number of significant
housing developments in progress around
Morpeth, so I do not see the need to create
more.
5) The area is home to an abundance of
wildlife so why displace these creatures to
create unnecessary housing.
6) I suspect that the current drainage system
would not support the outflows of another
small development, and in any event why
should we the current residents allow other
people to be connected to our drainage
system which we are responsible for?
7)In short, this and the previous proposal to
build four houses are utterly selfish,
inconsiderate, unsafe, ill thought out and
completely unnecessary.
8 Blagdon Close
Springhill
I would like to object to the above application
in line with my letter to Mrs Kate Blyth dated
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PH
the 27th December 2014.The reasons for my
objection are outlined in my letter and remain
the same for this application. If further
information is required regarding this objection
then please do not hesitate in contacting me.
7 Blagdon Close
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PH
This is not feasible from a child safety
perspective. The estate does not have the
infrastructure to support heavy plant traffic and
additional general traffic the new properties
will generate. There are no pavements
surrounding these proposed access areas.
The original estate was not built to support
through traffic. Please confirm you can
guarantee my children's road safety if you
agree to this proposal. Thank you.
Mr Simon Fox
Mrs Judith Nunn
15 Blagdon Close I object on the grounds made now on 2
Springhill
previous occasions.
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PH
S Rank
18 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
see document tab 15/7/15
23 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
We strongly object to this application for the
following reasons:1 The access to this site via Emily Davison
Avenue is not suitable due to the safety issues
which will be created because of the lack of
footpaths, the narrowness and surface of the
road which is unsuitable and the danger to
children playing in the area.
2 The area for development is green belt area
where the boundary seems to have changed
from fixed to flexible.
3 This area is at the rear of our garden which
Mr Eric Williams
is visited by wildlife including badgers.foxes
and deer.
4 The developer has the capability in time to
create a minimum total of over 10 to 12
properties and a through road down to
Newminster which would cause further safety
issues in respect of access via Emily Davison
Avenue and damage to our wildlife in the area.
Mr Alan Moore
19 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
We wish to object to this application for the
following reasons:
1. After the right turn into Blagdon close the
road narrows and is not suitable for an
increase in traffic.
2. From the same point at the turn off to
Blagdon close there is no footpath nor is there
room to provide one.
3. The proposed houses will dominate the
skyline and invade the privacy of the 5
bungalows along the adjoining boundary.
4. This area is a valuable wild green space in
the middle of Morpeth and such acts as 'the
lungs of the town' and is a valuable habitat for
wildlife.
5. The approach to Emily Davison Avenue
along either Church Walk or Abbot's way is
totally unsuited to construction traffic. At
school drop off and pick up times especially
the road is virtually single lane.
6. With big developements to both the north
and south of Morpeth do we need to nibble
away at small vital areas of green field?
We wish to object to this application for the
following reasons:
1. After the right turn into Blagdon close the
road narrows and is not suitable for an
increase in traffic.
2. From the same point at the turn off to
Blagdon close there is no footpath nor is there
room to provide one.
3. The proposed houses will dominate the
skyline and invade the privacy of the 5
bungalows along the adjoining boundary.
4. This area is a valuable wild green space in
the middle of Morpeth and such acts as 'the
lungs of the town' and is a valuable habitat for
wildlife.
5. The approach to Emily Davison Avenue
along either Church Walk or Abbot's way is
totally unsuited to construction traffic. At
school drop off and pick up times especially
the road is virtually single lane.
6. With big developements to both the north
and south of Morpeth do we need to nibble
away at small vital areas of green field?
Mrs Ann Patterson
24 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
I object to this application for the following
reasons:
1. From no. 11 Emily Davison Avenue there
are no pavements and an increase in traffic on
this very narrow road would pose a danger to
pedestrians and to the children who live and
play in this area.
2. The road surface from the speed hump
onwards is of inferior quality and will not
withstand the pressure of increased traffic.
The road was designed for the small amount
of traffic from the existing houses.
