AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEST : 19 MARCH...
Transcript of AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEST : 19 MARCH...
AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE WEST : 19 MARCH 2014
Application No:
13/03134/FUL
Proposal: Construction of 18 new dwellings and associated access, landscaping and engineering works
Site Address Mill House, West Road, Ponteland, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE20 9SG
Applicant: Galliford Try Partnerships North Ltd, 2 Esh Plaza, Sir Bobby Robson Way, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE13 9BA
Agent: GVA, Fourth Floor, Central Square, Forth Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne Tyne And Wear NE1 3PJ
Valid Date: 17 October 2013 Expiry Date:
16 January 2014
Case Officer Details:
Name: Mrs Caroline Jones
Job Title: Senior Planning Officer
Tel No: 01670 625547
Email: [email protected]
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)
1. Introduction 1.1 This application is recommended for approval contrary to the views of more
than five written objections and a Ponteland Town Council objection and therefore the decision falls to be determined by the West Area Planning Committee under the provisions of the Council’s delegation scheme.
1.2 The application was initially considered by Members at the meeting of the
West Area Planning Committee on 19th February 2014 when the making of a decision was deferred to allow for Members to visit the site. The Committee site visit took place on Monday 10th March 2014.
2. Description of the Proposals 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of 18 apartments and
associated access, landscaping and engineering works at Mill House, West Road, Ponteland.
2.2 The site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land with an area of approximately
0.42ha which is located towards the western edge of Ponteland village centre. The site was previously developed with the offices of Galliford Try which have recently been demolished as part of a consent for the redevelopment of the site with seven detached dwellings that was granted in 2012. The office was a two storey L shaped building constructed of stone and slate that provided just under 5000m2 of office space and associated parking. Due to a change in ground levels between West Road and the main part of the application site the access off West Road is steeply graded.
2.3 The site is located within the settlement boundary of Ponteland and within
Flood Risk Zone 3. The surrounding area comprises a mix of commercial and residential properties with the defined Ponteland Shopping Centre and Office Policy Zones being located immediately to the north and east of the site. The site itself is not allocated for any specific land use purpose in the Local Plan but is partially included within a Landscape Corridor. To the south of the site is the River Pont. Ponteland Park is located to the south east of the site with the existing Scout Hut adjoining the application site boundary.
2.4 The proposed redevelopment of the site would comprise the construction of
one five storey apartment block containing 18 apartments on the western part of the site. Access to the apartments would be via the existing access road and the access upgraded as part of the scheme.
2.5 The apartment block would measure 15 metres in height at its highest point
and 13 metres in height towards West Road. The proposed design has been amended since the original submission and now proposes a complex with a mono pitch roof with stone, render and stone panelling with glazed balconies on the rear. The complex would consist of 15no. two double bedroom apartments and 3no. three double bedroom apartments, a communal entrance with lift and stair access to all apartments. The majority of parking would be located underneath the apartment accommodation which begins at first floor level due to restrictions within the flood risk zone. A number of bays would also be located outside of the built form of development utilising the
topography of the site. There would be a total of 22 car parking spaces and 12 cycle spaces proposed within the site.
2.6 The south elevation of the proposed apartment block would overlook
Ponteland Park. This element of the scheme contains glass balconies to maximise the views over the park. The majority of the proposed living space has been kept to this side of the building with circulation space and bedroom/bathroom accommodation kept to the northern side.
3. Planning History
Reference Number: 11/01399/FUL
Description: Demolotion of existing office building and construction of seven
detached new dwellings
Status: Approved
Reference Number: 12/02601/VARYCO
Description: Variation of Condition 2 relating to planning permission 11/01399/FUL
(Demolition of existing office building and construction of seven new dwellings)
Status: Approved
Reference Number: 12/02876/VARYCO
Description: Variation of Condition 16 (bat mitigation) of 11/01399/FUL (Demolition of
existing office building and construction of seven new dwellings)
Status: Approved
Reference Number: 12/02969/DISCON
Description: Discharge of conditions relating to permission ref 11/01399/FUL
(Demolition of existing office building and construction of seven new dwellings)
Status: Approved
4. Consultee Responses
Ponteland Town Council
Object on the following grounds:
The site is in a prominent position and requires sensitive treatment, but the proposed building is too large; with a scale, mass and height that will dominate the surrounding area and be out of proportion with the neighbouring small scale, traditionally built housing.
The proposed design is unsympathetic to its surroundings as it brings inappropriate urbanisation to a semi-rural area; being adjacent to Ponteland Park and on the edge of the Green Belt.
The street scene would be adversely changed and the landscape corridor seriously undermined.
The allocated number of car parking spaces is insufficient for the proposed 18 apartments.
The access road is very steep (too steep to be adopted) and there are considerable problems with access to and
from the site in bad weather, especially in the winter when there is snow and ice. It is impossible to negotiate the slope in such adverse weather conditions and, during such times, when this site was used for commercial purposes, employees' cars were parked on the roads, pavements and grass verges along the West Road (A696), Ladywell Way and Fox Covert Lane. This caused serious traffic problems on the busy A696 and for local residents; problems which would be exacerbated should such a large residential development be permitted.
Also, the steep slope provides the only access for emergency vehicles, utility vehicles, Environment Agency, local scouts and their families to the scout hut, Ponteland Town Council and the public to the Park and River Pont.
The difficulties associated with this very important access slope, and future arrangements for the maintenance and treatment of it, have not been addressed.
The area where the development is proposed is in a flood plain and in the event of flooding problems will be caused for residents and vehicles attempting to leave and access the site. Also, the effect of flooding on the proposed septic tank that will be installed for foul water gives particular concern with the potential pollution of the River Pont and the millrace.
This is an ecologically sensitive area, being next to the river and Ponteland Park; indeed, a 5m buffer zone for wildlife was required as part of the previous application, but this area has been decimated. This proposal to build so close to this zone and the river bank raises serious concerns and questions over stability, protection and future maintenance along the bank of the river; especially during the construction process and given that it is very possible that there will be erosion of the river bank on the outside of the bend.
Finally, we request that a site visit for West Area Planning Committee Members be arranged to enable them to fully appreciate the detrimental impact of this proposal in this location.
Highways Authority No objection subject to conditions
County Archaeologist No objection
County Ecologist No objection subject to conditions
Trees And Woodland Officer
No objection subject to conditions
Public Protection No objection subject to conditions
Waste Management No response received
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)
No objection subject to conditions
Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions
Natural England No objection
Northumbrian Water No response received directly but have agreed to a connection with the mains sewer through the applicant.
5. Public Responses Neighbour Notification
Number of Neighbours Notified 26
Number of Objections 57
Number of Support 0
Number of General Comments 0
Notices General Site Notice, posted 21st November 2013 Press Notice - Hexham Courant, 25th October 2013 Summary of Responses: 57 letters of objection to the scheme have been received in total which includes comments on the original submission and to the amended design changes. Objections have been received on the following material planning grounds:
The building is visually unappealing;
Winter access in snow and ice will cause issues;
Insufficient parking and repercussions of parking outside of site on West Road and residential streets;
Drainage issues;
Concerns over septic tank particularly when it floods;
Too large, to dominant and overbearing;
Design is industrial and out of keeping;
The access is dangerous;
Concerns over the park and its wildlife;
Risk of flooding in general and with reference to the scout hut;
Negative impact on the use of the scout hut and its members;
The scheme is invasive;
Noise and light pollution particularly for the park and wildlife;
The density is out of keeping;
The site is ecologically sensitive and developers have not adhered to the buffer zone imposed in the past;
The site should be developed within the footprint and size of the original Mill House development; and
Materials are inappropriate. 6. Planning Policy 6.1 National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 6.2 Development Plan Policy Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (adopted 2003, saved policies 2007) C11 Protected species C13 Wildlife Corridors H15 New housing developments PC1 Ponteland: Settlement boundary PC3 Ponteland: Landscape Corridors 6.3 Other Documents/Strategies Castle Morpeth Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) 7. Appraisal 7.1 The main issues for consideration in the assessment of the application are:
Principle of Development Affordable Housing Siting and Design Neighbour Amenity Highways Flood Risk Ecology Archaeology
Principle of Development 7.2 The site is currently vacant due to the demolition of the office block which
previously occupied the site. The NPPF states that a range of sites should be available within town centres, including for residential development, and that Local Planning Authorities should normally approve planning applications for change of use to residential from commercial where there is an identified need for housing in that area. The Council's most recent published assessment of its five year housing land supply position contained within the document "Northumberland Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites 2013 - 2018" which was published in October 2013 identifies that within the former Castle Morpeth area, housing land supply fell short of the former RSS requirement of 799 units (adjusted to reflect a deficit of 43 units for the 2004 -2013 period and the application of a 20% buffer) by 233 units. It is also acknowledged that within Ponteland housing delivery is currently very poor and has been for some time. Given the above, in accordance with the NPPF, the proposal should be considered in the context of sustainable development.
7.3 The site is within the built up area of Ponteland centre and as such is within walking and cycling distance of a significant number of services including local schools, health centres, shops, pubs and restaurants. The site is also very accessible for the bus route which runs through Ponteland and has good transport links both into the centre of Ponteland and to neighbouring settlements. The residents of the proposed flats would also contribute economically to the services within Ponteland. It is therefore considered that the proposal constitutes sustainable development for the purposes of interpreting and applying the advice set out in the NPPF.
Affordable Housing 7.4 There are no Local Plan policies which require the provision of affordable
housing therefore the former Castle Morpeth Borough Council adopted an Interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) pending adoption of its Core Strategy. As a result of Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 2009, the Castle Morpeth Core Strategy was never adopted and the IPPAH now forms part of the Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework. However, the IPPAH is a non-statutory policy document, albeit one which is formally adopted. The Council’s Legal Services Team has advised that, whilst the requirements of the IPPAH can be used as a useful starting point in negotiations for affordable housing provision within development schemes of more than 15 dwellings, only minimal weight can be attributed to it for the purpose of requiring a developer to provide affordable units within a scheme.
7.5 The applicant has submitted a financial viability appraisal with the application
which demonstrates that the redevelopment of the site has marginal profits without the provision of affordable housing and that the provision of affordable housing on-site, or a financial contribution towards off-site provision, would render the scheme unviable.
7.6 Due to the fact that very little weight can be attached to the IPPAH for the
purpose of insisting on the provision of an element of affordable housing within the scheme, coupled with the findings of the applicants submitted viability assessment, it is considered that the mitigating circumstances which have been put forward by the applicant are satisfactory to allow a departure from the IPPAH so that no affordable housing is to be provided on the site.
Siting and Design 7.7 Local Plan Policy H15 seeks to ensure a high standard of design for all new
housing development and in this respect aligns firmly with the good design principles set out in the NPPF. Policy H15 sets out a number of criteria against which proposals for residential development will be assessed including, amongst other things, proposals being compatible with any distinctive vernacular character present in the locality in respect of layout, design and materials, neighbouring residential amenity being protected through the appropriate spacing of existing and proposed buildings, space around dwellings being adequate to allow the proper functioning of gardens for amenity purposes, and adequate car parking facilities being provided.
7.8 The surrounding properties to the site consist of two storey semi-detached properties. There are other apartment complexes within Ponteland itself, albeit not directly adjacent to the site. The proposed block of apartments would be five storeys in height with a mono pitch roof design and undercroft car parking within the ground floor space. By way of comparison the previous permission granted in 2012 consisted of 6no three storey dwellings and one four storey dwelling. The site slopes steeply away from West Road and as such the visual impact of a five storey building would be lessened by the change in levels. The contextual drawings submitted with the application show the relationship between the dwellings opposite the site on West Road demonstrating that the highest point of the roof of the proposed apartment block would be only marginally higher than the roofs of these adjacent properties. It is considered that the sloping nature of the site is such that a development of this scale can be accommodated without adversely impacting upon the wider street scene of West Road. There is a significant drop in ground levels between West Road and the application site with a steep embankment dropping down from the public highway. The entire apartment complex would be situated well beneath the adjacent road level. This is in comparison to the existing permission which proposed four dwellings dug into the embankment. This means that the built form of development on the site would be kept at a lower level and further back into the site than the existing permission and consequently would not be as visually prominent from West Road. Given the change in levels on the site, the impression of the development from outside of the site in the context of the West Road street scene would not appear as a five storey development. The exception to this would be when viewed from West Road heading west out of Ponteland when the full view of the complex would be visible due to the access road opening views into the site. The proposed development would also be visible from within Ponteland Park as was the previous office building. Given the change in levels on the site it is not considered that the proposed apartment complex would adversely affect views into or out of Ponteland Park or have a detrimental impact upon its setting.
