AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEST : 19 MARCH 2014

Application No:

13/03542/OUT

Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 18 houses

Site Address Land North East Of Green Rigg, Medburn, Northumberland

Applicant: Mr And Mrs Eric Potts Greenrigg, Medburn, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland NE20 0JE

Agent: Nicola Allan Dilston House Cottage, Corbridge, Northumberland, NE45 5RH

Valid Date: 21 November 2013 Expiry Date:

20 February 2014

Case Officer Details:

Name: Mrs Caroline Jones

Job Title: Senior Planning Officer

Tel No: 01670 625547

Email: caroline.jones@northumberland.gov.uk

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)

1. Introduction 1.1 This application is recommended for approval contrary to the views of

Ponteland Town Council and 14 letters of objection and therefore the decision falls to be determined by the West Area Planning Committee under the provisions of the Council's delegation scheme.

2. Description of the Proposals 2.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of up to 18

dwellings on a greenfield site to the east of Green Rigg on the C345 in Medburn. Matters relating to the layout, scale and appearance of the dwellings and the landscaping of the site are all reserved for subsequent approval. Access to the site is to be determined at this stage and is proposed via an existing field access which runs between Green Rigg and a property known as South Lodge.

2.2 The site is located within the defined settlement boundary of Medburn and

has an area of approximately 1.76ha. The site is bounded to the south east, north and east by open fields and by dwellings to the west and south west. The north east corner of the site bounds the Green Belt.

2.3 Indicative layout plans have been submitted with the application to

demonstrate how the site could be developed with 18 large detached dwellings on large plots. Plans also include the demolition of the annex to Green Rigg, a detached building located in the rear garden of the property.

3. Planning History

Reference Number: CM/20090200

Description: Proposed new 3 bedroom dwelling (with room in roof provision) and

double garage on garden

Status: Refused

Reference Number: CM/20090004

Description: Proposed change of use of agricultural paddock to residential garden

Status: Approved

Reference Number: CM/20070851

Description: Demolition of existing garage and construction of new granny annexe

Status: Approved

Reference Number: CM/20060572

Description: Resubmission of stables and change of use of land

Status: Approved

Reference Number: CM/05/D/303

Description: Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of two bungalows.

Status: Withdrawn

Reference Number: CM/05/D/436

Description: Construction of new dwelling and demolition

Status: Refused

Reference Number: CM/04/D/408

Description: Outline - Erection of 2 No dwellinghouses

Status: Withdrawn

Reference Number: CM/04/D/407CLU

Description: Certificate of Lawfulness - Use of Garden

Status: Refused

APPEALS

Reference Number: CM/20090200

Description: Proposed new 3 bedroom dwelling (with room in roof provision)

and double garage on garden

Status: Appeal dismissed

4. Consultee Responses

Ponteland Town Council

Object on the following grounds: The proposal is contrary to Policy MBH2 of the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan as the site is neither brownfield nor infill and is not within the curtilage of existing properties. The construction of 20 dwellings on agricultural land would constitute new housing development on greenfield land in a part of Medburn where only infill development on brownfield sites is permitted. The construction of 20 dwellings in this location would have a detrimental impact on the agricultural/rural and undeveloped character present in this part of the settlement, contrary to Policy H15 of the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan. Medburn is a small settlement without any services, only a limited bus service and poor paths for cyclists and pedestrians; it is not a sustainable location for new house building. The construction of 20 more dwellings in addition to the recently approved construction of 19 new dwellings would have an overwhelming and detrimental impact on this small settlement and the C345 which is a narrow country lane and the only access road; the proposal would be unsustainable and contrary to the NPPF.

Highways Authority No objection subject to conditions

County Archaeologist No objection subject to conditions

County Ecologist No response received

Public Protection No objection subject to conditions

Waste Management No response received

Environment Agency No objection subject to condition

Northumbrian Water No objection subject to condition

Sustainable Drainage Systems Officer

No objection subject to condition

5. Public Responses Neighbour Notification

Number of Neighbours Notified 29

Number of Objections 14

Number of Support 2

Number of General Comments 1

Notices General Site Notice, posted 11th December 2013 Press Notice, Hexham Courant, 6th December 2013 Summary of Responses: A total of 14 letters of objection have been received raising the following considerations:

The access is dangerous and not suitable for the number of cars;

Headlight intrusion into nearby properties;

There are flooding issues in the paddock and concern this would exacerbate the issues;

It would cause harm to the character of Medburn;

It is too high density;

Two and a half and three storey development is inappropriate in this location;

Detrimental impact on horse riders in the areas due to construction traffic;

The bus service is poor;

There are poor connections to the phone network and broadband;

There are no services;

Previous schemes for less housing have been refused at the site;

Disruption from building work;

There are lots of houses within Medburn that are up for sale and are not selling;

Medburn is not a sustainable location for housing and it would not contribute to the local economy;

The scheme is disproportionate to the scale of Medburn;

C345 is a dangerous road; and

Increased noise and disturbance. Two letters of support have been received for the application with the following comments being made:

The development is outwith the Green Belt and Medburn has been deemed a sustainable location for development by two Inspectors; and

The development will take pressure off the expansion of Ponteland. One letter of general comment has been received relating to factual matters. 6. Planning Policy 6.1 National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 6.2 Development Plan Policy Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (adopted 2003, saved policies 2007) MBC1 Settlement boundary MBH1 Infill development MBH2 Infill development H15 New housing developments RE5 Surface water run-off and flood defences 6.3 Other Documents/Strategies Castle Morpeth Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing 7. Appraisal 7.1 The main issues for consideration in determining this application are as

follows:

Principle of the development Siting, design and impact on the landscape Impact on neighbouring residential amenity Ecology and biodiversity Surface water drainage and flood risk Highway matters Archaeology

Principle of the development 7.2 The application site is an open field which extends to around 1.76ha in area.

The site is located within the settlement boundary of Medburn as defined by Policies C1 and MBC1 of the Local Plan. The purpose of the settlement

boundary is to exclude Medburn from the Green Belt, the boundary of which runs along the northern boundary of the application site, in order to allow for sensitive development to take place within the village whilst retaining the main characteristics of buildings set in a largely rural landscape. In this respect the intention behind Local Plan Policies C1 and MBC1 aligns with up-to-date national planning guidance set out in the NPPF.

7.2 The site is located mainly within an area defined by Local Plan Policy MBH2

with a small area and the access road located within the area covered by Policy MBH1. Local Plan Policy MBH2 considers development as being appropriate, in principle, for infill development on previously developed land. The site is not previously developed and the construction of 18 dwellings in this location is not considered to constitute infill development. As such, whilst the site may lie within the wider settlement boundary for Medburn, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy MBH2.

7.3 However, the Council is not currently able to demonstrate a five year supply of

deliverable housing land within either the former Castle Morpeth district area or the County as a whole. The Council's most recent published assessment of its five year housing land supply position is contained within the document Northumberland Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites 2013 -2018 published in October 2013 and this identifies that in the former Castle Morpeth area there is only a 3.5 years (71%) supply of housing land available. The NPPF states that in such cases where a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated by a Local Planning Authority, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. Therefore the lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the contribution which the application would make is a material consideration which weights in favour of the proposal. In addition to this, paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In taking decisions within the context of this presumption, the NPPF makes clear that where relevant policies are out of date then permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

7.4 Under the NPPF sustainable development has three dimensions: economic,

social and environmental. These roles should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. It is considered that the proposal would fulfil an economic role by contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy.

7.5 Medburn as a settlement is poorly served by services/facilities with no shops,

school, pub, community centre or other such community facilities. However, there have been two recent appeal decisions within Medburn, one for five dwellings and one for 14 dwellings, which both determined that although Medburn itself has no services of its own it is not a remote or unsustainable location by virtue of its close proximity and connectivity to Ponteland and its range of services. For the appeal against five dwellings at Prospect Farm (planning application ref: 11/01959/OUT, appeal decision dated 22nd October 2012) the Inspector determined that:

"The Local Plan indicates that limited housing development is acceptable at Medburn with the clear implication that it is not considered to be an unsustainable location for limited new housing. Although the small settlement has no facilities of its own, it is not a remote rural

location. Whilst it appears that residents generally have private cars and the site is outside convenient walking distance of the shopping, social, educational and employment facilities at Ponteland and Darras Hall, the site appears to be within cycling distance of such facilities and there is a limited regular bus service and school transport. Therefore, the site offers scope for accessing facilities and services by means other than private cars."