3. Approval for buildings 7.5 - 10 metres high
would be inappropriate as they would be
visible from the Wansbeck Valley. Previous
requests for planning on this site were
declined for this reason and only bungalows
were acceptable.
4. This is a wildlife corridor for foxes, deer and
badgers and there were a number of trees
which have now been cut down.
5. There is a sharp bend at the top of Emily
Davison Avenue which is very difficult for large
vehicles to negotiate. Any increase in traffic
would cause a hazard.
6. Northumberland's Planning Department is
proposing this site be designated "green belt"
in the new core structure plan being prepared
for submission to government for approval,
therefore I believe that to determine this
application prior to that submission is
premature.
7. There are substantial numbers of potential
residential housing sites already available in
Morpeth. The soon to be completed Morpeth
By Pass has the potential to significantly
increase opportunities for residential housing
development, this would meet the housing
needs of Morpeth during the period of the new
core structure plan.
Therefore, I believe this proposal to be
unnecessary and unjustified
Dr stuart jobling
17 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
Comments made in response to application (
14/03332/Out ) apply equally here and with
increased significance as up to 12 dwellings
are now being considered.
The site is greenfield and previously described
by planners as a wildlife corridor, an informal
country park ,with a wish to maintain the
natural heritage of the countryside.
Access to the Springhill estate is already
hazardous at Church Walk especially at school
drop off times.
Beyond Blagdon Close the road narrows and
is without footpath provision There would be
difficulties and dangers in coping with both
construction and subsequent traffic.
The bungalows on Emily Davison Avenue are
screened from the Wansbeck valley by '
Banking'. These proposed properties would be
visible across the valley and also markedly
impact on the privacy of these bungalows.
Comments made in response to application (
14/03332/Out ) apply equally here and with
increased significance as up to 12 dwellings
are now being considered.
The site is greenfield and previously described
by planners as a wildlife corridor, an informal
country park ,with a wish to maintain the
natural heritage of the countryside.
Access to the Springhill estate is already
hazardous at Church Walk especially at school
drop off times.
Beyond Blagdon Close the road narrows and
is without footpath provision There would be
difficulties and dangers in coping with both
construction and subsequent traffic.
The bungalows on Emily Davison Avenue are
screened from the Wansbeck valley by '
Banking'. These proposed properties would be
visible across the valley and also markedly
impact on the privacy of these bungalows.
Mr & Mrs Gavin
26 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
see document tab 8/7/15
21 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
We wish to object to this application in the
strongest terms. These houses are
unnecessary as there is tremendous
development of similar properties all around
Morpeth. The site is inappropriate as it is a
wildlife corridor where deer, foxes and badgers
are found.
Mrs Anne Baron
We live in a bungalow with the garden sloping
upwards so if these 2 or 3 storey houses were
built they would tower over our garden and all
privacy would be lost. There would also be
disturbance from noise and annoyance from
lights both from the houses and the street
lights on the proposed road.
The access from Emily Davison Avenue is
most unsuitable. In Church Walk there are
cars parked on both sides of the road as most
properties have neither drives nor garages.
Also,. parents of children at Abbeyfields First
School park at the entrance to Springhill
Estate to drop off and pick up their small
children, causing congestion. These children
would be at risk from heavy traffic. There are
speed bumps on Emily Davison Avenue to
slow the existing light estate traffic. There are
no footpaths at the top of the street which
would put pedestrians at risk and the road
surface is already badly cracked. Heavy traffic
would destroy it very quickly.
Our objections to the previous application to
build 4 houses still stands.
Anne and Frank Baron
Mrs And Professor
B And F Arthur
The Stables
Newminster
Abbey House
Mitford
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2YL
See documents tab 20/7/15
16 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
I do not believe this development is
appropriate for the following reasons.
The land in question is currently a wild life
corridor.
The access via Emily Davison is inappropriate
for the large vehicles which would be required
to deliver building materials:1/ the road already is already cracking and
subsiding following normal use and would
therefore need significant repairs if approval
were given to this development.