7.9 The wider street scene in this part of Ponteland is to an extent protected by
Policies C13 and PC3 of the Local Plan which identify this site as falling within a Landscape Corridor where, in the interests of improving the general amenity of Ponteland, “green corridors” will be encouraged along its main approach roads. As West Road is the main approach road into the settlement from the west the application site is identified as being partially within this designated Landscape Corridor and both policies make clear that a landscaped zone with a depth of not less than 15m should be provided from the edge of the highway for the whole frontage of the development site. Neither policy allows built development within the landscaped zone. The majority of the proposed development allows for this 15m landscape buffer to be retained along the site frontage with the only exception being the north east corner of the building that would come within 14m of the highway edge. This is considered an improvement to the extant permission which allows built development much closer to the road and within the landscape corridor. Given the small nature of the built development being within this buffer zone it is considered that this element would not adversely impact on the landscape corridor and so would be acceptable in visual and landscape terms. It should be noted that the previous office building that occupied the site lay within 11m of the highway
edge again demonstrating that the apartment block being proposed would result in a strengthened landscape buffer along the frontage of the site.
7.10 This part of West Road is strongly characterised by buildings being
constructed in close proximity to the public highway, not least by those residential properties directly opposite the application site on the north side of West Road (known as The Beeches) which are set back only a short distance (approximately 9m) from the highway edge. The proposed development would be located only on the lower part of the site thereby retaining an open and landscaped frontage to the site, particularly when compared to the existing permission which allows development much closer to the public highway. A robust landscaping scheme and subsequent management plan can also be secured through the use of appropriately worded planning conditions. This would accord with the aims and objectives of the NPPF.
7.11 In terms of the appearance of the apartment complex it is considered that the
proposed development would integrate well into the context of the application site and its wider surroundings. The surrounding area is not characterised by any particular architectural style or palette of materials and instead features a wide range of property ages, styles and materials. The materials proposed for the building have been amended to introduce a mixture of stone panelling, timber cladding with a light coloured render. The balconies on the south elevation are now proposed in glass and the amended scheme as a whole is considered an improvement in design terms when compared to the originally submitted plans with high quality materials being utilised and the mix of materials having the effect of breaking up the mass of the building. The proposed materials would comprise a mix of existing materials from the vicinity including stone and render with a more modern contemporary use of timber cladding. The building would be contemporary in design and would contribute positively to the street scene without detracting from the existing visual characteristics of the area.
7.12 Subject to conditions controlling the use of materials and detailed elements of
the scheme it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its siting and design thus according with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H15 in these respects.
Neighbour Amenity 7.13 Although the proposal would result in an intensification of built development
on the application site, and a greater scale of development than the building which previously occupied the site, it is considered that there would not be an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of any neighbouring residential properties. The nearest neighbouring dwellings are located on the north side approximately 30m from the north west corner of the proposed block and 55m from the north east corner. To the south, east and west significant areas of mature planting beyond the site boundaries provide a natural screen for the development from adjacent properties and ensure that no issues of overlooking or loss of privacy would arise from the scheme. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring residential amenity thus according with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H15 in this respect.
Highways 7.14 The proposed scheme, as with the extant permission, proposes to widen the
access road into the site from West Road. The proposed development would have a total of 22 car parking spaces, 18 for the use of the apartments and 4 visitor parking spaces. The majority of car parking spaces would located beneath the accommodation in an undercroft parking arrangement. The Highways Authority has assessed the proposals and subject to conditions has raised no objection to the parking or access arrangements at the site.
Flood Risk 7.15 The proposal site is within Flood Risk Zone 3. A Flood Risk Assessment has
been submitted with the application. As the application would change the use of the site to a more vulnerable use then the exceptions test must be applied. The exception test states that it must be demonstrated that the development provides sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, that the development is on previously developed land and that a flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development is safe without increasing flood risk.
7.16 The development is on previously developed land and a flood risk
assessment has been submitted which the Environment Agency have assessed and have no objections to subject to conditions. In terms of the benefits it is considered that given the site is in an extremely sustainable location close to all local services and amenities, the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the flood risk together with the adequate flood risk assessment.
7.17 The Environment Agency had originally objected to the application on the
grounds that the flood risk assessment submitted was inadequate. Additional flood risk information has since been submitted to the Environment Agency and they have now withdrawn their previous objection. The Environment Agency has no outstanding objections to the scheme and the Council’s SuDS Officer is also satisfied with the information provided. It is therefore considered that the scheme is acceptable with respect to flood risk in accordance with the NPPF, subject to the conditions requested by the Environment Agency for an evacuation plan, mitigation measures and a scheme for surface water disposal.
7.18 Foul sewage was originally proposed to be dealt with via a septic tank.
Following initial objections from the Environment Agency the applicant has met with both the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water and has now agreed a scheme acceptable to all where foul drainage would be connected to the mains sewer system.
Ecology and trees 7.19 Policy C11 of the Local Plan, in line with guidance set out in the NPPF, seeks
to safeguard protected species and their habitat unless it can be demonstrated that any harm to these interests would be outweighed by the reasons for the proposed development. An ecological survey has been submitted with the application. Natural England and the County Ecologist
have assessed the reports and have raised no objection subject to a number of conditions securing the proposed mitigation measures. Subject to the recommended conditions it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact upon protected species or their habitat in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy C11.
7.20 The Council’sTree Officer has also examined the proposals and has no
objection to the scheme subject to tree protection measures for the remaining trees on site being conditioned.
Archaeology 7.21 A programme of building recording took place during the demolition of the
former Mill House which has provided information relating to the history and development of the site. This supports an earlier programme of building analyses. No archaeological features were identified during the archaeological monitoring of the grubbing–out of the floors and foundations of the demolished Mill House building. The earthwork survey of the proposed development area provided information relating to the landscape features in the immediate vicinity of the mill, including the well-preserved remains of the water management system associated with the post-medieval mill.
7.22 The proposed development site retains some limited archaeological potential
in the form of the surviving mill race and pond. However, the earlier archaeological evaluation and the results of the building recording, watching brief and earthwork survey provide a full record of the mill and its associated landscape features. It is unlikely that there are any surviving buried archaeological remains associated with an earlier mill, as was suggested in the earlier Desk-Based Assessment, exist or survive. Given that further archaeological mitigation is unlikely to provide any additional meaningful information relating to the development of the site, no further archaeological mitigation would be required.
8. Conclusion 8.1 The proposal would constitute sustainable development for the purposes of
interpreting and applying the advice set out in the NPPF. The Council does not currently have a five year supply of housing land in the former Castle Morpeth area or County as a whole and the principle of residential development on this site has previously been established through the granting of planning permission for seven detached dwellings in 2012.
8.2 In terms of affordable housing, due to the fact that very little weight can be
attached to the IPPAH and in the absence of any other adopted affordable housing policy, it is considered that the mitigating circumstances which have been put forward by the applicant in terms of the financial viability of the scheme are satisfactory to allow a departure from the IPPAH on this occasion.
8.3 Given the change in levels and siting of the proposed apartment building it is
not considered that the five storey building would appear as a five storey dwelling from West Road and the change in levels would lessen the impact the building would have together with the built form of the development being kept to the lower part of the site. The surrounding area is not characterised by
any particular architectural style or palette of materials and instead features a wide range of property ages, styles and materials. The materials proposed for the building have been amended to introduce a mixture of stone panelling, timber cladding with a light coloured render and is considered a contemporary design which would contribute positively to the area in visual terms.
8.4 Given the separation distances involved there would not be any detrimental
impact on neighbouring residential amenity. 8.5 A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application and the
Environment Agency has raised no objection to the scheme subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions.
8.6 Subject to the recommended conditions it is not considered that the scheme
would cause a detrimental impact on archaeological remains or ecological interests within the site.
9. Recommendation That this application be GRANTED permission subject to the following conditions: Conditions/Reason 01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 02. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following approved plans:
1. Proposed site plan 12032-P-102-RevC 2. Proposed site plan – boundary treatments 12032-P-105-Rev A 3. Ground and first floor plan 12032-P-200-G 4. Fourth floor and roof plan 12032-P-202-G 5. Proposed site plan with constraints 12032-P-103-Rev P 6. Proposed contextual elevations and section 12032-P-301-Rev D 7. Proposed contextual elevations 12032-P-300-Rev D 8. Second and third floor plan 12032-P-201-E
Reason: To ensure that the approved development is carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans. 03. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed landscaping scheme and management scheme for the site showing both hard and soft landscaping proposals, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings not later than the expiry of the next planting season following commencement of the development, or within such other time as may be approved with the Local Planning Authority. The landscaped areas shall be subsequently maintained to ensure establishment of the approved scheme, including watering, weeding and the replacement of any plants, or areas of seeding or turfing comprised in the approved
landscaping plans, which fail within a period up to 5 years from the completion of the development. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the satisfactory appearance of the development upon completion, and in accordance with the provisions of Policy H15. 04. No work shall commence on the development site unless the access to the A696 has been modified in accordance with a design and specification to be approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority and has been fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 05. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, provision shall be made for a temporary car park within the site to accommodate operatives and construction vehicles during the development of the site in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway. 06. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of a wheel washing, axle and suspension cleaning facility and its siting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facility shall be retained in the agreed position for the duration of construction work or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for use by construction traffic. Reason: To prevent mud, stones and other debris being carried on to the adjoining carriageway which may cause a hazard to other users of the highway. 07. All loaded wagons visiting or leaving the site shall be sheeted at source or otherwise treated to prevent the spread of dust/debris onto the highway. Reason: To prevent mud, stones and other debris being carried on to the adjoining highway, which may cause a hazard to other users of the highway. 08. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, provision shall be made for a storage area to accommodate the storage of materials off the Highway during the development of the site in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway. 09. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied unless any damage to the highway caused by construction/operative traffic associated with the works within the development site have been made good, with damaged areas repaired and footways resurfaced in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To return the highway fronting the site to a satisfactory condition, in the interests of amenity and highway safety.
10. The area allocated for parking on the submitted plan shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety. 11. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a minimum of 22 parking spaces have been provided within the curtilage of the site. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway. 12. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied unless a turning area has been provided within the curtilage of the site in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable vehicles to join the highway in a forward direction at all times, in the interests of highway safety. 13. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access to the site has been constructed generally in accordance with Type 6 of Northumberland County Council standard specifications with dropped kerbs and tactile paving to the existing footway, in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve access to and from the site in a manner which does not cause significant danger and inconvenience to other road users. 14. All trees and hedges within, and to the boundaries, of the site identified on either the approved tree survey or the approved application plans as being retained, shall be retained and protected throughout the course of development in accordance with a detailed scheme of works which shall first be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall be implemented in complete accordance with the approved scheme and shall remain in place throughout the course of the construction of the development, unless otherwise approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or hedges removed without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority, or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the completion of development or up to 12 months after occupation of the last dwelling shall be replaced with trees or hedging of such size, species in a timescale and in positions as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of existing trees and hedges in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF. 15. If during redevelopment contamination not previously considered is identified, then an additional method statement regarding this material shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and measures proposed to deal with the contamination have been carried out.
Reason: To protect the environment and ensure that the remediated site is reclaimed to an appropriate standard. 16. No development shall commence until a scheme to control dust, to be implemented for the duration of the site works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include methods to control dust from works and site management responses to incidents and complaints about dust arising from the site. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and ensure a commensurate level of protection against dust. 17. No development shall take place until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include: i. a timetable for its implementation, and ii. a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. Reason: To ensure the effective disposal of surface water for the lifetime of the development. 18. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) produced by BDN Ltd ref R0218 dated January 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1. Provision of compensatory flood storage as per drawing no. (GA)00_01 Rev P01, and sections (GA)00_03, 04, and 05. 2. Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the development as per section 5.3. 3. Ground floor levels are set no lower than 59.65m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason Reason: 1. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided. 2. To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site. 3. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. 19. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme for emergency evacuation has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure all residents can safely evacuate the development before flooding occurs. 20. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside the watercourse shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision. The schemes shall include: - plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone - details of any proposed planting scheme (native species) - details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of a management plan - details of any proposed fencing, lighting etc and how lighting will be excluded from the buffer zone - plans detailing the protection of the buffer zone and watercourse from silt and other polluted run-off from the site. Reasons 1. Development that encroaches on watercourses has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value. 2. Land alongside watercourses is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is protected. 21. No development until a detailed method statement for removing or the long-term management / control of Himalayan Balsam on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include proposed measures that will be used to prevent the spread of Himalayan balsam during any operations e.g. mowing, strimming or soil movement. It shall also contain measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free of the seeds / root / stem of any invasive plant covered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: This condition is necessary to prevent the spread of Himalayan Balsam which is an invasive species. Without it, avoidable damage could be caused to the nature conservation value of the site contrary to national planning policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109, which requires the planning system to aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. 22. Before development commences samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs of the dwellings hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that a high quality of design is achieved in the interests of the
appearance of the area and in accordance with the NPPF. 23. No lighting shall be installed on any part of the site unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, any lighting shall not be installed other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residential properties in accordance with the NPPF. 24. No development shall commence until a tree felling method statement documenting measures of avoidance of harm to bats has been submitted to the LPA for approval. The method statement shall follow guidance as set out in, ‘Bats & Trees in England’ BCT 2007 and ‘Bats in the Context of Tree Works’ Arboricultural Association Guidance Note No.1, 2011. Once the tree felling method statement has been approved in writing by the LPA no trees with an identified risk of supporting bats shall be felled unless in strict accordance with the approved method statement”. Reason: to prevent harm to a protected species. 25. No development shall be undertaken other than that which strictly accords with the Otter Method Statement - Mill House, West Road, Ponteland, received by email on 4 February 2014, E3 Ecology, which shall include:
All works to the riverbank will be undertaken in daylight hours, avoiding the first hour after dawn and the hour before sunset.