7.6 In the appeal against the development of 14 dwellings on land to the east of

The Nursery (application no. 12/00892/OUT) the Inspector agreed with this position and stated that:

"The appeal site in this instance is close to Prospect Farm. It is within easy reach of a bus stop, a bridleway and a cycleway, and I am in agreement with that Inspector with regard to the accessibility of Medburn to the service facilities of nearby Ponteland. In addition, the bus service from Medburn to the nearest Metro Station, notwithstanding the Council's argument regarding frequency, would provide suitable links to the employment, shopping and leisure facilities to be found in the wider Tyne and Wear area."

7.7 Whilst the NPPF provides a strong presumption in favour of sustainable

development, it also recognises at paragraph 55 that in cases where a number of settlements are closely grouped together, new housing in one village may support services in an adjacent settlement. The close proximity of Medburn to Ponteland is one such example where new housing development on the application site could potentially lend support to the wide range of services in Ponteland village centre, and clearly this has played a key part in the decisions made by the Inspectors in both appeal cases. Therefore, as the proposed scheme would provide new housing development in a location that is not remote from Ponteland and Darras Hall, which would support the existing services and facilities in an adjacent settlement, and which has reasonable access to such services and facilities by means other than the private car, it is considered that new housing in Medburn would accord, in principle, with paragraph 55 of the NPPF and be generally consistent with the approach taken by the Inspectors in determining the recent Prospect Farm and Land East of The Nursery appeals.

7.8 In terms of the social and environmental roles, the proposal would improve

the tenure mix in the area by providing both executive and affordable units for which there is considered a need and the dwellings would be subject to the sustainability standards imposed by the Building Regulations.

7.9 Whilst the Local Plan was adopted in February 2003 (with some policies

saved in 2007) and therefore significantly pre-dates the publication of the NPPF, the collective intention behind the housing policies in the Local Plan was to ensure the delivery of a wide choice of homes in the former Castle Morpeth District. To this end it is considered that the saved housing policies of the Local Plan, including Policy H6 relating specifically to executive style housing, generally align with paragraphs 47 and 50 of the NPPF which similarly seek to widen housing mix and opportunities for home ownership.

7.10 There is not currently a comprehensive or robust definition of what constitutes

an "executive home", however the proposed dwelling sizes in this case and plot sizes would be broadly comparable with existing executive style properties in Medburn and on the nearby Darras Hall Estate. Evidence provided with the planning application relating to land east of The Nursery demonstrated that there is a significantly lower proportion of executive housing in the north east than in other parts of the country. This shortage is

also recognised by the Northumberland Housing Strategy 2011 - 2012 (September 2011) which suggests that high value areas in the prime commuter belt, such as Ponteland and the area surrounding it, offer opportunities to provide greater housing choice through the type and mix of new housing. Again this would align with the guidance set out in paragraphs 47 and 50 of the NPPF as explained above.

7.11 In conclusion, although the proposal would not be considered infill and would

not be on previously developed land, it is considered that the development would accord with the NPPF, particularly with paragraphs 14 and 55 and would serve to redress the shortfall in the five year housing land supply in the County while delivering executive style and affordable housing units to an area where there is a strong identifiable need.

Affordable Housing 7.12 In terms of affordable housing supply there are no Local Plan policies which

require the provision of affordable housing. The former Castle Morpeth Borough Council therefore adopted an Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) in February 2008 pending adoption of its Core Strategy. Subsequently, the Core Strategy was not adopted prior to Local Government Reorganisation in Northumberland on 1st April 2009. The IPPAH now forms part of the Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework, however it is a non-statutory policy document, albeit one which is formally adopted. The Council's Legal Services Team has advised that, whilst the requirements of the IPPAH can be used as a starting point in negotiations on affordable housing provision in the former Castle Morpeth District, very limited weight can be attached to it for the purpose of insisting on a higher proportion of affordable housing than a developer is willing to provide.

7.13 The applicant is willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement with the Council

to provide an off-site commuted sum towards affordable housing and negotiations are on-going in this respect. The Council's Housing Enabler has stated that although the preference would normally be for delivery of the affordable units on-site, given the context of the planning application and the village, in this instance a commuted sum would be considered acceptable. In accordance with paragraph 50 of the NPPF, and given that there is an identified shortage of affordable housing in the Ponteland area generally, it is considered reasonable in this instance to require a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision.

Siting, design and impact on the landscape 7.14 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built

environment and, through the NPPF, recognises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 57 of the NPPF stresses the importance of planning positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Paragraph 60 continues by stating that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative

through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is recognised however that it is proper to seek to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness.

7.15 At the local level, and in specific relation to new housing development, Local

Plan Policy H15 despite significantly pre-dating the NPPF firmly aligns with the design objectives of the NPPF by setting out a number of criteria for new residential developments to satisfy in the interests of achieving high quality living environments.

7.16 The outline application proposes the construction of 18 dwelling units on a site

which is 1.76ha in area. The indicative layout provided with the application shows a low density consistent with the general form of development in Medburn which is characterised by large dwellings on spacious plots.

7.17 As details of the layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping of the

site have all been reserved for subsequent approval it is difficult at this stage to fully assess the potential visual impact of constructing 18 dwellings in this location. However, the indicative layout plan and scale parameters submitted with the application do provide a sense of how such development could be accommodated on the site. The site would be accessed by an existing field access which is located between the bungalow at Green Rigg and South Lodge, a two storey dwelling. The plan shows the proposed dwellings being sited either side of a centrally positioned internal access road. The scale parameters set out in the Design & Access Statement suggest that the dwellings would be two and a half to three storeys. Given that the dwellings adjacent to the site are no more than two storey including bungalows and one and a half storey properties it is felt that dwellings of more than two storeys would be out of keeping with the scale of dwellings that abut the site. It is therefore considered appropriate to attach a condition should permission be granted which restricts the development of the site to two storeys only. At this stage, it is accepted that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the site is capable of accommodating 18 dwellings.

7.18 In terms of the wider landscape impact of the proposal, the site is at present

well screened from areas to north, south and west by the existing houses which line the C345 and landscaping is currently reserved for subsequent approval. Additionally, given that, if approved, the proposed dwellings would be conditioned to be no more than two storeys in height and would be viewed in the context of adjacent properties on the C345 and The Avenue it is considered that the proposal would blend successfully into its surroundings without resulting in an adverse impact on the openness or setting of the immediately adjacent Green Belt whose boundary abuts the north east corner of the site.

7.19 The issue of encroachment into the countryside must also be taken into

account when assessing the likely impact of the proposed development on the landscape setting of Medburn as a whole. In this respect it must first be acknowledged that the proposal would involve the development of a previously undeveloped site to the east of the dwellings on the C345. However, the site lies within the settlement boundary for Medburn as defined by Local Plan Policy MBC1 rather than being outside of the settlement boundary in the open countryside and Green Belt. This is a particularly

important distinction to make in assessing the impact of the development on the landscape. Whilst the proposal would inevitably result in built development on a site which lies beyond the existing built-up part of the village, the defined settlement boundary is an important part of the existing character of Medburn and a clear representation of the natural boundaries to the settlement. The proposed development would sit entirely within the defined settlement boundary, would be well screened from areas beyond the site by adjacent dwellings and, in terms of its height, could be controlled through the use of a planning condition. It is therefore considered that a development of the scale being proposed could be accommodated on this site without causing an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside and Green Belt, or resulting in an adverse effect on the landscape character of the area within which Medburn is located or the setting of the village. Given the difficulties in fully assessing the likely impacts of a proposal at the outline stage however, especially when all matters are reserved for future approval, it would be imperative that a fully detailed landscape impact assessment be carried out at the reserved matters stage.

7.20 Subject to appropriate layout, scale, appearance and landscaping details

being agreed at the reserved matters stage it is considered that a development of the form currently being proposed could be achieved in accordance with both national and local planning policy. The proposal would consequently satisfy the NPPF in this respect, and the design criteria of Local Plan Policy H15, at this stage.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenity 7.21 Although there are existing residential properties to the south and west of the

application site it is considered that the proposed development, by virtue of its low density nature which would be characterised by large dwellings on correspondingly large plots, would be capable of achieving sufficient separation distances between existing and proposed properties to ensure that there would be no resultant adverse impact on the neighbouring occupiers through loss of light, outlook or privacy. Subject to an acceptable site layout and scale being agreed at the reserved matters stage, it is considered that new housing development on the site could be accommodated without appearing dominant or overbearing in relation to existing properties in the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered, at this stage, to be in accordance with the neighbouring residential amenity criteria set out in Local Plan Policy H15.