2/ it is impossible for two cars to pass when
traveling at the speed limit around the corner
by 14 Emily Davison Avenue. There is
certainly no space for large delivery vehicles to
pass without damage to gardens.
3/Emily Davison Avenue was built without
pavements from No 11. i.e. it was not
designed as a through road. Therefore any
accidents on this road due to increased usage
would in part be the responsibility of the
planning committee, should approval be given
to this development.
The bungalows backing on to the proposed
Dr David England
development were placed on the boundary of
the existing site with the raised bank behind
them to obscure the view from Mitford Valley
as requested by a previous planning
committee and development of the proposed
field was not approved for the same reason.
Therefore approval for new buildings 7.5-10
meter high ? (2 -3 storey houses) as
requested by the developer would seem
inappropriate based on past decisions. This
proposed new development would be visible
from well outside the Morpeth town boundary.
The land is green belt in the new local plan for
which I understand the planning committee
has had input.
Approval of this development would therefore
suggest confusion in the roles and
responsibilities of those involved in the
planning process with past decisions
accounting for little.
Mr David Stones
25 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
Our property is to the left of the proposed
entrance and although I am sited in the
proposal we have not made any agreement
with Mr Stephenson.
I oppose the plan for the following reasons:1 The avenue is not designed for the proposed
additional traffic and passing construction
vehicles will encroach on surrounding gardens
and driveway entrances causing damage and
subsidence.
2 There are no footpaths at the top of the
avenue so heavy vehicles and additional traffic
will endanger pedestrians.
3 The entrance to Emily Davison Ave is very
congested, especially at school start/finish
times and heavy construction traffic will be a
serious safety issue.
4 The site for the proposed development is
currently a wildlife corridor for various wildlife
including badgers, bats, foxes and deer. Is it
eco-friendly to destroy this environment just for
financial gain?
Mr William Ellis
6 Emily Davison
Avenue
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PL
I strongly object to this application on the
following grounds:1. There are already developments under way
within Morpeth which will result in a major
increase of available housing stock, therefore
there is no pressing need for the proposed
houses, nor the 4 houses in the previous
application in this area.
2. The Springhill estate roads are not suitable
for construction traffic and there would be a
danger to local school children.
3, The proposed area is a greenfield site and
should be kept as such for future generations,
not appropriated and ruined for short term
monetary gain. The government this week
(10/07/2015) in its Productivity Plan clearly
signalled an intention to make brownfield sites
its priority.
W. Ellis
Mrs Ailsa Da
Costa
5 Blagdon Close
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PH
I wish to object to the proposed use of Emily
Davison Avenue as an access to this
proposed development and also the
construction of eight to ten dwellings.
The Avenue is a single lane housing estate
road and at the top of the Avenue there are no
footpaths at the roadside
and therefore construction traffic would
present a danger to pedestrians and children. I
have 3 children who play out on the street
regularly and I feel this would be hazardous to
their safety in what is currently such a safe
quiet neighbourhood...the main reason I chose
to move here.
When approaching Emily Davison Avenue
along either Church Walk or Abbot's Way it is
totally unsuited to construction traffic,
particularly because of the amount of traffic
congestion already in place with the school
drop off and pick up. The increase of
construction traffic would making it extremely
dangerous for children walking to and from
school from the estate.
I also object to the destruction of wildlife
habitat and the obvious increased noise and
disturbance that would be caused to such a
quiet small estate.
Mrs Susan
Ghanavati
6 Ridley Close
Springhill
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2PJ
I wish to strongly object to application for
minimum of 6 and maximum of 8 houses t o
land north of Emily Davison avenue spring hill
Morpeth. this is a estate very near to a school
with a large number of children using abbots
way as an access . It is also a very quiet safe
estate for my children to play and ride their
bikes with the huge traffic and building trucks
which will pass by on Emily Davidson avenue I
fear for the safety of my children and to the
safety of hundreds of other children I do not
wish this application to go through