Once the riverbank has been suitably repaired, a 5m exclusion zone will be demarcated along the bank on the river and no plant access into this zone will be permitted.
The use of high intensity lighting which will illuminate the river corridor will be avoided both during the working period and following on from the completion of the project. This will involve the absence of security lighting from the rear of properties adjacent to the river.
Any excavations that are left overnight will either be covered or include a ramp of 45 degrees or less on one face to allow otter and other wildlife to climb out should they fall into the excavation.
Contractors should be made aware that otter may lie-up in stacked pipes or beneath pallets. These features should be inspected daily before the start of works.
Immediately following repair works to the riverbank, the area will be planted with dense scrub planting along the burn to reduce access for increased footfall created through residential development. Appropriate species are holly, bramble, hawthorn, blackthorn, alder and willow.
Should holt or resting sites be identified at any stage during works, a licence from Natural England will be sought prior to further works within 30m of the river continuing.
Reason: to prevent harm to a protected species. 26. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the guidance set out in ‘Pollution Prevention Guidance: Works or Maintenance in or Near Water PPG5, Environment Agency, 2007’.
Reason: To ensure that a watercourse is not polluted or contaminated during development works. 27. No vegetation clearance shall be undertaken between 1 March and 31 August unless an ecologist has first confirmed that no bird’s nests that are being built or are in use, eggs or dependent young will be damaged or destroyed.
Reason: To protect nesting birds, all species of which are protected by law. 28. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of integrated bird boxes (House Marten, Swift and House Sparrow) and tree mounted boxes shall be submitted for the written approval of the LPA. The scheme shall detail the location, height, orientation, numbers (though no fewer than 20 in total) and specification of bird nesting provision. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to dwellings are occupied. Reason: to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site. 29. Prior to the commencement of development an swept path analysis for refuse vehicles turning left out of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety. Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 13/03134/FUL
List and Comments of representations received:-
Name Address Summary of Comments
Friends Of
Ponteland Park
C/O
51 Eland Edge
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9AY
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr James Basil
Scott
74 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
I wish to object to the planning application by
Galliford Try for Mill House West Road
Ponteland. I have tried to follow your web
page and have successfully logged in but am
unable to find how to object to this application.
However I have viewed the plans at the local
council office and wish to object for the
following reasons: Outlook. The views of the
proposed flats are horrible, both from the main
road and from the park. Parking. There does
not seem to be any provision for Winter
access. History tells us that previous
occupants of this site could not drive out of the
access hill. They therefore parked on the main
A696 road and/or Ladywell Way causing traffic
problems. I feel this should be considered
before granting this application. Further the
proposal is for 22 parking spaces in total. If
any of the new 18 residents have more than
one vehicle or more than 4 visitors turn up, are
the surplus going to park on the main road or
Ladywell. Drainage It is a well established fact
that Ponteland is prone to flooding, particularly
the Park. I understand that the proposal is for
a septic tank for the soil water. What happens
when the river Pont floods? Is the park to be
contaminated by the overflow from the septic
tank.
I continue to object to this planning application:
The proposals are visually unappealing.
The problem of where the cars are parked
when snow /ice prevents access to/from the
site continue to concern us. As previously
outlined previous occupants parked on the
A696 West Road or in Ladywell Way. Neither
of these are acceptable.
What happens when the park floods? Will
Galliford Try bring buckets? I still strongly
object to this application.
Dorothy Stainsby
9 Meadow Court
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9RB
I wish to object to this proposed development
on the following grounds;
1. The proposed building is hideous. It is far
too large for the location, is dominating, and its
excessive height would produce an
overbearing effect on the houses opposite.
The proposed design of the building, with its
flat, industrial-style roof and surface is totally
out of keeping with the local streetscape, and
would ruin the townscape at the A696
entrance to Ponteland from the North.
2. The proposed sewage system is not robust
and seems to have serious potential problems,
with a real risk of discharge of raw sewage into
the River Pont.
3. The impact on Ponteland Park. The
clearance of the site has already had a
detrimental impact on the park and its wildlife.
Proposals for a 'wildlife corridor' are derisory
and inadequate.
Professor Richard
Walker
25 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
See attached copy of correspondence
Mary Mackley
24 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
I WISH TO RAISE OPJECTION TO THE
PLANNING APPLICATION 13/03134/ FUL -
FOR MILL HOUSE, WEST ROAD,
PONTELAND NE20 9SG
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
There has already been disturbance to the
wildlife corridor and this will undoubtedly be
further disturbed if this building proceeds,
during construction and when occupied.
The building is completely out character for the
area. It will be too big, all houses nearby are 2
story semidetached. It will have a flat roof
when all near houses have a pitched roof. The
materials are also completely different to
nearby properties.
There is a danger of contamination to the river
Pont from surface run off from the car parking
area.
There is not enough car parking for 18 flats,
some of 2 bedrooms.
Access to West Road (the A696) is
dangerous, increased use will be a hazard.
Mr H Craggs
18 Hadrian Court
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9JU
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr & Mrs T
Johnson
85 Cheviot View
Ponteland Road
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9BH
We wish to object to the above planning
application. We have examined the proposals
and understand them. We also know the site
well. We attended the public consultation and
had the opportunity to discuss the proposal.
This letter sets out our specific objections.
The proposed building is too large and
dominating in this location, from the view in
both the park and the A696. It is taller than
the nearby houses which creates an
overbearing effect and is not in keeping with
the street scene and the conservation area of
the village.
As well as the size of the proposed building,
the materials used make it appear more like
an industrial unit than private residences and
are completely unsuitable within a village park
area.
Mrs M. M. Taylor
12 Simonside
View
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TF
See attached copy of correspondence
Dr & Mrs N
Trevarrow
54 West Road
Ponteland
Northumberland
NE20 9SX
We write to express our concerns in relation to
the above proposal. Our concerns particularly
relate to highway and parking issues. Whilst
we do not object to some dwellings being built
on the Mill House site, it is our opinion that
such a large building with 18 apartments is too
many for this location. It is naive of the
developers to think that the 18 apartments will
only require one parking space each. Most
households now have two cars and there is
not enough provision made for this in the
plans. Four extra "visitor" parking spaces will
not meet the need for the number of people
who will reside in the dwelling. The plans
demonstrate inadequate parking
considerations for both the current residents
and the future occupants of the apartments.
At times we have experienced people parking
along West Road either side of the entrance to
the site. It is inevitable that this will become a
permanent situation if these plans are to
proceed as detailed. The issue is that when
there are cars parked on West Road either
side of the entrance to the site, there are
severe safety concerns as detailed below:
o The visibility of drivers wanting to exit
the site of the apartments is compromised and
drivers have to pull out fully into the main road
in order to see and make a right turn. We
have witnessed many near misses as a result
of this in the past.
o Cars parked along West Road will
prevent us having a safe turning space to
access our narrow driveway.
o Cars parked along West Road situated
half on the road and half on the narrow
footpath would leave no room for pedestrians.
The footpath is frequently used, particularly by
young families with pushchairs wanting to
access the park.
o The access to the site is incredibly
steep and not accessible when there is ice or
snow. When the Galliford Try property was
there, the employees parked along West Road
whenever there was bad weather or risk of
flooding. This is how we are aware of the
above safety issues noted. There is no
indication as to how this issue with steep
access to the site is addressed in the plans.
When reviewing these plans, please consider
that West Road is a busy road with heavy
traffic including farm vehicles, large lorries,
army convoys and coaches. We would
suggest you consider double yellow lines
either side of the entrance to the site whatever
the final number of dwellings to address the
safety concerns listed above. We would also
reiterate that 18 dwellings are too many and
are not adequately provided for in terms of
parking within the plans which will lead to a
permanent situation of residents and visitors of
residents parking outside of the proposed site.
A further concern relates to the layout and
siting of the development. The building is
large and five stories high which will be rather
imposing situated as it is adjacent to the park
and in an area of natural beauty.
We would ask that you take these points into
consideration and ask the developers to
propose a building more suited to its location
with enough provision for it to be self
contained within the space they have
available, which includes parking provision.
R W & M Moore
56 West Road
Ponteland
Northumberland
NE20 9SX
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr And Mrs DA
And F M
Wealleans
1 Ladywell Way
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
See attached copy of correspondence
James F Milligan
10 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
See attached copy of correspondence
Rob Kinniburgh
6 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
See attached copy of correspondence
Richard Walker
1st Ponteland
Scout Group
40 Pembroke
Drive
Ponteland
Newcastle
NE20 9HS
Thank you for your recent letter advising about
the amendment to the above plan.
On behalf of the 1st Ponteland Scout Group I
have examined the amendment and the
changes made in it. As far as I can see the
only changes proposed relate to the external
appearance of the building. Since the Scout
Group's original objection made no reference
to the appearance of the proposed building
nothing in this amendment changes our view
of the proposal. Nothing has been suggested
to address the fundamental issues of access,
inadequate parking provision, increased flood
risk to our premises and wholly inappropriate
plans for sewage disposal. Based on the
"reason for amendment" shown on the new
plan I assume that there have been
discussions between your department and the
applicant and it is very worrying that this is the
only amendment that they have considered
necessary to propose.
I would therefore like to reiterate our
objections to the Planning Application and this
amendment for the reasons detailed below.
Information about the 1st Ponteland Scout
Group
The Scout Group is based in the Headquarters
building just inside Ponteland Park adjacent to
the site of the proposed development. We
deliver Scouting to young people between the
ages of 6 and 18. We currently have 150 youth
members.
Access to our building is through the Galliford
Try site and into the park. This access is
guaranteed by a legal agreement between
Galliford Try (as successors to Kendal Cross),
the Town Council and ourselves.
Most of our activities take place in the
evenings during the week with meetings in the
Headquarters building every evening from
Sunday to Thursday. There are occasional
additional activities during the day at
weekends. Our access traffic is therefore
heaviest outside normal working hours.
Observations made during normal daytime
hours will give no information about the extent
of our use.
The first and foremost responsibility of our
volunteer leaders is the safety and security of
our young members. This can never be
compromised.
Against this background our specific
objections are:
1. Access
We were pleased to see that our right of
access is clearly acknowledged a number of
times in the proposal but we need to be clear
that this access should always be available
and should be sufficient to allow for
emergency service vehicles and other large
vehicles that we use from time to time to take
and return equipment for camping activities
away from Ponteland.
During the construction phase the proposal
implies that access will be closed for periods of
time. This is not acceptable as emergency
service vehicles may be needed at any time.
In addition leaders need to bring and take
away equipment as required for their
programme.
Just as importantly our young members need
to have a safe access through a construction
site and this safety needs to be guaranteed.
After completion of the development access
will remain a problem. The plan shows a clear
access route with designated parking spaces
but unfortunately residents and visitors will be
unlikely to adhere to the plan. There is one
space per residence which is to be designated
to the specific residence and should not
therefore be used by anyone else. This then
leaves four visitor spaces which is unlikely to
be sufficient. The fifth and subsequent visitors
will therefore park wherever they can find a
gap and this is most likely to be on the access
road or obstructing the gate into the park.
People looking to park their cars do not, in
general, show much consideration for others.
The plan for the provision of car parking
spaces is insufficient compared to the County
Council policy (Car Parking Standards in
Northumberland 1996). Since the development
is not in a defined urban area where
alternative public parking is available then the
County Council policy would call for the
provision of 39 allocated residents' spaces (30
if the parking is designated as communal
rather than allocated) plus 4 visitor spaces.
With access impaired the result will be that
parents will park on West Road - a very busy
main road. Unloading and loading young
people on this road is a major safety concern
and should be avoided.
There is no footpath or lighting shown on the
access road. This is a safety hazard for young
people walking up and down what will become
a busy access.