Ecology and biodiversity 7.22 A Phase One Habitat survey has been submitted with the application. The site

is made up, in the main, of improved grassland (grazed by horses) with poor hedges to the eastern and southern boundaries and occasional trees in/near the field boundaries towards the northern end of the site and on/near the southern boundary. The Med Burn (Pont tributary) runs west to east some 60m north of the northern red line boundary. The area between the northern red line boundary and the Med Burn would remain outside of the red line boundary but may be utilised as part of the site landscaping and/or accommodation for any SuDs scheme as may be required.

7.23 The existing buildings have been risk assessed for bats and that whilst not nil, the risk of bats roosting in either of the buildings, because of their relatively recent construction and well sealed nature, is negligible with no evidence of bats being found in or on the buildings.

7.24 Mature ash and oak trees (with some bat potential) stand on the slope down

to the Med Burn but well clear of the red line of the site. A single mature ash (also assumed to have some bat potential) stands in the eastern boundary close to the north east corner of the red line site. No other protected, notable or threatened habitats or species are likely to affected by the proposals.

7.25 The Ecologist has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions. Surface water drainage and flood risk 7.26 The application site itself lies within Flood Zone 1 and as such is at low risk of

flooding. Given the size of the site the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal following the submission of the FRA subject to a condition relating to surface water disposal. The Council's SuDs Officer has also examined the application and FRA and has raised no objection subject to a scheme for the disposal of surface water disposal being submitted to and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development.

7.27 Northumbrian Water have also examined the proposal and have stated that

there is not enough information within the application for them to give detailed comments and therefore they are requesting that a condition requiring a scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul drainage be submitted for approval. The applicant has shown a possible area for a drainage pond/lake however this is only indicative and the conditions would ensure that a scheme was submitted and approved prior to the commencement of any development. Subject to the recommended condition it is considered that the proposal would accord, in principle, with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy RE5 which both seek to minimise flood risk through, amongst other things, surface water run-off.

Highway matters 7.28 The Highways Authority has examined the proposed scheme and has raised

no objection subject to the access road layout being constructed to adoptable standards and a number of standard highways conditions which are set out in full below. Subject to the recommended conditions it is considered, so far as can be assessed at the outline stage, that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the existing road network in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H15.

Archaeology 7.29 The NPPF states that where a site on which development is proposed

includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation that is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their

significance (paragraph 128). The NPPF makes no distinction between 'full' and 'outline' applications.

7.30 This application does not contain any supporting information in relation to the

impact of the potential development on the historic environment. The County Archaeologist had therefore recommended that the application was not determined until such information had been submitted. Given the lack of information available in relation to the historic environment it was recommended that it would not be in the best interest of the applicant to undertake an initial desk-based assessment and a field assessment was recommended as the most cost effective approach. This information has not been submitted by the applicant. Further discussions have since taken place and given that the application is in outline it is considered more appropriate to condition the work required prior to the submission of the reserved matters application rather than to withhold planning permission on this basis. Subject to this condition it is considered that the proposal would accord with the provisions of the NPPF with respect to archaeology.

8. Conclusion 8.1 Although the proposal would not be considered infill development and would

not be on previously developed land it is considered that it would accord with the NPPF, particularly with paragraphs 14 and 55 and would serve to redress the shortfall in the five year housing land supply position in the County while delivering executive style and affordable housing units to an area where there is a strong identifiable need. Two recent appeal decisions within Medburn have indicated that the settlement is an acceptable location for new housing.

8.2 As details of the layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping of the

site have all been reserved for subsequent approval it is difficult at this stage to fully assess the potential visual impact of constructing of 18 dwellings in this location. However, the indicative layout plan and scale parameters submitted with the application provide a sense of how such development could be accommodated on the site and overall it is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated at this stage that the site is capable of accommodating up to 18 dwellings of a size, and plot size, commensurate with the general pattern of development in Medburn without causing an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside and Green Belt, or resulting in an adverse effect on the landscape character of the area within which Medburn is located or the setting of the village. The proposal therefore accords with the NPPF and the requirements of Local Plan Policy H15.

8.3 Subject to the recommended conditions, and so far as can be considered at

the outline stage, the development would not give rise to any issues of neighbouring amenity impact, adverse ecological impact, flooding or sewage disposal problems or highway safety concerns. The outline scheme therefore accords with the NPPF and Local Plan Policies H15, C11 and RE5.

9. Recommendation Authority to the Head of Development Services to GRANT CONDITIONAL PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 planning obligation or other appropriate mechanism to secure a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision and subject to the following conditions: Conditions/Reason 01. Approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, hereinafter called the reserved matters, shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 02. Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 03. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 04. Notwithstanding any description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details, to include samples, of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and / or roof(s) of the building(s) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. All roofing and / or external facing materials used in the construction of the development shall conform to the materials thereby approved. Reason: To retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with the provisions of H15. 05. The dwellings hereby approved shall be no more than two storeys in height. Reason: in the interests of neighbour and visual amenity in accordance with Policy H15. 06. The road layout shall be in accordance with NCC standards and constructed to adoptable standards. Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory form of development. 07. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, provision shall be made for a temporary car park within the site to accommodate operatives and

construction vehicles during the development of the site in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway. 08. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of a wheel washing, axle and suspension cleaning facility and its siting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facility shall be retained in the agreed position for the duration of construction work or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for use by construction traffic. Reason: To prevent mud, stones and other debris being carried on to the adjoining carriageway which may cause a hazard to other users of the Highway. 09. All loaded wagons visiting or leaving the site shall be sheeted at source or otherwise treated to prevent the spread of dust/debris onto the highway. Reason: To prevent mud, stones and other debris being carried on to the adjoining highway, which may cause a hazard to other users of the highway. 10. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, provision shall be made for a storage area to accommodate the storage of materials off the Highway during the development of the site in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway. 11. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless any damage to the highway caused by construction/operative traffic associated with the works within the development site have been made good, with damaged areas repaired and footways/verges resurfaced in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To return the highway fronting the site to a satisfactory condition, in the interests of amenity and highway safety. 12. The area allocated for parking and garage on the submitted plan shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety. 13. Parking spaces shall be provided in line with NCC parking standards. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway. 14. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied unless a turning area has been provided within the curtilage of the site for refuse vehicles in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable vehicles to join the highway in a forward direction at all times, in the interests of highway safety. 15. Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway in accordance with a scheme of details of which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding and to prevent damage to the highway. 16. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the new vehicular access to the site has been constructed in accordance with Type 6 of Northumberland County Council standard specifications, in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve access to and from the site in a manner so as not cause significant danger and inconvenience to other road users. 17. No development shall take place unless in accordance with the mitigation detailed within the ecological reports ('Green Rigg, Medburn, Proposed Development Extended Phase 1 Survey Report' and 'Green Rigg, Medburn Proposed Demolition. Bat and Barn Owl Risk Assessment' Ruth Hadden, October 2013) including, but not restricted to adherence to timing restrictions; carrying out appropriate bat survey work on any trees identified as having bat roost potential to be felled with the results of any such surveys to be forwarded to the LPA along with any avoidance and/or mitigation measures as might be required before the determination of any detailed planning application.' Reason: To maintain the favourable conservation status of protected species. 18. No development, removal of vegetation, hedges or felling of trees shall be undertaken between 1 March and 31 August unless an ecologist has first confirmed that no bird's nests that are being built or are in use, eggs or dependent young will be damaged or destroyed. Reason: To protect nesting birds, all species of which are protected by law.' 19. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the guidance set out in 'Pollution Prevention Guidance: Works or Maintenance in or Near Water PPG9, Environment Agency, 2007.' Reason: To ensure that a watercourse is not polluted or contaminated during development works. 20. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the guidance set out in 'BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction: Recommendations' British Standards Institution, 2012.' Reason: To maintain and protect the existing landscape and biodiversity value of the site.

21. No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted a detailed landscape planting plan including the planting of locally native trees, shrubs and wildflowers of local provenance to be agreed in writing with the LPA and to be fully implemented during the first full planting season (November - March inclusive) following the commencement of development'. Reason: To maintain and protect the landscape value of the area and to enhance the biodiversity value of the site. 22. Development shall not commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of surface and foul water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Northumbrian Water. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding from any sources in accordance with the NPPF. 23. Prior to the submission of a reserved matters application, a programme of archaeological field evaluation shall be required in accordance with a brief to be provided by Northumberland Conservation. The archaeological field evaluation shall comprise three stages of work. Each stage shall be completed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before it can be discharged. a) No archaeological field evaluation shall commence on site until a written scheme of investigation based on the NC brief has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) The archaeological field evaluation required by the brief must be completed in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation. c) The programme of analysis, reporting, publication and archiving if required by the brief must be completed in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation and submitted as part of the reserved matters planning application. Reason: in the interests of preserving heritage assets in accordance with the NPPF. 24. During the construction period, there should be no noisy activity, i.e. audible at the site boundary, on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours: Monday - Friday - 0800 - 1800, Saturday 0800-1300. Reason: To protect residential amenity and ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise 25. There shall be no burning of any material associated with either the construction or demolition phase of the development. Reason: To protect residential amenity and ensure a commensurate level of protection against smoke 26. Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant shall submit a dust management plan to the LPA for its written approval. This dust action plan will

detail how any dust associated with groundwork's and construction will be mitigated. Once approved the dust management plan shall be implemented in full. Reason: To protect residential amenity and ensure a commensurate level of protection against dust 27. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme for surface water management has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent surface water flooding. Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 13/03542/OUT

List and Comments of representations received:-

Name Address Summary of Comments

Mrs Y Moore

South Lodge

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

I wish to object to the proposals for up to 20

houses for the following reasons.

I live at South Lodge which is a property

sandwiched between Green Rigg, its annexe

and North Lodge. The property gains access

onto the C345 via a portion of shared access

at the end of my drive. When I need to drive

out of my property gates to get onto the

shared access portion of the entrance I need

to look both to the left and the right due to the

design of the shared access portion. I have

had a number of near miss accidents when I

have been attempting to leave my property on

the shared access when neighbours have

been about to leave their property. Also on a

number of occasions when I am using the

shared access part of the entrance and a

neighbour has been trying to pull off the C345

to enter their own property I have had to

reverse back into my gateway to let them

safely into their own property, rather than force

them to reverse back onto the C345 to let me

out. This would potentially be a very

dangerous access if vehicles from the

proposed houses were all using the shared

part for access to the C345. On the application

for outline planning permission section 10

there would appear to be provision for vehicle

parking for 60 cars!. The planned access is not

suitable for traffic of up to an additional 60

cars. The width of the proposed lane is 4.8

metres. As no mains gas exists at Med burn all

properties have either oil or calour gas to

provide heating etc. The normal width of an oil

tanker is 2.489m and the lane is not wide

enough to allow 2 tankers to pass one

another. I have an oil usage of at least 2

tanker deliveries a year so the new houses will

need at least 40 tanker deliveries per year.

The reason that I have to look both to the left

and right when leaving my property is that

when the original plan for building a house

was submitted the applicants Mr & Mrs Potts

won an appeal ref APP/T2920/A/03/1120649

to allow the building of 2 new properties rather

than 1. When vehicles leave Green Rigg or the

Annexe these drivers need to look to the right

and when North Lodge drivers leave their

property they have to look to the left. But I

have to look both left and right. I am

concerned that as a lot more traffic will be

coming from the lane to the left that inevitably

there will be an accident with a vehicle on one

side or the other.

If this planning application was permitted we

would suffer greatly with headlight intrusion

into South Lodge as all vehicles entering the

shared access to drive up the lane into the

new development would all approach in a

direct fashion and in darkness we already

suffer from light pollution into our bedroom

with the vehicles that currently use the access.

The headlights from an additional 60 cars

would have a devastating effect to my privacy

and enjoyment of living in a lovely rural

hamlet.

Also as it has not always been possible for oil

delivery tankers to get onto the neighbouring

property driveways I have on occasion been

blocked into my own driveway and prevented

from leaving.

The paddock on which the proposed houses

are to be built has had flooding problems in

the past. I am gravely concerned that the

affect of building on this land will cause water

displacement and flooding to properties in the

vicinity. The Med Burn which runs along the

bottom of the paddock is also prone to

flooding. I am a horse rider and use the

bridleway which runs from Medburn to the

Crescent at Darras Hall. There is a part on the

bridleway where the rider has a choice of

going through the water of the Med Burn or

going over a bridge which crosses same. I

always prefer to take the horse through the

water as the bridge has no sides built up and if

a horse spooked it could come over the side of

the bridge and probably kill itself and the rider.

However when the Med Burn is flooded I am

forced to ride over the bridge. The water in this

part of the Med Burn is normally very shallow

but when it floods after very heavy rainfall the

water is almost up to the height of the bridge.

Indeed when the Med Burn floods the shallow

stream becomes a river which has broken its

banks and flooded onto the C345, in order to

do this the water level has risen by more than

10 feet. Also the Med Burn is prone to flooding

after snowfall, as when the snow melts and

runs into the stream it causes flooding.

The Design & Access statement is for an

outline planning application of up to 20 houses

at a build of 5 houses to the acre. This would

be very damaging and cause unacceptable

harm to the character of this part of Medburn

and the enjoyment of the people living there.

The proposed new housing would be high

density and not appropriate. The suggested

2.5 and 3 storey houses are not in keeping

with the type of properties that exist in this part

of Medburn. They will be totally out of keeping

and will dominate existing dwellings by their

height and density.

When Deansbury homes bought the plot that

South Lodge and North Lodge were built on,

they built North Lodge first and South Lodge

to follow. After the build of North Lodge

Deansbury Homes told me that they asked the

planners if they could raise the roof height on

South Lodge before the house was completed

but this was rejected by planners due to roof

height restrictions. It was also noted that two

storey houses might cause inappropriate

overlooking of Wood Green.

As previously mentioned I am a horse owner

who uses the bridleway, as very little exists in

and around the Medburn, Eachwick and

Ponteland area the bridleway is heavily used

by riders in the locality. I am extremely

concerned that the extra oil tankers, cars and

other delivery and postal vehicles using the

C345 because of this new housing estate, will

have a detrimental effect on horse and rider

safety and increase the likelihood of rider

accidents.

The C345 is a road which is not regularly

repaired and has a lot of potholes, the road is

not suitable for high density traffic. Medburn is

low on the list of priority for gritting and snow

ploughing and I have been snowed in a few

times over the last few years. Only families

who own 4x4 Jeep type vehicles were able to

drive in the heavy snowy conditions.

The bus service number 74 does not have a

time schedule that would fit into a daily work

routine as it runs only every 2 or 3 hours and

not at all in the evening except on as Friday or

Saturday. The only way to live in Medburn is to

travel by private car and as the planning

request demonstrates it is expected that the

estate will have in the region of 60 cars.

The quality of the telephone service in

Medburn is extremely poor and British

Telecom are seen regularly in Medburn trying

to sort out the quality of telephone lines which

tend to be noisy. The internet is very

intermittent and runs at a very slow speed. We

have weeks at a time with no service at all.

The problem seems to be mainly about the

distance that Medburn is from the Ponteland

telephone exchange. Medburn is at the

furthest point for service and this causes the

issues with quality and speed. In the past

when we have had weeks without service and

the engineers have tried to get us a

connection that does not continually drop out

they have said the problem is caused partly by

not having many spare pairs of wires to swop

us over too and partially due to waterlogged

cables underground, and the fact that we have

Ponteland telephone numbers when we are

closer to the Stamfordham telephone

exchange.

I wish to make the following points about the

design and access statement.

The scheme, as proposed, will be for large

detached dwellings of 2.5 to 3 storeys high

with 5 houses per acre. As Medburn does not

have any houses of this height they will be

totally out of character with this part of

Medburn which has not been built along the

lines of a housing estate. The houses in this

part of Medburn are all on large plots of a

minimum of 0.25 acres and are individual, they

do not share housing estate characteristics.

Houses built previously had a height restriction

and houses of this build type would be very

damaging to the character, ambiance and

uniqueness of Medburn.

I wish to make the following remark about

comments contained in the Planning

Statement.