The fundamental problem is that the site is not
large enough to support 18 dwellings.
2. Future Relations with the Residents
Once the development is complete and the
new residents move in there is the potential for
endless aggravation between them and
ourselves. It is unlikely that they will be
informed during the purchase process of the
level of traffic along the access road to and
from our premises during the evenings. This,
together with the noise made by exuberant
young people enjoying their activities, is likely
to cause an unacceptable disturbance to the
residents. Equally we will be displeased when
their visitors, with insufficient parking spaces
block our access into the park.
3. Increased Flood Risk to Our Premises
Given our own recent experiences with
flooding we are very concerned about anything
that might impact on the potential for
increased flood risk to our property. The
proposed development results in a net
increase in impermeable area. This increased
run off is likely to go down hill to our
headquarters building. The plans also state
that the new floor level at 59.775 m results in a
loss of flood plain area. Again this puts
additional risk on our building.
As a result of our recent flood history we can
no longer obtain insurance for flood risk. Any
flood damage caused by increased run off will
have to be paid from our own funds.
4. Sewage Disposal
The proposal provides sewage disposal for the
development by means of a septic tank. This
is to be located at the lowest point of the site
which is under the access road immediately in
front of the gate into the park. During the
construction phase this will result in a
significant period of loss of access to the park.
After construction ongoing maintenance and
cleaning will also result in loss of access.
More importantly the discharge of clean water
from the septic tank into the storm water sewer
is at 57.447 m which is well below the likely
flood level. This means that any flooding would
likely result in a reverse flow into the septic
tank and the raw sewage emptying downhill
onto our premises. Cleaning up after a river
flood is bad enough without the addition of raw
sewage.
The sewage disposal should be routed to the
current Northumbria Water sewer which runs
through the site.
5. Site Boundaries
At points the development site shares a
common boundary with the Scout Group. We
need to be certain that these boundaries are
respected and that all boundary fencing is
reinstated to an acceptable standard whilst still
allowing access around our building for routine
maintenance.
Mr J.M Brown
4 Woodlands
Ponteland
Newcastle
NE20 9EU
See attached copy of correspondence
Mrs Alma Prickett
19 Darras Road
Darras Hall
Ponteland
Northumberland
NE20 9PD
I reiterate my comments of 8th November
2013.
This revised application does not detract in
any way from the objection to this totally out of
place development on Ponteland riverside.
The construction is too invasive on an area so
far protected by vegetation and silence at
night. The size of the building which faces the
river with balconies so near to the river edge
will therefore cause light and noise pollution
which will drastically affect value of the wildlife
corridor through Ponteland. Therefore all
wildlife, otter, kingfisher, bats etc. will be
discouraged from visiting our park.
The height, design and the flat roof of the
building are completely out of place compared
with the old, stone building which was the Mill
House.
Any construction should be of stone to
harmonise with the original atmosphere
created by the original Mill House.
The boundary to the site should be bounded,
both on the riverside and the west side, with
close boarded fence to protect from trespass,
as far as is possible, local wildlife from this
intrusion. The wooded area to the west is of
particularly high value to local wildlife and it is
important that it remains undisturbed.
This fencing should be conditional on any
further permission granted to the applicant.
Given previous disregard by the applicant of
previous planning conditions any further
development should be particularly closely
monitored.
The density of development is completely out
of keeping with any habitation within at least
half a mile and therefore is totally
unacceptable.
Given the likelihood of the site to flood it (see
photographic proof provided elsewhere) and
with the present weather conditions it is
amazing that the Planning Authority could
possibly countenance such a densely
populated construction well within the proven
flood plain.
On behalf of Friends of Ponteland Park we
unreservedly object to the construction of
accommodation of this density in the flood
plain and reiterate our objections of 6th
November 2013.
The damage to wildlife in this area will be
irreversible.
The proposal by the applicant totally illustrates
the lack of care for the environment which is
illustrated by the design and location of the
over large building with the activity thus
engendered with an access to the site which is
both inadequate and vulnerable to the heavy
traffic on the A696.
It is essential that the riverside and the
boundary to the west of the site is protected by
a close boarded fence to protect areas of great
importance to local wildlife.
Alma Prickett
Treasurer to Friends of Ponteland Park
Mr David Butler
8 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
Millhouse Close ¿ proposal to build 18
apartments by Galliford Try ¿ 13/03134/FUL
We are writing to object to the above planning
application on the following grounds:
1. The proposed building is too large and
dominating in this location and of a mass that
is out of proportion to the other buildings in the
vicinity.
2. This building will replace a Northumbrian
stone-built mill; and as such, the proposed
design is inappropriate and out of sympathy
with its surroundings on the edge of the
country park, and with the houses of the West
Road, The Beeches and Ladywell Way.
3. The developers have allocated insufficient
car parking spaces for the number of proposed
dwellings ¿ the developers have stated that
the apartments are designed for young
professionals and those who wish to
downsize. The developer has used totally out
of date criteria (Castle Morpeth figures, agreed
in 2003 and ¿saved¿ by NCC in 2007) to
determine the required number of parking
spaces, 18 for the apartments and 4 for
visitors. Under NCC current car parking
strategy, published under the Preferred
Options document as part of the emerging
Core Strategy
http://northumberland.limehouse.co.uk/file/244
5216 the minimum number of spaces required
for these flats should be 36 plus 4 visitor
spaces.
4. The area where the development is
proposed is in a flood plain. Yes, the
installation of a ground floor parking area
negates the flood risk to the dwellings but, in
the event of flooding of the site, what happens
to the septic tank that will be installed for foul
water ? ¿ pollution of the River Pont !
5. When the area is flooded residents will be
effectively marooned, as floodwater can reach
several inches deep across the whole of the
site.
6. The unadopted access road to the site is
very steep, with an approximate gradient of 1
in 8. We have lived in Ladywell Way for over
30 years, even in mild winters the site is
inaccessible for several days each winter due
to snow and ice, in severe winters it can be
inaccessible for up to 2 weeks. This is in spite
of provision of a salt/grit box at the top of the
slope. What will happen when emergency /
utility vehicles need access to the site? Who
maintains the supply of salt on what is a
private development ?
7. When this site was used for commercial
purposes, employees¿ cars were parked
along the busy A696 opposite the entrance to
Ladywell Way, opposite The Beeches and on
the grass verges at the end of Ladywell Way,
sometimes even blocking the pavements,
especially during the winter. Cars were also
parked down Ladywell Way where they
caused a traffic hazard due to the narrowness
of the road and the proximity of the busy
junction with the A696. If this were the case
when the site was used for business purposes,
how much more so when the site has a
residential use?
8. This size of this development has the
potential to cause severe difficulties for the
local scouts and their families who need clear
access to the nearby scout hut. We realise
that this is not a planning issue, but should be
taken into consideration when drawing up the
conditions that should be applied to this site.
9. The area next to the river and the adjacent
park is ecologically sensitive. This
development has the potential to adversely
affect the delicate ecological balance of both
the park these areas. The developer is aware
that as a condition of building on the site a 5
metre buffer zone must be preserved between
the development and the river. When the site
was cleared prior to development under the
previous planning application 12 months ago,
this condition was completely ignored and the
resulting devastation to the river bank can still
be seen today. It is essential to the health of
the wildlife in the area that this condition be
stringently observed and measures put in
place to ensure that this will continue in
perpetuity. Northumberland Wildlife Trust
would be the obvious organisation to monitor
this wildlife corridor, but any measures that are
put in place must be written into the
conditions.
We have no objection in principle to the
development of this brownfield site, but not of
this magnitude and not this design. Serious
consideration must be given to amending the
design so that is has much less visual impact
on the surrounding environment, reducing the
size of the development, and to providing a
realistic number of parking places. Such
amendments would go a long way towards
meeting many of our concerns.
Could I re-iterate my strong objections to these
proposals please ?
The applicant has modified some of the details
which affect the appearance of the building,
but these go nowhere near satisfying one of
the main planks of my opposition to these
flats.
There have been several instances in the past
five years, during which time I was chairman of
the Ponteland Town Council planning group,
where planning officers refused an application
based upon a new building/extension being
'out of keeping' with the surrounding
properties, generally under C.M.L.Plan policy
H14 (Proposals ... will be permitted if all of the
following criteria are met :- etc. etc.)
I submit that the proposed design of the
building is NOT in keeping with surrounding
properties, which are 1930's - 1960's
traditional houses, and will have an adverse
effect of the street scene.
The proposed design would not look out of
place on Newcastle Quayside, where there is
a mix of new designs, but in a residential area,
at the entrance to the village, definitely not.
I support the need for development on the site,
but surely the design could be more in keeping
with what was there previously (a stone clad,
two to three storey block) which did enhance
the area.
I understand that the developer needs to
maximise his return on the site, but profitability
should not be taken into account when
deciding a planning application, so reducing
the height of the building to have 12 flats for
example (i.e. losing the top floor) would be
preferable to what is proposed.
I trust that my previous comments on this
proposal will still be considered.
John Hague
12 High View
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9ET
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr P C Cooper
4 The Cloggs
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9UJ
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr thomas
armstrong
48 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
Myself and my wife wish to raise our
objections to the Mill House proposal of 18
new dwellings to be built to be on this site. Our
reasons are that the proposal is to large for the
area available. The site proposes car parking
for the properties that would not be sufficient.
We as occupants of the Ladywell estate have
suffered from when the property was an office
site and the workers did not have enough car
parking spaces , so they parked on the West
Road which made access to and from our
estate very difficult and also created traffic flow
problems on the West Road.As you know this
is a major link to the Borders and to the
A696.We feel that the developers should
revise their plans and propose a much smaller
development that hopefully would not impact
visually on neighbouring properties and as we
believe will cause traffic flow problems on a
major road.The parking issue is a very
important issue to be considered as history
from when it was an office shows the problems
incurred then.
Mr And Mrs RB
And J Oliver
38 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr thomas
armstrong
48 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
Myself and my wife wish to raise our
objections to the Mill House proposal of 18
new dwellings to be built to be on this site. Our
reasons are that the proposal is to large for the
area available. The site proposes car parking
for the properties that would not be sufficient.
We as occupants of the Ladywell estate have
suffered from when the property was an office
site and the workers did not have enough car
parking spaces , so they parked on the West
Road which made access to and from our
estate very difficult and also created traffic flow
problems on the West Road.As you know this
is a major link to the Borders and to the
A696.We feel that the developers should
revise their plans and propose a much smaller
development that hopefully would not impact
visually on neighbouring properties and as we
believe will cause traffic flow problems on a
major road.The parking issue is a very
important issue to be considered as history
from when it was an office shows the problems
incurred then.
Mr Andrew Gonnet
14 Rothley Close
Ponteland
1) Size, in particular number of floors,
ground/parking & 4 floors. The building is
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TD
much higher than the building it replaces,
ground & & 1 floor. I am unhappy that it will be
clearly visible from the main road. In addition,
this building will be clearly visible within the
park, & being effectively in the park it could be
seen as the start of developments within the
park.
2) The style of the new building is not in
keeping with other properties in the vicinity.
3) Inadequate parking. There are only 18
allocated + 4 visitor spaces, residents may
park second vehicles on the highway. When
cars park opposite the end of Ladywell Way
this creates a traffic hazard for drivers using
the Ladywell Way junction. Also, cars parked
on pavements, create a hazard for
pedestrians.
4) The bank is very steep, it is difficult to use in
icy or snowy winter conditions. This will
increase the likelihood of cars being parked on
the main highway.
5) Flooding is a serious risk. The Scout hut
has been flooded in recent years. While this
building would be marginally higher than the
Scout hut, with changing weather patterns,
flooding is highly probable.
6) Safe access to the Scout hut for the
children is high priority. The safety of these
children will be reduced by having a greater
number of cars using the access road. Also,
access & parking for parents taking &
collecting children in cars will be an issue.
7) Environment: Wildlife, trees & plants. I am
very unhappy with the way the bank has been
torn apart. Trees & ground cover have been
violently removed with little consideration for
wildlife. I see very little consideration in the
plans for future provisions.
8) Environment: Energy. There are
opportunities here that have been missed. For
example, the building could be heated using a
heat pump extracting heat from the river Pont
& the roof of the building could be green roof,
providing habitat for insects & wildlife while
helping cool the building in summer & keep it
warm in winter.
I have reviewed the changes to this
application. These do not address my previous
concerns, listed below.
1) Size, number of floors, ground/parking & 4
floors. The building is much higher than the
building it replaces, ground & & 1 floor. I am
unhappy that it will be clearly visible from the
main road. In addition, this building will be
clearly visible within the park, & being
effectively in the park it could be seen as the
start of developments within the park.
2) The style of the new building is not in
keeping with other properties in the vicinity.