2.5 North lodge, South Lodge and the annexe

have all been built on land belonging to Mr &

Mrs Potts. Indeed the building of North Lodge

and South Lodge were granted on appeal ref

APP/T2920/A/03/1102649. A condition of

granted planning was to prevent the rear of

any new build dwelling being further east than

the rears of either Medburn Cottage or Moss

Thorn, with condition 9 stating that two storey

houses might cause inappropriate overlooking

of Wood Green.

4.12 The planning statement makes reference

to the appeal decision in relation to Prospect

Farm, That Green Rigg is closer to the bus

stop, bridleway and cycleway. In order to walk

to the bus stop from Green Rigg the

pedestrian has to walk around a blind bend on

a road with no footpath, this in my experience

is dangerous. To access the bus stop from the

Avenue which is how Prospect Farm residents

would get to the bus stop they would not have

to walk around the blind bend on the C345.

The bridleway cannot be seriously considered

as an alternative to private car use to

Ponteland for anything other than leisure. We

have been snowed in at Medburn in the past

and walked along the bridleway to Ponteland

for bread and milk but this is not an easy

journey. Due to the lack of upkeep on the

bridleway it is a difficult walk for pedestrians as

there is serious overgrowth of grasses and

vegetation, also the ground is heavily rutted

and muddy which is caused by horses hooves

damaging the land. It is certainly not a

sustainable method of travel to Ponteland.

Finally the cycleway, well, we do not have a

cycleway and we certainly do not have a

designated cycleway along the C345, what I

mean by this is that we do not have a portion

of the road marked off with white lines to

provide a safe cycle route out of the way of

traffic. The C345 is a minor country road

which is poorly maintained and has a lot of

deep potholes. It is a minor country road that

does not cope well with the level of modern

day traffic as evidenced by the state of it.

If this development was permitted it would

mean up to 2 years of disruption to daily life

with skip wagons removing soil, builders

wagons delivering bricks, concrete mixer

wagons etc etc. These wagons will cause

further damage to the roads and grass verges.

I have a field in Medburn which has an access

for light vehicular use. During other building

alteration jobs, skip wagons weighing many

many tons have used my field access as a

point to reverse up and turn around. The

access cannot withstand such heavy vehicles.

If wagons from the new development used my

entrance on a daily basis, which indeed they

surely would, I would have to rebuild it at a

huge cost to myself. This would be totally

unacceptable to me. I will have to put traffic

prevention upright posts at the end of my

drive, the manufacturers advise me that

these do not require planning permission.

Although the housing market is not a

consideration for planning permission I wish to

say that new housing is not sustainable in

Medburn. We already have 19 houses/plots for

sale in Medburn. This does not include the 14

new houses on land near the Nursery. There

are also a number of houses that are for sale

in Medburn in addition to the ones mentioned

that are for sale privately and not shown on

the Right Move website. There is no demand

for further houses in Med urn. A further 274

houses are currently for sale in the Darras

Hall/ Ponteland area which would better serve

the executive housing market as Ponteland

has shops, restaurants, banks, doctors,

dentists etc which Medburn does not have nor

is ever likely to have.

The proposal for building on this Greenfield

site is contrary to sustainability objectives of

the NPPF, MBH2 and policy H15 of the Castle

Morpeth District Local Plan.

Photos of evidence for flooding will be posted.

Margaret & Robert

Chaytor

Ash Grove

The Avenue

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JD

I wish to object to the above application on the

following grounds:

The proposal is unsustainable and will not

contribute anything to the local economy.

Medburn has no community facilities; there are

neither shops nor schools. Ponteland village

centre is 4 miles away and there are no

pedestrian pathways. Schools in Ponteland

are oversubscribed and car parking facilities in

Ponteland are already under pressure.

The proposal is inappropriate and out of

keeping with the unique rural and agricultural

character of Medburn. There are

approximately 60 houses in the hamlet and a

further 20 new houses would constitute over a

25% increase. There is no proven need for

more executive housing and the proposal does

not offer affordable housing. Presently there

are approximately 8 houses for sale.

Increased traffic flow will have an adverse

impact on highway quality and safety. The

existing infrastructure and road networks are

poorly maintained. Public transport is limited;

the local bus runs every 2 hours and is

invariably cancelled in bad weather. There are

a number of National Cycle routes in the area

and cyclist safety would be further

compromised.

The proposal will increase flood risk. The

existing drainage system is unable to cope

during long periods of wet weather.

Existing power supplies to the area are poor.

There are numerous power cuts.

The proposed area is a haven for wildlife. This

environment should be protected against

urban sprawl and the resulting light pollution,

noise pollution and loss of hedgerows.

Ponteland Squirrel Society acknowledges that

one of the greatest threats to red squirrels in

the area is loss of habitat and food supplies.

Julie Haney

The Orchard

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

I write to object to the proposed development

referred to above. I do so on a number of

grounds.

1.

Loss of privacy

The proposed development will border along

the entire length of my garden. This is

currently a quiet haven of total privacy. This

will be destroyed under the proposed

development, as there will be no position

within the garden where I will not be

overlooked by the new houses.

Furthermore, the development will overlook

the back of my house itself, destroying the

privacy currently enjoyed in my rear bedrooms

and much used garden room.

2.

Physical presence

The above privacy issues are further

exacerbated by the fact that the proposed

houses will be three story design.

3.

Inappropriate development for Medburn - Size

Medburn is a small village. Over development

will destroy the ambience of the community

and, with it, the very reason most residents

moved here in the first place.

The stretch of road the proposed development

is located on is a short, distinct section of a

country lane on the exit of the village, along

which there are currently 14 properties (see

plan of proposal). The application is for a

further 20 large houses - a 142% increase.

This is significantly greater than a strategic

infill, more the adding of an entire estate.

4.

Inappropriate development for Medburn -

Noise

As well as the additional traffic noise that will

be created (see point 5 below), the additional

80 to 100 residents using their gardens will

create a significant noise nuisance

immediately behind my garden.

5.

Inappropriate development for Medburn -

Highway

The proposal includes plans for 60 parking

spaces. Assuming an average of two cars per

existing property on this stretch of lane, that is

an increase in potential traffic of 214% along a

narrow country lane. This will significantly

increase noise levels in a currently quiet

village, and increase the level of danger to the

not insignificant number of walkers, horse

riders and cyclists, including many children of

the village. The lane does not have any

pavement.

6.

Inappropriate development for Medburn -

Amenities

The nearest shops are in Ponteland. Whilst it

could be argued that there is a local bus

service that could be used and footpaths, the

buses are not sufficiently frequent and,

moreover, given the nature of the proposed

properties (ie large executive houses), it is

highly unlikely that the residents will do other

than use their cars to visit the supermarket.

The primary school catchment area is

forStamfordham First School. This is 5 miles

away by road and, although a school bus

could be laid on, again given the nature of the

housing, it is most likely that all children would

be driven by their parents. The same applies

for the middle and high schools.

7.

Inappropriate development for Medburn -

Overdevelopment

There are already a significant number of

individual properties that have been for sale

within the village for many months, even

years, and further developments happening or

approved on individual plots. It is blatantly

obvious that expanding the volume of housing

in the village is inappropriate as there is

insufficient demand.

Whilst this will supress property values in the

village, more importantly, it will create an

abundance of empty properties which are

likely to become neglected (as are some

currently empty plots and houses) and

potentially lead to an increase in crime.

8.

Nature of village

Most residents moved to Medburn for the

peaceful location and the quality of life that

affords. The proposed development will

destroy that. In my case that includes the

views afforded at the rear of my property

(which will be lost entirely), the tranquillity of

my property and garden due to increase noise

levels of traffic and people, the ambience of

the village, and the value of my property.

9.

Unreasonable disruption

The proposed development is a major building

project within a village the size of Medburn. It

will result in huge and unreasonable level of

disruption during the building process.

Moreover, I suspect that, once permission has

been granted, the plots will be sold off

individually as development plots and that is

likely to result in many years of disruption.

This is not acceptable, especially given the

inappropriate nature of the proposal.

Finally, there are a number of inaccuracies

contained within the Planning Statement

submitted by Nicola Allan as part of the

planning application. Specifically:

Para 2.5 states "To the west of the site,

fronting the C345, all of the plots have either

been rebuilt, subdivided or have permission for

redevelopment apart from Green Rigg."

I believe that the North Lodge and South

Lodge were both built on the original plot of

Green Rigg.

Para 4.7 includes the statement that there is "a

strong demand for executive style housing."

This is blatantly not the case. See point 7

above.

Para 4.9 includes the statement, "The

character ofMedburn is predominantly large

individually designed houses in substantial

grounds and lends itself to further low density

development."

Firstly, 20 large executive houses cannot be

considered to be "low density development".

See point 3 above.

Secondly, there is not the demand for these

properties in Medburn. See point 7 above.

Para 4.12 refers to the appeal decision in

relation to Prospect Farm and states that it

"established thatMedburn has the scope to

access facilities and services by means other

than private cars."

I refer to point 6 above. Given the nature of

the houses, the type of resident is unlikely to

use footpaths, bridleways and buses to go

shopping.

Like many other residents within Medburn, I

feel that the proposed development at Green

Rigg is totally inappropriate and will

significantly destroy the very essence of the

village. I therefore request that the proposal

be rejected in its entirety.

Ian McMonagle

Medburn House

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

I note that on the website concerned with this

planning application that my e mail has been

treated as neutral!

Nothing could be further from the truth. In

good faith the information stated that if we

wanted to make representation we could. I

followed this guidance. However to be very

clear I am making a strong objection

I write in response to an outline Planning

Application for residential development of up

to 20 houses on Land North East of Green

Rigg, Medburn , Northumberland.

I wish to make a strong objection against this

development.

The nature of Medburn is a quiet, small rural

area. The proposed scale (up to twenty

houses ) on this plot of land seems entirely

disproportionate for the location.

The character of this quiet place would be

destroyed by the scale of the proposed

development.

We have deer, heron and other wildlife that

surround and use this beautiful quiet area.

The roads in Medburn are particularly poor

and narrow, potholed and in many places

missing top surface,

Many horticultural vehicles also use these

narrow roads.

Very limited public transport necessitating

probably at least 40 cars will dramatically

change the character of this small hamlet.

Access to this site would require significant

changes to the size of the road. There is no

space for roadside parking either

Current traffic would use our drive as a

continual turning point as already happens,

this would only increase,

causing disturbance.

The infrastructure of this road would not be

conducive to an increase of traffic of the likely

scale resulting in this proposed development

I thought that this land was greenbelt and

although Governments may change

designated use, there surely should be some

appropriate conditions to limit the

inappropriate scale of building on this kind of

land.

The noise factor would inevitably dramatically

increase, yet is totally undesirable, in a small

quiet hamlet

Any proposed houses would need to be limited

in height to prevent loss of views and light

from our property

The number of people, cars, delivery vehicles

would result in a dramatic loss of privacy.

What is being proposed would immediately

more than double the number of houses on

one small stretch of road.

I hope the county council will visit the plot to

see the territory not only the map, before

making far reaching decisions

Please inform me that you have received this

and will treat my comments an an objection

Dear Sir or Madam

I write in response to an amended outline

Planning Application for residential

development of up to 18 houses on Land

North East of Green Rigg, Medburn ,

Northumberland.

I wish to make a strong objection against this

development.

The nature of Medburn is a quiet, small rural

area. The proposed scale (up to eighteen

houses ) on this plot of land seems entirely

disproportionate for the location.

The character of this quiet place would be

destroyed by the scale of the proposed

development.

We have deer, heron and other wildlife that

surround and use this beautiful quiet area.

The roads in Medburn are particularly poor

and narrow, potholed and in many places

missing top surface,

Many horticultural vehicles also use these

narrow roads.

Very limited public transport necessitating

probably at least 38 cars will dramatically

change the character of this small hamlet.

Access to this site would require significant

changes to the size of the road. There is no

space for roadside parking either

Current traffic would use our drive as a

continual turning point as already happens,

this would only increase,

causing disturbance.

The infrastructure of this road would not be

conducive to an increase of traffic of the likely

scale resulting in this proposed development

I thought that this land was greenbelt and

although Governments may change

designated use, there surely should be some

appropriate conditions to limit the

inappropriate scale of building on this kind of

land.

The noise factor would inevitably dramatically

increase, yet is totally undesirable, in a small

quiet hamlet

Any proposed houses would need to be limited

in height to prevent loss of views and light

from our property

The number of people, cars, delivery vehicles

would result in a dramatic loss of privacy.

What is being proposed would immediately

more than double the number of houses on

one small stretch of road.

I hope the county council will visit the plot to

see the territory not only the map, before

making far reaching decisions

Please inform me that you have received this

and will treat my comments an an objection

I have now seen the application and flood risk

report and I am concerned with the flood risk

report that makes no mention of the effect of

the wetlands aspect and the flow of the

Medburn, towards the direction of my home.

What assurances can you give me that the

existence of the wetlands area will not cause a

build up of water that will back up the water to

cause a problem of flooding of my property at

Medburn House. We have never been

flooded,but I want assurances of what will be

done to ensure that this does not happen. I

would like to meet with you at the earliest

opportunity to discuss this with your experts on

water flow.Failing assurances being given and

any subsequent flooding occurring please take

this as notification of my concern and a basis

for future legal action

Naren Deen

North Lodge

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

We understand that Eric Potts has applied for

outline planning consent for a residential

housing development on the Development

Site.

We are the owners and occupiers of North

Lodge in Medburn. As you will be aware, the

boundary of our property directly abuts the

Development Site. We attach some

photographs showing the position of our

boundary in relation to the Development Site.

North Lodge will be directly affected by any

development on the Development Site.

We object to the proposed development for

the following reasons:

1. We understand that the Development

Site in question is designated as greenbelt

land and/or agricultural land. We cite all of the

objections raised in relation to a recent

planning application for residential

development on land adjoining Western Way

in Darras Hall. The objections raised in that

application are relevant to this application in

relation to change of use.

2. There is an existing building line in this

part of Medburn and the proposed

development would breach that building line.

3. The proposed development would

radically alter the nature and character of

Medburn. The change would be negative.

Medburn currently has a distinct and 'semi-

rural' character that distinguishes it from other

areas such as Darras Hall. The proposed

development would undermine that distinction.

4. Whilst we have not seen the specific

proposals for the layout of the Development

Site it is clear from the geography of the site

that access to the proposed development

would be constricted, congested and

potentially dangerous.

5. Medburn is not capable of hosting

sustainable development. The area is poorly

served by utilities (no mains gas supply, very

poor broadband connection and very limited

mobile network coverage) There are no shops

or other amenities in or around Medburn.

Medburn is very poorly served by public

transport, meaning all residents will need to

use private cars in order to access any

services. Our understanding is that this is

contrary to various planning policy guidelines

and to the overarching requirement to create

sustainable development.

6. Medburn is accessed via a narrow

single carriageway from Stamfordham Road.

The road surface is in a poor state or repair.

The road floods at several points on a regular

basis. In winter the road is not gritted and

becomes treacherous and almost impassable

without a four wheel drive vehicle. The road is

so narrow that buses and coaches have to

cross onto the other side of the road when

turning around various corners. This has led to

many accidents and near-misses. There is no

footpath at the side of the road meaning that

pedestrians must walk on the already narrow

road surface. The road is not suitable for the

current volume of traffic using it. Adding further

traffic volume would be dangerous.

7. There is little demand or requirement for

additional housing in Medburn or the

surrounding area. You will be aware that

planning consent has been granted for a

number of existing development sites in

Medburn but that those sites have not been

built out. Our understanding from discussions

with the relevant parties is that the sites have

not been built out as there is insufficient

demand for housing in Medburn. Building on

greenbelt or agricultural land is supposed to

be an absolute last resort, in circumstances

where there is intense pressure for additional

housing and no alternative 'brownfield' sites

available. The situation in Medburn is the

reverse. There is little demand for new

housing and a glut of residential development

sites that have not been built out.

8. If the proposed development were to

proceed the construction process would cause

severe disruption and loss of amenity for

nearby residents. Once the proposed

development was completed it would have a

substantial and negative impact of the

amenity of nearby residents.

As you will be aware, many planning

applications have been submitted in respect of

the Development Site. After due consideration,

each application has been rejected. The

Development Site is simply not suitable for

sustainable development.

I submitted an objected to the original proposal

within the relevant time limits and received an

acknowledgment from you however I note at

my objection has not been published on the

website. Please clarify.

In relation to the revised application, I confirm

that I object to the development for reasons

previously cited in relation to the earlier

application.