3) Inadequate parking. There are only 18
allocated + 4 visitor spaces, residents may
park second vehicles on the highway. When
cars park opposite the end of Ladywell Way
this creates a traffic hazard for drivers using
the Ladywell Way junction. Also, cars parked
on pavements, create a hazard for
pedestrians.
4) The bank is very steep, it is difficult to use in
icy or snowy winter conditions.
5) Flooding is a serious risk. The Scout hut
has been flooded in recent years. While this
building would be marginally higher than the
Scout hut, with changing weather patterns,
flooding is highly probable.
6) Safe access to the Scout hut for the
children is high priority. The safety of these
children will be reduced by having a greater
number of cars using the access road. Access
& parking for parents taking & collecting
children in cars will be an issue.
7) Environment: Wildlife, trees & plants. I am
very unhappy with the way the bank has been
torn apart. Trees & ground cover have been
violently removed with little consideration for
wildlife. I see very little consideration in the
plans for future provisions.
8) Environment: Energy. There are
opportunities here that have been missed. The
building could be heated using a heat pump
extracting heat from the river Pont & the roof
of the building could be a green roof, providing
habitat for insects & wildlife while helping cool
the building in summer & keep it warm in
winter.
Mrs Jennifer Ham
1 Lynwood Close
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9JG
The developers have not adequately studied
the history and landscaping of the site .
A five storey building is inappropriate. Inspite
of developer comments, it would be higher
than those houses opposite.
The building is too large and European in style
- it will not be
disguised by any extra trees/greenery which
might be planted on the
street side and be a complete eyesore in the
rural park to which it would be adjoining. It
would conflict with the buildings already along
the A696 West Road and the whole of
Ponteland Town Centre. Please note that
even the Waitrose supermarket building was
built some years ago in surface treatment
(stone) to tie in with surroundings.
Surface treatment of the building is
inappropriate - stone and brickwork have
been avoided .
I do not believe that the proposed wild-life
corridor nor the distance quoted from the River
Pont will be sufficient . Otters in particular are
regularly at the site.
I am concerned that the building WILL be
subject to flooding ,
(causing concern to those elderly
"downsizing" residents whom the
developers intend to attract.) I wish to quote
the research on flooding matters undertaken
and submitted by Mr. John Blundell.
Importantly the sewerage system proposed
would not be sustainable and
"fool proof". Failures could easily cause
much damage to the
natural ecology of the site and River Pont.
(18 x 2 bedroom
flats, 18 discharges from washing machines
and dishwashers...
blockages.... etc. not to mention pump
breakdown. possible improper maintenance of
the equipment etc )
There is no proper path down the slip road to
the site, and the only other access is a very
steep flight of steps at the far end of the site
from the A696. Much railing would be needed
for safety purposes and the
flight of steps would need to be staggered .
How could wheel chairs
and motorised buggies cope with the steep
drive.?
Car parking is inadequate,, and how would
essential service
vehicles such as those for refuse collection
safely access the site
from the A696. - particularly in bad weather,
ice, snow and when
fallen leaves cause problems. ? Not to
mention fire and ambulance
services.
The stability of the banking has been
compromised between the site and the A696
not only the western edge but behind the
Scout Hut where an area of dolomite has now
been spread because of Japanese
Knotweed..
There is a tri-partite arrangement regarding
parking on the site between Galliford Try
(formerly with Kendall Cross Holdings ltd), the
Ponteland Town Council and the First
Ponteland Scout Group.
This in itself precludes a larger development of
dwellings in view of the many vehicles of the
Scout movement using the site regularly every
evening.
The applicant has made such errors in his
development of the site and
he should be made to comply with an S106
agreement - no exceptions
should be made here which would create a
precedent.
In all, I believe that such is the sensitivity of
the site that in view of all the above factors
and, if the developers still wants to build
flats,he should be held to the provision of a
STONE BUILT building ON THE FOOTPRINT
OF THE ORIGINAL MILL HOUSE, NO
HIGHER AND NO LARGER.
Philip Ham
1 Lynwood Close
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9JG
On behalf of the Ponteland Civic Society, I
object to the above Application. This letter
should be read in conjunction with
PONT.APS.2013.14.doc forwarded by our Mr.
John Hague on the same subject, but which
was concerned with very important visual and
related aspects.
1. The proposed car-parking provisions are not
adequate. Under the provisions of the
Retained CMBC Policy T11 and
Northumberland County Council Parking
Standards (1996) for "Communal" parking, at
least 18 places would be required.
2. According to a Tripartite Covenant originally
drawn up between Ponteland Parish Council,
the Ponteland Scout Group and Kendall Cross
(Holdings) Ltd., we understand that car
parking was not permitted on the sloping
access road leading down to this site from the
A696. Presumably Galliford Try Ltd. are still
bound by this Agreement but appear to have
ignored it.
3. The steep access road is not of adequate
width for the simultaneous safe passage of
pedestrians and motor traffic, and the
proposed pedestrian access steps could also
be difficult and unsafe - particularly in winter
conditions. These matters are of some
importance since the Applicant has indicated
(in discussion) that these flats are particularly
aimed at elderly buyers who are trading-down
from larger Darras Hall properties.
4. The view of the proposed building from
Ladywell Way and adjacent houses along the
north side of the A696 is extremely
overbearing. The surface treatment of teak,
larch, brick, render and glass panels is over-
complex and intrusive. The width of the
building would give rise to a much greater
angle in the horizontal plane than in the
previous case where seven houses had been
approved.
5. Although the height of the building is
claimed to be no more than that originally
approved for seven houses, the building as a
whole will be completely out of character with
the existing houses on the A696 by reason of
the dominance of the proposed five-storey
structure and its entirely inappropriate flat roof.
Only pitched roofs were proposed in the
original Application for seven houses. For
these reasons we consider that, if the
Application is allowed, a pitched roof of
compatible materials must be specified
together with the removal of the 5th storey (to
lower the sight line) and the possible use of
dormer windows.
6. We do not consider that the narrow "Wildlife
Corridor" squeezed in between the proposed
building and the north bank of the River Pont
is fit for purpose.
7. We note that the original Application for
seven houses was recommended for approval
in spite of the Environment Agency's (E.A.)
objections on the grounds of Flooding Risk.
The National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) specifically states that building should
not take place on areas subject to Flooding
Risk (pp. 100 & 103).
8. It would appear that the latest data from the
E.A. has not been referred to in the present
Application; no account would appear to have
been taken of the effect of heavy debris
carried round the sharp turn in the river at this
point and impacting on the building itself; the
lower floor level (parking) above datum would
not appear to be high enough to avoid the
possibility of flooding of the parking floor -
which includes the access and escape routes
for the whole building as well as the car park.
9. No acceptable scheme for the disposal of
sewage has been described. A surface water
storage tank under the car park is shown with
a volume of approx. 72 cu. m.
and this is connected to a restricting device
(Hydrobrake MH) of which the only outlet is
directly into the River Pont. All Foul Water is
shown as taken to a Package Sewage
Treatment Plant, the effluent from which is
also taken to the Hydrobrake MH before being
discharged into the River Pont through the
same outlet. There is no indication that E.A.
permission for discharge into the Font would
be forthcoming.
10. It would appear from the drawings
provided that a main sewer runs across the
site but that there is no intention by the
Applicant to connect to it. The E.A. document
PPG6 states, in connection with the approval
of Package Sewage Treatment Plants, that "…
consents are not normally granted where a
public sewer is available … "
11. Package Sewage Treatment Plants (such
as that provided by Balmoral Tanks Ltd., for
example) rely on an electrical pump to
continuously aerate the sewage together with
a steady flow of effluent in order to keep the
micro-organisms alive. They thus require
regular maintenance. According to the
provided drawings, the Plant would be located
substantially below ground-level (at a point
interfering with access by waste-disposal
vehicles and potentially blocking car-parking
spaces) and at a level where other drawings
indicate that a flooding inundation could occur.
A failure of the Plant resulting in very serious
contamination of the River Pont could thus be
possible. The whole proposal for disposal of
Sewage is therefore not sustainable.
Dear Sirs,
Planning Application 13/03134/FUL
Construction of 18 New Dwellings and
Associated Access, Landscaping and
Engineering Works.
This letter is in response to amended
proposals by the applicant, as referred to in
your letter dated the 21st January 2014. It
supersedes and replaces our letter dated
the 5th of November 2013 which should
therefore be deleted from the record.
On behalf of the Ponteland Civic Society, I
object to the above Application. This letter
should be read in conjunction with
PONT.APS.2013.14.doc previously forwarded
by
our Mr. John Hague on the same subject, but
which was concerned with very
important visual and related aspects. Our
separate technical objections are:
!. Refer to Drawing (DR)S278, identified as:
MillEXTRA_SUDS_INF.pdf which
illustrates the proposals for flood alleviation. In
particular this shows the proposed
location of a Foul Treatment Plant which
discharges into the River Pont through an
intermediate restriction described as a
Hydrobrake MH.
The close proximity of car parking allocations
14 to 18 incl. indicates that the
Treatment Plant will necessarily be located
below the car park level, whilst the
presence of a Kiosk immediately adjacent
would indicate that the Treatment Plant is
almost certainly of the aerobic type which
requires an electric pump to aerate the
effluent on a continuous basis. However,
effluent passes through such a system by
gravity and therefore the outlet must be lower
than the inlet, which itself will be below
ground level at the point of entry. Such a
system will require regular maintenance but
we note that the necessary arrangements for
this are not adequately described.
The Hydrobrake device has no moving parts
but is designed to restrict the total
outflow by inducing a vortex when the inlet is
higher than the outlet by a prescribed
amount. There is no mechanism whatever to
restrict back-flow through the
Hydrobrake and into the Treatment Plant if the
river level should reach that of the
outlet from the Treatment Plant. In these
circumstances the holding tank shown
below the ground floor car park could fill with
river water in a short space of time,
shortly followed by the Treatment Plant.
This would immediately lead to the possibility
that (a) the operation of the Treatment
Plant would be adversely affected and it could
fail imminently (b) untreated sewage
2
could exit through the land drains and/or into
the river and (c) backing up of effluent
flow from the lower flats may occur.
The submitted photograph entitled
Mill_LADYWELL_WAYPic.pdf clearly shows a
recent flood level which would appear to be
above the level of the car park. A copy of
this photograph is appended at the end of this
letter, together with a diagrammatic
illustration of the water levels which could
occur in the future.
In view of these possibilities, full calculations
and diagrams are required to show the
relative entry and exit levels for the Foul
Treatment Plant, the Hydrobrake and the
associated surface water drains, relative to the
river levels for all possible river level
situations. Additionally, much fuller information
on flow levels, maintenance
procedures, screening methods, etc., are
required before the proposals can even
begin to be regarded as viable. In the absence
of such information the operation of
the proposed treatment Plant and SUDS
schemes cannot be accepted as
sustainable.
We consider, in view of the requirements in
the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF, Paras. 94, 100) to make due
allowance for climate change ,that
historicallyderived
data for flooding levels must be regarded as
minima, and NCC has a duty to
adopt fully adequate additional margins as a
requirement at this location.
2. We note that the original Application for
seven houses was recommended for
approval in spite of the Environment Agency's
(E.A.) objections on the grounds of
Flooding Risk. The NPPF specifically states
that building should not take place on
areas subject to Flooding Risk (pp. 100 &
103).
3. As a further factor with regard to flood risks,
it would appear that no account has
been taken of the effect of heavy debris
carried round the sharp turn in the river at
this point and impacting on the building itself;
the lower floor level (parking) above
datum is not high enough to avoid the
possibility of flooding of the parking floor under
any circumstances; note also that this level
includes the access and escape routes
for the whole building as well as the car park.
We also do not consider that the
proposed raised entrance to the site where it
joins the A696 will be adequate always
to avoid an inundation of water down the
access ramp from the A696 under all
foreseeable weather conditions.
4. The proposed car-parking provisions are not
adequate. Under the provisions of the
Retained CMBC Policy T11 and
Northumberland County Council Parking
Standards
(1996) for "Communal" parking, at least 18
places would be required.
5. According to a Tripartite Covenant originally
drawn up between Ponteland Parish
Council, the Ponteland Scout Group and
Kendall Cross (Holdings) Ltd., we
understand that car parking was not permitted
on the sloping access road leading
down to this site from the A696. Presumably
Galliford Try Ltd. are still bound by this
Agreement but appear to have ignored it.
6. The steep access road is not of adequate
width for the simultaneous safe passage
of pedestrians and motor traffic, and the
proposed separate pedestrian access steps
could also be difficult and unsafe - particularly
in winter conditions. These matters
are of some importance since the Applicant
has indicated (in discussion) that these
flats are particularly aimed at elderly buyers
who are trading-down from larger Darras
Hall properties.