In particular, I note that the revised application

still show houses exceeding 1.5 storeys. When

we recently applied for consent to extend

North Lodge you insisted that any

development be limited to 1.5 storeys on the

grounds of amenity of surrounding properties. I

understand that you adopted the same

approach with our neighbours at Farric View. It

would therefore be patently, indeed,

Wendsbury, unreasonable to permit houses in

the field adjoining us at a height substantially

exceeding the limit placed on us. Such a

decision would be illogical unfair and subject

to review.

W R Moore

South Lodge

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

1. I object to the above proposal on the

following grounds.

The proposed development is contrary to

Policy MBH2 because it does not constitute

infill development, the proposed dwellings are

to be situated behind Green Rigg and

therefore do not constitute infilling of a small

gap within an otherwise continuously built up

frontage.

Proposals should not result in the loss of

amenity of adjoining residential properties.

This development of a 20 house estate

creates such a loss in a number of respects.

a) Access would be from the C345 where

a shared access is currently in use for 4

properties, namely Green Rigg, its annex,

North Lodge and South Lodge. This situation

for South Lodge requiring viewing to left and

right before exiting would be rendered

ridiculous by the addition of 20 houses all with

multiple car ownership. I have had a number

of near miss accidents when trying to exit my

drive onto the shared part of the access when

vehicles from the adjoin properties have also

been wanting to exit. I have also numerously

had to reverse back into my driveway to allow

incoming vehicles onto the shared access

rather than force them to reverse back onto

the C345. The new housing would make this

already difficult situation much more

dangerous for ourselves. When Green Rigg

and annexe use the shared access they only

need to look to the right and when North

Lodge exit onto the shared access they have

to look to the left but we have to look both left

and right.

b) The rural environment of tranquillity and

country views would cease to exist for all the

properties in the current building line. Current

properties would suffer noise and light

pollution from headlights at night.

c) The proposed site is liable to flooding

as evidenced by photographs to be submitted

by post. Water would be displaced to the

current dwellings by such a large

development.

d) The development is unsustainable in

terms of all modern environmental

considerations, in that the only bus service,

that of the 74 runs sporadically at best and

ceases completely in the evenings. It is

dysfunctional from the point of view of school

runs and commuting to and from work. Each

property would require 2 or more cars.

e) There is no gas in Medburn, houses are

fuelled by oil delivered by large tankers. These

heavy units already damage verges and take

up most of the width of the C345 when

operating. A further 20 houses requiring this

service would significantly deteriorate the road

surface (already poor) and cause further

damage to grass verges. These tankers would

all have to use the shared part of the access to

gain entry to the new housing and this level of

extra heavy traffic would be destructive in all

respects.

f) Medburn is an equestrian area with

significant horse ownership and riding out on

the C345. The proposed site is only 150 yard

from the bridleway. The increase in vehicular

traffic would be dangerous and unwelcome

and radically change the character of

Medburn.

g) The proposed high density housing

development would serve to erode the

character of this part of Medburn.

h) A number of executive style house

remain unsold in Medburn and some have

been removed from the market. Such houses

are in competition with nearby Darras Hall

which has many amenities which Medburn

lacks. An addition to this situation has no

merit.

Finally it is clear from the applicants

willingness to demolish his own home and that

of his daughter and son in law ( Annex) and

move elsewhere, that the application is a hit

and run affair for profit with no thought for the

well being of other residents in this currently

quiet and pleasant community.

Medburn is not a suitable place for a city

suburb which the proposed development is. It

has no purpose other than the enrichment of

the applicant

Mr James Turnbull

Woodhill

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

As the owner of the neighbouring property in

principal I have no objection to the proposed

development but I do object to the height of

the proposed dwellings and the plot sizes

Current guidelines for any development in

Medburn restricts the height of a dwelling

house to 1.5 stories.

I believe precedents have been set with

previous planning consents enforcing

compliance with this restriction.

The current published policy for Medburn

states that any new dwellings have a plot size

of 0.24 hectare.

Can the planners take note of these

objections.

Mr Alastair

Woodruff

Field House

The Avenue

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JD

The proposed development is outwith the

greenbelt and Medburn has been deemed to

be a sustainable location in terms of the NPPF

by 2 Planning Inspectors.

The development of this site will take pressure

off the expansion of Ponteland and provide

needed executive housing.

The Council should ensure that the

development of this site does not land lock

other sites and that access into adjoining land

is provided by this site for future development.

Mr Richard Moore

Farrick View

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

I have no objections to the land East of Green

Rigg being developed. But I feel I should point

out an error in the Planning Statement.

Section 2.5

To the West of the site, fronting the C345 all

the plots have either been rebuilt, subdivided

or have planning permission for

redevelopment apart from Green Rigg.

Actually North Lodge and South Lodge were

built on land from Green Rigg and the Annexe

was a change of use from a garage.

So this statement strikes me as a bit of a

misrepresentation of fact.

As regards the design and Access Statement.

Section 3

The scheme will be for large detached

dwellings of 2.5 to 3 storeys on individual plots

at a density of approximately five dwelling to

the acre. The scheme will be designed to

reflect the open character of the village.

The planners enforced a restriction of 1.5

storey properties

with a minimum of 0.25 acre for the properties

mentioned in the Planning Statement to the

West of Green Rigg.

Most of these properties have land adjoining

the proposed development site.

I see no reason to lift the enforced restrictions

that myself and others have had to conform to.

Mr R Elliott

Crest View

The Avenue

Medburn

See attached copy of correspondence

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JD

Jenny Clark

Kildale

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

As the owner of the neighboring property and

a long term Medburn Resident, I wish the

council to take the following points into

consideration when determining this proposed

development:

Land Zone:

The area outlined for development falls within

the local Green Belt and more specifically

within the area designated as MBH2 in the

current submitted and approved Medburn local

plan - an area where no residential

development would be permitted.

Any approvals in this area would create a

precedence that will lead to further

development of other areas of the green belt in

the Ponteland area in contradiction of the

adopted policy.

Drainage:

The current surface and foul water drainage

systems from this area of the village have

been previously cited as operating at flow

rates far above their designed capacities by

the local utilities provider and prior to the

council already granting planning permission

for 22 plus houses in the Medburn curtilage.

The main foul drainage line along 'The

Avenue' in particular is undersized, as has

been demonstrated in the past and currently

by an increase incidences of water discharge

from manholes and the flooding of local

properties currently connected to this system.

Can the planners please obtain a definitive

statement from the main utility provider as to

the adequacy and system's overall capacity?

It is essential that any upgrades required are

implemented prior to any new proposed

development commencing to eliminate any

risk of further flooding?

The land where this development is proposed

is at present extremely waterlogged and the

ground has no further absorbance capacity

due to the predominantly clay composition of

the soil. The installation of roads,

hardstandings and any run off associated with

18 houses as proposed will further reduce the

lands capacity to absorb rainfall thus resulting

in an increase in surface water discharge to

the river Medburn, with the associated

increase in flood risk to properties located

further downstream.

How do the council intend to address the risk

of this increased flooding to property owners

downstream?

Can the planners please give an undertaking

that a full hydraulic study for the current

drainage system is carried out by the utility

provider and the results of any such studies

are published and made available for public

scrutiny?

Road Access:

The present village main access road (C345)

is in an appalling state and maintenance levels

are well below those generally accepted as

industry minimum standards for the traffic

volumes currently being experienced, this

development will add further traffic volume

thus exacerbating the problem.

Can the planners please obtain a definitive

statement from the highways department with

a proposed timetable for the current

degradation of this road to be permanently

addressed?

Housing density:

The current published policy for Medburn

states that any new dwellings have a plot size

of 0.25 hectare and any replacement dwelling

0.1 hectare - it is important that this be

retained to preserve what little character is left

within the village.

- Will the planners please give assurances that

these ratios will be retained?

Housing Types:

Current published policy guidelines for any

development in Medburn restricts the dwelling

house height to 1.5 stories. - precedence has

been set with previous planning consents

enforcing compliance with this restriction - it is

important that these restrictions are

maintained.

- Can the planners give assurances that these

guidelines will not be breached?

Local Amenities and Services:

The First, Middle and High schools in

Ponteland are at their maximum capacity -

based on the standard demographic density

figures this development could potentially

require the local schools to provide for up to

another 40 places.

Please provide a definitive statement from the

local schools that these proposed increases

can be accommodated?

Similarly there is severe pressure on the

Medical and Dental services locally that are

also at maximum capacity.

Would it be possible to check that these

essential local medical services also have

spare capacity?