7. The view of the proposed building from
Ladywell Way and adjacent houses along
the north side of the A696 is extremely
overbearing. The surface treatment remains
over-complex and intrusive. The width of the
building would give rise to a much
3
greater angle in the horizontal plane than in
the previous case where seven houses
had been approved.
8. Notwithstanding that the height of the
building is claimed to be no more than that
originally approved for seven houses, the
building as a whole will be completely out
of character with the existing houses on the
A696 by reason of the dominance of the
proposed five-storey structure and its entirely
inappropriate flat roof. Only pitched
roofs were proposed in the original Application
for seven individual houses; the
proposal is now for 18 dwellings which is
greatly in excess of what was then
approved.
A pitched roof of compatible materials should
be specified together with the removal
of the 5th storey (to lower the sight line) and
the possible use of dormer windows.
9. We do not consider that the narrow "Wildlife
Corridor" squeezed in between the
proposed building and the north bank of the
River Pont as at present shown is fit for
purpose.
In conclusion, may I add that, whatever
interpretation may be placed upon meetings
which the applicant may have had with the
public in Ponteland, our understanding
from a wide knowledge of the residents is that
this proposal is almost universally
opposed.
J & D Westbourne-
Riley
5 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
With regard to the proposed planning
permission for the construction of an 18
apartments block of flats on the Mill House
site-West Road,we wish to raise our following
objections to the above scheme with regard to
HIGHWAY/PARKING ISSUES.ETC
1 The development has been provided with 22
parking spaces. amere 1 per apartment and
only 4 for visitors.Considering the steep
access to the apartments - where are the
additional visitors going to park? Surely not on
the existing main road (A 696) which is already
busy without additional parked vehicles.
Certainly not on the existing Ladywell Road
which is difficult enough when residents have
their own visitors (without adding more) to get
in and out of same.
2. What arrangements have you considered
for drainage to these properties, considering
that most of Ponteland's effluent, flood water
etc. is relying on limited Pumping Stations.
3. In the event of flooding and heavy
snowfalls, where are everybody going to park
because they cannot get their vehicles down
to their own homes?
4. In the past, Galiford Try's personnel had
difficulty at the end of their working day getting
out of their works access onto the main road
(A 696). What arrangements have been made
for this happening daily occurance?
5. Finally, with regard to the cutting down of
existing trees (some of which have already
been done on the Park side) and the pruning
of others, this scheme will have a detrimental
impact on natural habitats and existing
amenities.
We look forward to receiving your answers to
our planning/highway/parking issues as we
believe there is a deadline for recording
objections by 10 November, 2013.
Richard Walker
40 Pembroke
Drive
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9HS
See attached copy of correspondence
K M Kelly
23 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
See attached copy of correspondence
G D Stainsby
9 Meadow Court
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9RB
See attached copy of correspondence
Miss J B Hardy
15 Ryehaugh
See attached copy of correspondence
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9BA
Red Halkyard
7 Lynwood Close
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9JG
It seems to me, that building a Block of Flats
on 4 floors, above a Garage Space at ground
level, is not an appropriate swap, and
represents 8 Flats, which have more
accommodation capacity, than the 7 houses
previously proposed. This building equates to
5 levels with a flat roof, in order to creep below
the height of the existing adjacent houses
Ridge Roof Line. I suggest a reduction of one
Accommodation Floor, but with the addition of
a sloping pitched roof, would be more in
keeping with this Residential Area.
It is totally unacceptable for any Foul Water
Discharge into the River Pont, in which
Children play. This would be a major potential
Health Risk.
For the attention of Caroline Jones Planning
Officer.
Dear Madam,
Further to my previous comments dated 5/11
13, I still believe the height of the Flats is not in
keeping with the area.
However, after the news about the Somerset
Levels flooding and the increased risks to
health due to sewage seepage from tanks and
contamination, this is my main concern. Such
tanks need to be flood tight, with automatic
valves fitted to ventilators and with watertight
joints on all access covers, so that in the event
of flood water covering the tanks, no
contamination escapes into the river, which
would be a potential Health Risk to children.
Muriel Sobo
39 Beech Court
Darras Hall
My original objections stand. I wish to
emphasise the following points.
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9NE
1 This area is subject to flooding. It is not
a question of 'if' but 'when'. We all know that
flooding is happening more frequently and with
greater intensity than in the past. The foul
water system would be overwhelmed on such
occasions. It is not viable to put in such a
system in such a position. I have not the
technical expertise to give details about its
unsuitability but do the planners and
councillors have the required knowledge of
these systems?
2 There is no definition between the river
and the development and this means that a
so-called 'wild life corridor will not work in such
a position.
3 The proposed 5 storey building with a
flat roof is completely inappropriate for this
situation. The previous building was well
hidden by trees and was only 2 storeys high.
The proposed building will dominate the street
scene. The hotch-potch of colour and
materials in what is still a traditional village
setting is inappropriate.
4 The steepness of the site mitigates
against the development of 18 dwellings. 18
cars in and out, pedestrians, children and
Scouts mixed in. What a nightmare!
5 Lastly, who will pick up the bills after
flooding? Who will pick up the bills after any
road collapse?
It is no good saying 'I told you so'. We need
the planners, the councillors and the highways
people to come and assess this site. It cannot
be done on paper.
Dr Chris Wright
21 The Beeches
Ponteland
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr Andrew Pile
63 Middle Drive
Darras Hall
I am a regular user of the park and can be
certain that having such a low number of
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9DN
parking spaces associated with this
development is going to cause major problems
and serious safety issues due to cars parked
inconsiderately when all of their spaces are
full. I believe that the reason why the council
have published parking space standards and
why the NCC Core Strategy document
currently under consultation contains the same
rules as the current document is that these are
what are required for the trouble free operation
of a new development. If NCC is correct then
why are you ignoring your own standards, this
is not a development in a town centre where
there are alternative parking spaces and you
should therefore be useing 'Column A' figures,
which state 39+4 if they are allocated spaces
(as we are told is intended), or 30+4 if
communal spaces. To ignore these standards
will cause traffic problems on West Road,
causing serious danger for the Cubs, Scouts
and Beavers that will end up having to get in
and out of cars on a busy main road and show
a serious lack of consideration for local
residents.
Also having a septic tank located where it is
will cause problems of pollution when the tank
floods, which will then cause more problems
for the adjacent Scout HQ, as well as causing
greater health risk for the children who you
always see in the park during the floods and to
Waitrose and other businesses in the village
who are affected by flood water.
Although I am not opposed in principle to a
new building here, I believe that this design is
out of keeping with the rural village feel that
Ponteland has generally. It replaces a stone
built Mill House and should be more in keeping
with that (I accept that not all properties on the
main road are in keeping but that's not an
excuse for further blight - we need to improve
Ponteland as the opportunities arise). The
property is also too large for it's location and
the size and number of dwellings should be
reduced.
I am a regular user of the park and can be
sure that having such a low number of parking
spaces within this development will cause
major problems and serious safety issues due
to cars parked inconsiderately when all of their
spaces are full. I believe that the reason why
the council have published parking space
standards and why the NCC Core Strategy
document currently under consultation
contains the same rules as the current
document is that these are what are required
for the trouble free operation of a new
development. If NCC is correct then why are
you ignoring your own standards, this is not a
development in a town centre where there are
alternative parking spaces and you should
therefore be useing 'Column A' figures, which
state 39+4 if they are allocated spaces (as we
are told is intended), or 30+4 if communal
spaces.
To ignore your standards will cause traffic
problems on West Road, causing serious
danger for the Cubs, Scouts and Beavers that
will end up having to get in and out of cars on
a busy main road and shows a serious lack of
consideration to local residents.
Also having a septic tank located where it is
will cause problems of pollution when the tank
floods, which will then cause more problems
for the adjacent Scout HQ, as well as causing
greater health risk for the children who you
always see in the park during the floods and to
Waitrose and other businesses in the village
who are affected by flood water.
Although I am not opposed in principle to a
new building here, I believe that this design is
out of keeping with the rural village feel that
Ponteland has generally, even with the recent
minor design changes. It replaces a stone built
Mill House and should be more in keeping with
that (I accept that not all properties on the
main road are in keeping but that's not an
excuse for further blight - we need to improve
Ponteland as opportunities arise). The
property is too large for it's location and its size
and number of dwellings should be reduced.
Mr Bob
Richardson
121 Edge Hill
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9JS
Opposition to Planning Application No
13/03134/FUL Galliford Try were granted
planning permission for a totally unworkable
development at Mill House Ponteland. The
result was that the site was left an eyesore
with serious erosion problems to the bank
which was inevitable after tree felling. It seems
that in order to claw back lost expenditure a
second application has been submitted which
appears to be exploiting the use of this land to
the full. It is high density and particularly
insensitive to the surroundings, without taking
due consideration of the environment, sewage
disposal or flood risk, not only to the site itself
but in the adjacent area. It is to be hoped that
this does not result in a second abortive
attempt to develop this site. The current plan
will result in over development.
Planning Ref 13/03134/FUL
Construction of 18 New Dwellings at Mill
House, Ponteland NE20 9SG by Galliford Try
Parnership North Ltd
Dear Sirs
I have considered the amended proposals
referred to in you letter of 21 January and
reiterate my objections on the grounds that
this scheme remains a significant
overdevelopment with consequent adverse
effects on local residents, to scouts and to
park users relating to car parking, traffic
congestion, exacerbating the flood risks and
environmental problems associated with the
sewage disposal.
Mrs June
Richardson
121 Edge Hill
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9JS
I would like to object to the above application
on the following grounds:- Over development
with subsequent adverse effects on traffic
congestion, flood risk and environmental
problems associated with Sewage Disposal.
Planning Ref 13/03134/FUL
18 New dwellings Mill House NE20 9SG
In response to your letter dated 21 January re
above planning application.
The amended plans do not deal with the
concerns that I raised previously ie
environmental issues re sewage disposal and
possible flooding, congestion, dangerous
access for prospective residents, scouts, park
users and above all emergency services.
In view of the fact that the original
development proved unworkable and left the
site an eyesore and liable to erosion I would
like to be assured that members of the
planning department have actually done a site
visit to see the potential problems for
themselves.
J L Wallace
5 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
See attached copy of correspondence
Barbara Darling
21 Willow Way
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9RF
Knowing a little about the way various types of
septic tanks and sewage treatment plants
operate I decided to write.
I have seen the very sketchy plans of the
development of the new dwellings and am
very puzzled and concerned.
The plans indicate a treatment plant
underneath car parking areas.
Any plant needs maintenance and access to
deal with problems arising.
I question the efficiency of the fall and outlet
into the Pont burn.
I also question the sense in establishing a
septic tank system in such an area renown for
flooding.
There has been much publicity recently in
areas elsewhere in the country which have
unexpectedly flooded in the last eighteen
months and where septic tanks have been
previously built as the only option and as a
safe, or was, method of sewage disposal.
Comment has been made several times on
radio and TV about the raw sewage floating
around in these affected areas. That sewage
had come from flooded septic tanks.
There is one option for sewage disposal from
the proposed new build in Ponteland .
That is very definitely not the method
suggested.
There is a main foul drain on the west road.
Barbara Darling
Heather Forshaw
42 Runnymede
Road
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9HG
Galliford Try failed to observe conditions
imposed when previous planning permission
was granted, causing damage to the wildlife
corridor of the River Pont by drastic clearing of
all vegetation down to the water's edge. The
buffer zone along the river of at least 5m laid
down in the conditions of approval was totally
disregarded. Many trees were also felled
leaving the site bare and sterile.
I feel that approval of this new application will
lead to further environmental damage to this
sensitive area.
Environmental impact
The planned building is sited very close to the
river, making a credible wildlife corridor very
unlikely. This stretch of the river is used by
otters, which rely on the cover of undisturbed
vegetation. Light and noise pollution would be
inevitable in a building constantly in use by
many people. When The Mill House was used
as offices, light and noise ended with working
hours. These factors would be very
detrimental to otters, bats, birds and other
wildlife.
This site is adjacent to unspoiled woodland, of
local wildlife importance. Any planning
permission granted should be conditional on
secure, close-boarded fencing protecting this
area - erected before development and
enforced! The buffer zone, to be effective,
should also be fenced.
Flooding
The River Pont is prone to flooding and at
times of high water levels the Scout
Headquarters adjacent to the site has been
inundated, as have large areas of Ponteland
Park. The proposed building would be similarly
affected. As the trees whose roots
consolidated the bank at the bend in the river
have all have been cut down, it is quite
probable that the river edge will be eroded
during floods, undermining the stability of the
site.