Nimmy Deen

North Lodge

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

I refer to your letter of 20/01/14 and confirm

that I object to the application for the reasons

given by Naren Deen. In particular I am

concerned that the proposed development will

take a lot of our privacy away. The proposed

housing estate will totally change the nature of

the area. The planning statement says that the

development is in keeping with the rural nature

of the area but this is quite obviously not the

case. Executive housing estates are not

consistent or in keeping with rural or semi rural

locations. The density of the proposed

development is totally inappropriate for the

area.

The proposed development is described as

being on garden land, this is not the case. A

tiny proportion of the site is existing garden.

The vast majority of he site is greenfield green

belt land.

The Med Burn floods regularly and building

over a natural soak away like this site will only

exaserbate the existing flood problem.

Mr David Butler

8 Ladywell Way

Ponteland

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9TB

Please find, listed below, my reasons for

objecting to the above application :

1. Medburn as a settlement is very poorly

served by services/facilities, has an extremely

limited access to the public transport network,

and as such is not a sustainable location for

new housing development. Permission has

been granted for up to 20 properties during the

past 18 months, and this application will

increase that by 100%. I do not believe that

such an increase in the size of the hamlet is

sustainable, given the points outlined above.

The proposal is therefore contrary to the

sustainability objectives of the NPPF.

2. The proposal for the construction of up to 20

dwellings on agricultural land north east of

Green Rigg would constitute new housing

development on greenfield land in a part of

Medburn where only infill development on

brownfield sites is permitted. The proposal is

therefore contrary to Policy MBH2 of the

Castle Morpeth District Local Plan.

3. The proposal also represents backland

development in an area where only limited infill

development is permitted. The proposal is

therefore contrary to Policy MBH2 of the

Castle Morpeth District Local Plan.

4. The construction of up to 20 dwellings in

this location would have a detrimental impact

on the largely undeveloped and rural character

present in this part of the settlement contrary

to Policy H15 of the Castle Morpeth District

Local Plan.

Mrs W Jackson

44 Darras Road

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9PA

I wish to object to the planning permission for

the new housing development at Land North

East of Green Rigg.

Medburn is a small rural hamlet which has no

amenities, no pavements, cycle ways, street

lighting, shops, church, pubs or restaurants.

There is a very limited public bus service with

a timetable which would not fit into a resident's

working day.

The new development which is essentially a

new housing estate would rely heavily upon

residents using private cars. The C345 is a

road in poor repair and the extra traffic would

have an impact for all other road users with

the increased number of cars needing to travel

back and forth to work, school runs, shopping

etc. The plan shows parking for 60 cars, the

increase in traffic would have adverse effect

on road safety. Another 20 houses which

could mean between 40 and 80 new residents

depending on the size of the household would

also have an impact on local services for

Ponteland as all of these people would have to

register at a doctors surgery and people

already have, too often, wait for over 2 weeks

to get an appointment. This development

would exacerbate this situation.

There would be a detrimental impact with the

loss of open space; the rural nature of

Medburn would be damaged by the loss of

rural feel.

I do not feel that the development is

sustainable as many executive houses and

building plots remain unsold in Medburn, a

great many having been on the market for a

considerable length of time. (years) there is no

demand for further housing.

The land is greenbelt and I feel that the

application is contrary to the sustainable

objectives of the NPPF, it is not a brownfield

site and this will not be infill development. The

proposal is therefore contrary to Policy MBH2.

Nearby Darras Hall has many executive

houses for sale which could better fill demand

for housing needs, if such existed, having the

amenities such as Restaurants, Doctors

Surgeries, Dentists, Schools, Shops, Banks,

Public Houses, Estate Agents, Hairdressers,

Regular Bus services, Post Office, Parish

Church etc etc. Notwithstanding all of this,

many executive houses stand unsold in Darras

Hall.

Medburn contains none of the 'above

amenities nor indeed is likely to acquire them

in the foreseeable future.

Mrs Wyn Jackson

44 Darras Road

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9PA

I wish to object to the planning permission for

the new housing development at Land North

East of Green Rigg.

Medburn is a small rural hamlet which has no

amenities, no pavements, cycle ways, street

lighting, shops, church, pubs or restaurants.

There is a very limited public bus service with

a timetable which would not fit into a

resident¿s working day.

The new development which is essentially a

new housing estate would rely heavily upon

residents using private cars. The C345 is a

road in poor repair and the extra traffic would

have an impact for all other road users with

the increased number of cars needing to travel

back and forth to work, school runs, shopping

etc. The plan shows parking for 60 cars, the

increase in traffic would have adverse effect

on road safety. Another 20 houses which

could mean between 40 and 80 new residents

depending on the size of the household would

also have an impact on local services for

Ponteland as all of these people would have to

register at a doctors surgery and people

already have, too often, wait for over 2 weeks

to get an appointment. This development

would exacerbate this situation.

There would be a detrimental impact with the

loss of open space; the rural nature of

Medburn would be damaged by the loss of

rural feel.

I do not feel that the development is

sustainable as many executive houses and

building plots remain unsold in Medburn, a

great many having been on the market for a

considerable length of time. (years) there is no

demand for further housing.

The land is greenbelt and I feel that the

application is contrary to the sustainable

objectives of the NPPF, it is not a brownfield

site and this will not be infill development. The

proposal is therefore contrary to Policy MBH2.

Nearby Darras Hall has many executive

houses for sale which could better fill demand

for housing needs, if such existed, having the

amenities such as Restaurants, Doctors

Surgeries, Dentists, Schools, Shops, Banks,

Public Houses, Estate Agents, Hairdressers,

Regular Bus services, Post Office, Parish

Church etc etc. Notwithstanding all of this,

many executive houses stand unsold in Darras

Hall.

Medburn contains none of the ¿above

amenities nor indeed is likely to acquire them

in the foreseeable future.

Mr David Hobson

32 Willow Way

Darras Hall

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 9RF

I support the proposal to construct 20 new

dwellings on land north east of Green Rigg at

Medburn.

The County Council has indicated that there is

a shortfall in land available for housing

development in Ponteland Parish and has

suggested that Green Belt deletions will be

needed.

The application site lies within an inset into the

Green Belt and would deliver 20 dwellings

without need for Green Belt deletion.

The development would therefore mitigate any

need for development in the Green Belt to

which great importance is attached by the

Government.

The location of the application site lies

between housing to the north, which is set

back from the highway (C345), housing

fronting onto the C345 and housing located

along the Avenue. It is therefore essentially

infilling between existing developed areas.

Medburn is a well established settlement and

the proposed development would be of an

appropriate scale and layout which would

benefit the overall shape of the developed

area in Medburn.

The site can be safely accessed from the

C345 and utility services are locally available.

Medburn is close to the village of Ponteland

where local services, including shops, schools

and health services are easily accessible.

The development is therefore demonstrably

sustainable development. The National

Planning Policy Framework has introduced

presumption in favour of sustainable

development and approval should therefore be

granted.

Carol McMonagle

Medburn House

Medburn

Newcastle Upon

Tyne

Northumberland

NE20 0JE

I am writing to register my concern and

objection to the planning application of

potential houses being built on land North East

of Green Rigg, Medburn, Northumberland.

I am very concerned about the impact that

new buildings would have on the water table

on this area of Medburn. The narrow road

along this part of Medburn is on a steep incline

which is quite dangerous when there is heavy

rain or snow. At the present time the green

open land being considered for planning,

absorbs a great deal of the water during rain

or snow, but if this area was covered by

tarmac and buildings there would be an

adverse affect with regard to standing water,

with nowhere for the run-off water to be

absorbed there could be potential flood risk to

all the existing properties.

There is already pressure on the utility

services in Medburn, there is no main Gas

Supply, main sewage services have to be

considered and at present we experience

frequent electricity power cuts. There is very

poor quality broadband service, BT telling us

there is difficulty enabling any more capacity

due to Medburn being half way between

Ponteland and Stamfordham exchanges.

As Medburn is a rural location there are poor

facilities for disabled accessibility as there are

no pavements which means that it is

dangerous for wheelchairs and pushchairs on

the narrow 'C' road. There would inevitably be

a huge increase in residential car use

increasing the maintenance of the road which

is already prone to potholes. There is a limited

bus service (2 hourly at present) which would

require new residents to use their own

transport, that would result in an increase in

road use.

I am objecting to the proposed plan of so

many houses being built on such a small area,

which would change the quiet, character of

this peaceful hamlet, causing a great deal of

disruption during the development stage and

permanently thereafter.