Pollution
The River Pont supports a healthy range of
fish and invertebrates. The construction of a
large building on the brink of the river must
pose great risks of pollution entering the
watercourse. Subsequent run off from hard
surfaces and contamination from motor
vehicles is also a concern. The most worrying
aspect is the septic tank with an outlet through
a processing system to the river. This poses a
threat, particularly at times of flooding, of
sewage contaminating the river and homes
and businesses downstream.
Size and design
The size and design of the proposed building
is totally inappropriate to the site. The original
mill building fitted unobtrusively into the
surrounding land and was constructed of
muted, traditional materials. The proposed
block of flats would dominate the street scene
of Ponteland due to its size, height, flat roof
and gaudy urban surface finishes. This design
is totally alien to the existing homes in the area
and would loom oppressively over them.
Access and Parking
This site has a steep access road joining the
West Rd near a bend and another junction.
The number of vehicles associated with this
application, belonging to residents, visitors and
service vehicles must pose a risk of accidents
when emerging onto this busy road. Parking
available on the site also seems inadequate
for18 flats, risking congestion and impairment
of access to the Park and Scout Headquarters.
I oppose this planning application and urge
that any future applications submitted should
have as a primary consideration remedial
measures to repair the great damage done to
the site and the wider environment of
Ponteland Park.
Donald Chambers
4 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
1. The architectural treatment of the proposed
five storey block is quite out of keeping with its
location in a semi-rural position immediately
bordering Ponteland Park. The current
proposal is entirely suitable for an urban
location, but in a village setting it will be an
eyesore. I suspect that the Developer would
be unwilling to go to the expense of providing
full stone cladding to all elevations, which
would be far more appropriate at this location.
Tastefully designed brick facing would also be
acceptable.
2. Are the County Council and Northumbrian
Water satisfied with the waste disposal
facilities proposed. The original Mill House
apparently operated with a septic tank
installation, but the new installation will be
required to cope with far greater quantities of
effluent, with 18 apartments occupied 24/7. As
everyone is aware, that site has been flooded
many times in the past, and will undoubtably
be subject to further flooding in the future.
What will happen to the effluent if the septic
tank installation floods? Is foul water likely to
pollute the river? Additional expense would be
involved in connecting to the main drainage
system, but this would result in a far safer and
more reliable arrangement.
3. The access to the A696 is via a steep
unadopted road. Who will be responsible for
the upkeep of this road, will this be down to
the residents to organise? The road will
require gritting when snow and ice are present
in the winter months, and full access will be
required at all times of the year for the
possible entry and exit of emergency vehicles.
Since the Council do not take responsibility for
this road, how are these matters to be
handled?
4. I think the visual aspect would be improved
if the building were to be sited as far back as
possible from the main road and parallel with
the main road rather than at the substantial
skew currently proposed.
Professor Ellis &
Mrs Julie Ellis
23 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
NOTICE OF OBJECTION
CONTEXT
The site of the proposed development is close
to the north-west entrance to Ponteland village
on the A696 and is effectively within Ponteland
Park, which bounds it on all sides except to
the north, where the boundary is the A696.
Current semi-detached dwellings on the
opposite side of the road here (The Beeches)
are of conventional design.
The site was previously occupied by the
Mill House, which was unobtrusive and
attractive because of its architecture and
materials, and surrounding mature trees, and
complemented it's surroundings. As it was
previously used as offices disturbance due to
noise, light and traffic was minimal and limited
to daytime.
OBJECTION TO CURRENT PROPOSAL
I object very strongly to the current proposal
on a number of grounds.
1. Disturbance
Previous commercial use of the site caused
little disturbance, and was confined to
weekdays. The current proposal for
conversion to a large residential complex with
up to 18 family units will inevitably lead to a
major increase in noise and light pollution at
any time of day or night, affecting not only
residents but wildlife using the river and park.
The impact of car usage is under-estimated in
the plans. Estimated walking times to village
amenities given in the Planning Statement are
inaccurate. For example, the nearest bus stop
is about 8 minutes away at a steady walking
pace, and not 3 minutes suggested in para
6.51. As the site is at the edge of the village,
many residents will use their cars to visit the
supermarkets and other facilities. Car parking
around the site is likely to be a significant
problem, since provision of only 18 resident
parking spaces (1 per unit), and 4 visitor
parking spaces, seems very optimistic, and
parking on the A696 (a busy main road with
heavy traffic at times) by residents and their
visitors is almost inevitable. As the access
road is so steep, it is predictable that some will
leave their cars on the A696 and adjacent
residential streets when there is snow/ice.
Previously, users of the Scout Hut have been
able to park on the Galliford Try site in the
evenings but, in future, when the proposed car
park is likely to be occupied by residents' cars,
the A696 will be used by the scouts for parking
and dropping off, as has been happening
since the site was cordoned off. This presents
an increased danger.
2. Visual impact
The proposed building is highly obtrusive and
out of character for this part of the village
(adjacent to parkland and 250m from the
nearest farmland), both in its unsympathetic
design and massive size. It will have not only
an overbearing visual impact on those living
opposite and those passing it, but also a major
detrimental effect on the character of
Ponteland Park since it will be obtrusive and
unavoidably visible from virtually everywhere
in the western side of the Park, significantly
damaging its amenity value. Correspondingly,
one of the 'opportunities' recognised in the
SWOT analysis in the Statement prepared by
the architects is 'views across the park'. This
'eyesore' would irrevocably change the park,
which is highly valued by the many residents
who use it.
3. Ecological impact
As the site of the proposed building is
effectively within Ponteland Park, there must
be major concerns about its potential
ecological impact. The Park is an important
resource for residents of the village and
visitors, and the plants and animals within it
provide great pleasure and enjoyment. The
proposed development will be detrimental not
only due to its severely obtrusive visual
impact, but also the concomitant increase in
disturbance, noise and light pollution, which
will inevitably have a negative effect on
wildlife. It is perhaps surprising that the
Ecological Appraisal prepared by Wardell
Armstrong does not address these issues, but
only deals with impacts directly impinging on
the development site itself.
The heavily wooded area immediately
adjacent to the west boundary of the site
(erroneously described as being on the east
side by Wardell Armstrong) is currently a
secluded part of the Park with limited human
disturbance (since access to it is difficult) and
is therefore a refuge for wildlife. This does not
appear to be recognised in the current plans
and, unless restricted, access from the
development site into the Park along the west
boundary would lead to major disturbance in
this ecologically important area.
The strip of land along the river on the south
side of the site is recognised as an important
wildlife corridor, despite which trees and
vegetation within this strip were inexcusably
and inexplicably destroyed during the recent
demolition and ground works on the site. Other
trees were also removed at that time, with a
consequent negative impact. It is to be hoped
that any future activity on the site pays greater
heed to its ecological and aesthetic
importance, and potential effects on wildlife
using the park and river.
Summary
In conclusion, the proposed building is
completely inappropriate for this site, since it
would, among other objections, be visually
obtrusive, significantly detract from the
amenity value of Ponteland Park, lead to
dangerous parking along the A696, and have
an unacceptable ecological impact.
Mr Bruce & Susan
Kirtley
26 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
We write to express our objections to the
proposed above development on the following
grounds
o environmental impact of the
development
o lack of sufficient car park provision
potentially resulting in street parking mainly on
North Road and Ladywell Way
o visual impact, not in keeping with rural
surroundings
o future access to scout hut being
impacted by residents parking
o public right of way being compromised
In summary we feel this development is not
suitable for this sensitive location and would
ask that these points are giving serious
consideration
in the planning process
Gillian Melton
84 Eastern Way
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9RE
I object to the plans to build a 5 story block of
flats between our park and the A 696
There is a substantial problem with flood risks,
as you are certainly aware.
The proposed block is huge, and completely
out of scale with the surrounding buildings-
normal houses. The materials and flat roof
design are completely unsuitable for the area,
muddled and confused. This is a harmonious
area of stone walls, brick houses and trees
lining the street. The block would be a real
eyesore here, a design suitable for a city
centre, not on the edge of a rural village,
whose character we all want to preserve.
It overwhelms the site, and would be a huge
visual blot on an attractive, tree lined semi-
rural entry into Ponteland from the West.
It would threaten our park, and the wildlife on
the river bank. Galliford Try has already done
huge damage to the area by reckless and
unauthorised destruction of trees and shrubs
on the site. This would be a further
desecration of the area.
There is inadequate parking for the number of
cars-probably 30. Access onto the busy A696
would be dangerous.
It is also clear that sewage disposal is a
potential problem, as our Civic Society has
pointed out.
We in Ponteland feel we are threatened by
several unsuitable schemes by builders at the
moment. We are very pleased that you turned
down the plans of the Lugano group, and look
to you to reject this equally unsuitable plan,
and help us preserve the attractive, semi-rural
character of our village.
THank you for reading my comments.
Mr thomas
armstrong
48 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
Myself and my wife wish to raise our
objections to the Mill House proposal of 18
new dwellings to be built to be on this site. Our
reasons are that the proposal is to large for the
area available. The site proposes car parking
for the properties that would not be sufficient.
We as occupants of the Ladywell estate have
suffered from when the property was an office
site and the workers did not have enough car
parking spaces , so they parked on the West
Road which made access to and from our
estate very difficult and also created traffic flow
problems on the West Road.As you know this
is a major link to the Borders and to the
A696.We feel that the developers should
revise their plans and propose a much smaller
development that hopefully would not impact
visually on neighbouring properties and as we
believe will cause traffic flow problems on a
major road.The parking issue is a very
important issue to be considered as history
from when it was an office shows the problems
incurred then.
A Craig
6 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
I have tried repeatedly this evening to get on
to the public access part of the site to make a
formal objection to this planning application
but have been unable to do so.
Please can you submit the following to the
relevant department and acknowledge receipt.
I wish to object to planning application number
13/13134/FUL by Galliford Try for NE20 9SG
on the following bases:
1 The allocation of 22 parking spaces is
inadequate for 18 flats and will quite clearly
result in congestion, dangerous and
inappropriate parking in the adjacent area,
specifically West Road and Ladywell Way;
2 The area is already suffering from the
removal of trees in preparation for the building
works by increased surface water/water run-off
and I worry that the flooding issue in this area
will only increase as a result of any build;
3 The scout hut and the park are central to
Ponteland village and heavily used. Only last
week there was a queue of traffic down to the
scout hut as I returned home from work one
night and I wonder how this is going to be
managed once new residents are living in the
proposed new flats; I can envisage discontent
easily ensuing and I can see the traffic on
West Road being affected both in terms of
congestion and dangerous and inappropriate
parking. I also worry about the impact on
traffic and parking in this part of the village
with young children myself;
4 The proposed design of the flats is not
appropriate or in keeping with Ponteland
village; it is typical of the type of development
that is seen in more urban areas such as the
Quayside, Newcastle and Royal Quays, North
Shields. In such locations this design can look
impressive but next to Ponteland park it would
look out of place and would detract from what
is a rural area;
5 What measures are going to be put in place
to enable year round access to the parking at
the flats? When Galliford Try itself was based
at the Mill House, as soon as there was ice or
snow the staff parked on West Road which
caused congestion, hold-up and difficult
access to Ladywell Way. This cannot happen
with any new development on the site and
needs addressing. This is not addressed in
the plans submitted.
I strongly object to the plans submitted and
suggest that a smaller, more traditional
development with better parking arrangements
would be more suitable in light of the position
of the site.
Mr G A Taylor
12 Simonside
View
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TF
See attached copy of correspondence
Mrs Lesley Noble
93 Cheviot View
Ponteland Road
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9BH
The original application for 7 dwellings was
recommended for approval in spite of
numerous objections. The Environment
Agency objected on the grounds of flooding
risk.Construction of a large block of flats does
not mitigate the flooding risk and the developer
has not adequately addressed this within their
application.
The proposed building is not in keeping with
the character of Ponteland and, should this
permission be granted, would become an
eyesore as you enter the village. It would
dominate the landscape.
The roof design is inappropriate and will
produce an unacceptable effect as you enter
the village - it is not in keeping with
surrounding properties.
The appearance of the building is horrendous,
the proposed modernistic approach
demonstrates a lack of insight by the
developer into the character of Ponteland.
The developer has not allocated adequate car
parking spaces for the size of the proposed
development.
Mr Roy Preston
20 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
I wish to make a formal objection to the
proposed development at Mill House,
Ponteland NE209SG on the following
grounds:-
1) The provision for visitor parking is wholly
inadequate and will inevitably lead to vehicles
being parked in Ladywell Way. This is already
occurring and also vehicles have been parked
on the grassed area near the post box and on
the grass hardstanding where the police
speed-recording vehicle stands.
The entrance into Ladywell Way becomes very
dangerous when vehicles are parked there, as
I have experienced many times recently.
2) The entrance into the Mill House site is at a
very dangerous part of the main road which is
heavily trafficed with vehicles in both directions
through Ponteland.
3) The proposed development is very low-lying
and in close proximity to the river Pont. Is the
risk of flooding not a serious concern?
Phil Errington
27 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
With reference to the revised planning
application for a block of 18 flats to be built at
Mill House, West Road, Ponteland I wish to
make the following comments:-
1. Whilst there has been a two storey building
on this site for many years until late last year it
was largely hidden from the main road and
adjacent properties being in a valley and
surrounded by mature trees. The proposed
development significantly changes the visual
impact. (And could do more so in future - see
No. 7. below)
2. Within the past 40 years this site (including
the Scout Hut) has been flooded at least twice.
It is often communicated by the Meteorological
Office that we will experience more heavy and
persistent rain in the coming years so it would
appear that any new property in this location
would also come be flooded.
This may bring the additional risk of people
being stranded if the proposed building is
surrounded by flood water. Also potential
damage to the building itself due to the river
flow and any debris a river in spate may carry.
3. The additional housing developments which
have been agreed over the years in Darras
Hall and Medburn have added to the rapid
surface water drain-off into the River Pont.
This effect is twofold as each and every
building and hardstand covers absorbent land
which slows the drain-off into water courses.
Each additional development increases the
risk of flooding in Ponteland as the A696 road
bridge over the R. Pont is affectively a dam
once the water level rises to the height of the
arches.
3. The construction of yet another building will
further add to the rapid surface water drain-off
into the River Pont exacerbating the possibility
of flooding in the village immediately down
stream of the Mill House site.
5. The developer's proposal to hardstand even
more absorbent surface in the Ponteland Park
for additional car parking space (ostensibly,
sic) for the use of Scout Hut users is a further
lack of environmental impact foresight.
6. I cannot understand how the proposed
provision of 18 car parking spaces plus 4 for
visitors is considered adequate for 18
accommodation units. More than 50% of
households now own more than one car -
would this average not apply to the proposed
development? In fact, I understand, new
buildings are required to have minimum
parking for two vehicles 'off road'.
It seems inevitable, if the development request
is granted, that there will be additional car
parking on the adjacent main road (and
Ladywell Way) potentially restricting the
junction and the attendant risks that raises.
7. In coming to a decision whether planning
permission is granted I would hope the
likelihood of a future request to add a pitched
roof to the flat roof proposal is taken into
account. In my experience most low slope 'flat'
roofs eventually leak and there are many
examples of flat roof housing having pitched
roofs retrofitted. This would further raise the
elevation of the proposed development.
8. There certainly seems to be a lack of due
diligence on behalf of the developer of this
land.
Firstly, the apparent ignorance of the necessity
of the existing bank up to the main road in
being essential for supporting the road. The
cost of the additional work to support the road
relative to the value of the 7 properties
originally proposed.
Secondly, the lack of detailed specification for
service vehicle access, sewage disposal and
flood damage prevention in the second
proposal.
These two items alone make me wonder what
else may be subsequently 'botched' if
permission to build was given. Is the developer
not a very professional builder? - would you do
business with him?
John Blundell
2 Riverside
Darras Hall
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9PU
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr Neil Mackley
24 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
See attached copy of correspondence
Michael And Sarah
Curry
26 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr James F
Milligan And
Margaret A
Milligan
26 The Beeches
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9SZ
See attached copy of correspondence
Lesley, John
Christopher And
Daniel Robson
11 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr And Mrs Taylor
12 Simonside
View
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
See attached copy of correspondence
Northumberland
NE20 9TF
Mr Michael R
Pearce
29 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TE
See attached copy of correspondence
Mr David Blackley
7 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
I am writing to voice my objection to the above
proposed development for an 18 apartment
dwelling at Mill House, Ponteland. My objects
are on the basis as per the below:
Visual Impact:
The proposed development is out of character
with other housing in the immediate locality
which are all two storey semi-detached
houses. The density of the development is
very high for the location overlooking a park
and is not complimentary to the environment in
which it sits.
Height is significantly greater than the original
building on the location and although appears
to be at a similar height to other housing
across the road, gives a far more imposing
appearance partially due to having a flat roof
but also due to its size.
Environmental Impact:
The building is located immediately adjacent to
Ponteland Park and the River Pont. The park
is home to many animals and birds. The
Friends of the Park are continually trying to
improve to retain and encourage wildlife, not
least the red squirrel and bats. The increase in
activity will have an impact on wildlife in the
immediate locality.
It is also noted that the drains from the
development will not be directed into the public
sewers system but into the River Pont.
Although on-site treatment is to be provided,
there is an inevitable increased risk of pollution
into environment and particularly the River
Pont.
Traffic and Parking:
It is noted that the parking allocation for the
development is one per apartment plus four
visitor spaces. As per the 2011 census, there
are 12 cars per 10 households on average
across England and Wales. For an affluent
area such as Ponteland this will be greater, of
which many households have a minimum of
two cars. It is therefore inevitable that parking
of additional cars will be on the main A696.
This is a main thoroughfare in and out of
Ponteland and a major route to Scotland, used
extensively by tourist traffic, heavy goods
lorries and military vehicles. The lack of
adequate on-site parking will lead to
congestion along this stretch of the A696 and
will result in an increased risk of a serious
accident. On the days that the Scout hut is in
use, parking on the A696 increases and it is
noted that this results in a traffic hazard
particularly for those leaving Ladywell Way.
From experience, during winter when there is
snow on the ground, traffic cannot safely
negotiate the steep access to the site. During
these times it is noted that vehicles park on
both the A696 and Ladywell Way which again
leads to the additional risk of accidents at a
time when road conditions are already
dangerous. It is noted in the Planning
Statement that the grit box at the head of the
entrance to the Site will remain. When the Mill
House was used as offices, the existence of
the grit box was not sufficient to secure safe
access to the site in bad weather and vehicles
frequently parked on the main road or on
Ladywell Way.
It is also worth mentioning, that the
configuration of the junction with the A696
results in vehicles which are leaving the site
and turning left towards Belsay, generally only
do so by crossing onto the other carriageway
first. This is another potential risk of an
accident with oncoming traffic and particularly
for vehicles turning left out of Ladywell Way.
Until now, access to and egress from the site
has been restricted to the beginning and end
of the business day: residential use of the site
will result in traffic using this junction far more
frequently.
Access for emergency and utilities vehicles:
Development of the site does not appear to
have given consideration for access of
emergency vehicles and utility vehicles. The
steep incline to the development site means
that safe access for such vehicles difficult, if
not dangerous particularly during winter
months when snow is on the ground.
Other issues:
Although there was a community consultation
in Memorial Hall prior to the submission of the
planning application, there are no signs posted
locally to the proposed development advising
that such an application has been made.
Therefore, not all affected or interested parties
will be aware of the planning application.
With reference to the ¿Statement of
Community Involvement¿, section 4.3 shows a
pie chart showing the response to the question
¿Do you support the principle of
Redevelopment of the Site?¿ This is followed
by a statement in section 4.4 that the figure
¿shows that a significant portion of those
attending the event are in support of the
proposals to redevelop the site.¿ The question
was the principle of redevelopment, whereas
the statement misleadingly gives the
impression that the support was for the
development as actually proposed. Support for
the redevelopment of a site which has been
abandoned does not equate with support for
the proposals in this planning application It
should also be noted that the proportion of the
57 attenders who completed the form is not
stated, and also that from the pie chart an
equal number rejected the principle of
redevelopment as supported it.
With reference to the Planning Statement,
page 3, section 2.4, reference is made to a
Drop Off Bus Stop being adjacent to the site.
This is not correct; the nearest bus stop is in
the village close to Waitrose Supermarket
approximately half a mile down the road.
Yours Faithfully,
Mr D Blackley
I am writing to voice my objection to the above
proposed development for an 18 apartment
dwelling at Mill House, Ponteland. My objects
are on the basis as per the below:
Visual Impact:
The proposed development is out of character
with other housing in the immediate locality
which are all two storey semi-detached
houses. The density of the development is
very high for the location overlooking a park
and is not complimentary to the environment in
which it sits.
Height is significantly greater than the original
building on the location and although appears
to be at a similar height to other housing
across the road, gives a far more imposing
appearance partially due to having a flat roof
but also due to its size.
Environmental Impact:
The building is located immediately adjacent to
Ponteland Park and the River Pont. The park
is home to many animals and birds. The
Friends of the Park are continually trying to
improve to retain and encourage wildlife, not
least the red squirrel and bats. The increase in
activity will have an impact on wildlife in the
immediate locality.
It is also noted that the drains from the
development will not be directed into the public
sewers system but into the River Pont.
Although on-site treatment is to be provided,
there is an inevitable increased risk of pollution
into environment and particularly the River
Pont.
Traffic and Parking:
It is noted that the parking allocation for the
development is one per apartment plus four
visitor spaces. As per the 2011 census, there
are 12 cars per 10 households on average
across England and Wales. For an affluent
area such as Ponteland this will be greater, of
which many households have a minimum of
two cars. It is therefore inevitable that parking
of additional cars will be on the main A696.
This is a main thoroughfare in and out of
Ponteland and a major route to Scotland, used
extensively by tourist traffic, heavy goods
lorries and military vehicles. The lack of
adequate on-site parking will lead to
congestion along this stretch of the A696 and
will result in an increased risk of a serious
accident. On the days that the Scout hut is in
use, parking on the A696 increases and it is
noted that this results in a traffic hazard
particularly for those leaving Ladywell Way.
From experience, during winter when there is
snow on the ground, traffic cannot safely
negotiate the steep access to the site. During
these times it is noted that vehicles park on
both the A696 and Ladywell Way which again
leads to the additional risk of accidents at a
time when road conditions are already
dangerous. It is noted in the Planning
Statement that the grit box at the head of the
entrance to the Site will remain. When the Mill
House was used as offices, the existence of
the grit box was not sufficient to secure safe
access to the site in bad weather and vehicles
frequently parked on the main road or on
Ladywell Way.
It is also worth mentioning, that the
configuration of the junction with the A696
results in vehicles which are leaving the site
and turning left towards Belsay, generally only
do so by crossing onto the other carriageway
first. This is another potential risk of an
accident with oncoming traffic and particularly
for vehicles turning left out of Ladywell Way.
Until now, access to and egress from the site
has been restricted to the beginning and end
of the business day: residential use of the site
will result in traffic using this junction far more
frequently.
Access for emergency and utilities vehicles:
Development of the site does not appear to
have given consideration for access of
emergency vehicles and utility vehicles. The
steep incline to the development site means
that safe access for such vehicles difficult, if
not dangerous particularly during winter
months when snow is on the ground.
Other issues:
Although there was a community consultation
in Memorial Hall prior to the submission of the
planning application, there are no signs posted
locally to the proposed development advising
that such an application has been made.
Therefore, not all affected or interested parties
will be aware of the planning application.
With reference to the ¿Statement of
Community Involvement¿, section 4.3 shows a
pie chart showing the response to the question
¿Do you support the principle of
Redevelopment of the Site?¿ This is followed
by a statement in section 4.4 that the figure
¿shows that a significant portion of those
attending the event are in support of the
proposals to redevelop the site.¿ The question
was the principle of redevelopment, whereas
the statement misleadingly gives the
impression that the support was for the
development as actually proposed. Support for
the redevelopment of a site which has been
abandoned does not equate with support for
the proposals in this planning application It
should also be noted that the proportion of the
57 attenders who completed the form is not
stated, and also that from the pie chart an
equal number rejected the principle of
redevelopment as supported it.
With reference to the Planning Statement,
page 3, section 2.4, reference is made to a
Drop Off Bus Stop being adjacent to the site.
This is not correct; the nearest bus stop is in
the village close to Waitrose Supermarket
approximately half a mile down the road.
Yours Faithfully,
Mr D Blackley
The amendments to the above planning
application are minor and do not address the
significant concerns raised in my previous
submission. My objection to the development
remains.
The amendments to the above planning
application are minor and do not address the
significant concerns raised in my previous
submission. My objection to the development
remains.
Mr Roy Preston
20 Ladywell Way
Ponteland
Newcastle Upon
I wish to make a formal objection to the
proposed development at Mill House,
Ponteland NE209SG on the following
Tyne
Northumberland
NE20 9TB
grounds:-
1) The provision for visitor parking is wholly
inadequate and will inevitably lead to vehicles
being parked in Ladywell Way. This is already
occurring and also vehicles have been parked
on the grassed area near the post box and on
the grass hardstanding where the police
speed-recording vehicle stands.
The entrance into Ladywell Way becomes very
dangerous when vehicles are parked there, as
I have experienced many times recently.
2) The entrance into the Mill House site is at a
very dangerous part of the main road which is
heavily trafficed with vehicles in both directions
through Ponteland.
3) The proposed development is very low-lying
and in close proximity to the river Pont. Is the
risk of flooding not a serious concern?