Development Management Committee th November 2015 …...Development Management Committee Wednesday...

Development Management Committee Wednesday 15th November 2015

DMC2017-020 17NP0105 Tarset Tor, Tarset of 23

DMC2017-020 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Application No: 17NP0105

Proposed Development: Proposed relocation of two bothies out of five bothies at Tarset

Tor, Tarset, Hexham, Northumberland, NE48 1NT

Applicant Name: Mr R Cocker

Reason for DMC Decision: The Head of Development Management believes that the matter

should be considered by Development Management Committee

by reason of significant public interest

Recommendation: Members are minded to approve and authorise the Head of

Development Management to grant planning permission

following the completion of a legal agreement and subject to the

conditions set out in the report.

1. Introduction

1.1 This application seeks approval for two new bothies that have already been allowed in

different positions within the site under planning permission 10NP0041 (granted on appeal)

which allowed for the construction of one multi-purpose holiday/education unit and 5 no.

holiday accommodation units together with creation of a new highway access at Tarset Tor,

Tarset.

1.2 The application site is located in the settlement of Lanehead behind the property known as

Greystones. It covers approximately 1.55ha and is roughly triangular in shape. The south-

eastern boundary is immediately adjacent to the properties of Sundown and Crackin View and

Tarset Village Hall is to the east. Lanehead Cottages and Drovers House are to the west of

the site across an access road. Hunters Lodge and Sheep Cottage adjoin the north / north-

eastern boundary of the site respectively.

1.3 The highest point of the site is located towards the north-east at an elevation of approximately

168m above sea level (ASL). From here the site slopes away to the west and south with the

height at the western boundary being approximately 151m ASL and 165m ASL at the

southern boundary with Tarset Village Hall. The site comprises a mixture of marshy

grassland, semi-improved acidic grassland, amenity grassland, plantation mixed woodland,

bare ground, hard standing and buildings. New and mature planting is located along the

western boundary of the site.



1.4 Three of the bothies (one, three and five as per the approved plans), the bunkhouse and

access permitted under application 10NP0041 have been constructed. This application is

seeking approval for the relocation of the remaining two bothies (two and four under the

approved plans) which have yet to be constructed. Under the existing permission, bothy two

would be located between bothy one and three, with bothy four located between bothy three

and five, the five bothies forming an ‘arrowhead’.

1.5 This application seeks to move the approved bothies further to the north and west of the site.

Both bothies would maintain a westerly aspect and be sited so as to remain parallel with the

bothies already constructed. When viewed from the west, bothy two would sit between bothy

three and five although its rear elevation would be 20m forward of the front elevation of bothy

three. The relocation would result in the bothy being positioned further down the slope with

the finished floor level changing from 163.45m ASL to 158.0m ASL.

Figure 2: Site Plan as Proposed

Figure 1: Site Plan as Approved

1

3

5

2

4



1.6 Bothy four would be located approximately 24m north of the proposed location of bothy two.

The rear elevation of bothy four would be approximately 28m forward of the front elevation of

bothy five. The relocation would again result in the bothy being positioned further down the

slope with the finished floor level changing from 163.4m ASL to 157.5m ASL.

1.7 As the proposed location of the bothies would be on sloping ground, some excavation would

be required to allow the structures to sit flush. The intention would be to blend the new levels

with the existing. The applicant has advised that any excavated material would be retained on

site. The bothies would be located on habitat described as marshy grassland within the

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.

1.8 Access to both bothies would be via a gravel walkway to the rear (east). No additional parking

is proposed as part of the scheme and bothy design would be as per the original application,

reflecting the appearance of the bothies already constructed on site.

1.9 The applicant has advised that changes to site layout are required as customers value the

amenity space provided around the bothies already constructed. This would be lost if bothies

two and four were built in their approved locations.

2. Planning Policy & Guidance

2.1 National Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(2012)

National Planning Practice Guidance (2015)

2.2 Local Policies

Northumberland National Park Local Development Framework Core Strategy and

Development Policies (Core Strategy)(2009)

Policy 1 Delivering Sustainable Development

Policy 3 General Development Principles

Policy 5 General Location of New Development

Policy 6 The sequential Approach

Policy 14 A Sustainable Local Economy

Policy 15 Sustainable Tourism and Recreational Development

Policy 17 Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Policy 18 Cultural Heritage

Policy 19 Tranquillity

Policy 20 Landscape Quality and Character

Policy 22 Trees, Woodlands and Forests



Policy 25 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

2.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

NNPA Building Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (Design Guide SPD)

NNPA Landscape Supplementary Planning Document (Landscape SPD)

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 Relevant Planning History Relating to Tarset Tor

10NP0023 Construction of one single-storey multi-purpose holiday accommodation /

education unit and 5 No. single-storey holiday accommodation units. Withdrawn

10NP0041 Construction of one multi-purpose holiday/education unit and 5 no. holiday

accommodation units and creation of a new highway access. Planning permission refused –

allowed on appeal 15.03.2011

12NP0023 Approval of details reserved by conditions 3, 4, and 6 of planning permission

10NP0041 in respect of construction of one multi-purpose holiday/education unit and 5 no.

holiday accommodation units and creation of a new highway access. Approved 27.04.2012.

12NP0099 Construction of detached 3-storey 4-bedroom house incorporating laundry and

storage facilities for proposed self-catering business on the adjacent site. Planning permission

refused. Appeal dismissed 09.10.2013.

14NP0027 Detached 1 and 1/2 storey, 4 bedroom house incorporating laundry, office and

storage facilities for the proposed self-catering business on the adjacent site. Planning

permission refused 18.6.2014. Appeal dismissed 15.03.2015.

16NP0040 Non Material Amendment to planning permission 10NP0041 construction of one

multi-purpose holiday/education units and 5 no. holiday accommodation units and creation of

a new highway access. Refused 24.05.2016

17NP0104 Proposed two storey 12/ 15 bed bunkhouse and observatory for guest use. To be

determined.

3.2 Relevant Planning History Relating to Greystones

10NP0022 Construction of detached four-bedroom dwelling house. Conditional Planning

Permission granted 21.07.2010.



17NP0103 Proposed two storey extension to the side of existing farmhouse – to be

determined

17NP0106 Proposed extension to an existing / shed outbuilding – to be determined

4. Consultee and Public Responses

4.1 Tarset and Greystead Parish Council: Objection.

The proposals will spread the visual impact of the site over a wider area of the hillside and

be to the detriment of residents and visitors to the park, and be unacceptably close to

dwellings;

There is currently a large area of light at this location in the Parish and moving the

remaining bothies to a new location away from the other structures on site would increase

the nighttime impact of the site and create more light pollution for those people genuinely

wishing to enjoy the dark skies;

We believe earthworks / drainage problems will occur should this application be granted;

The general increase in noise pollution from the existing site leading to a loss of amenity

for all residents will be exacerbated;

The Parish Council strongly advise a site visit is carried out by National Park Officers

before determining this application.

4.2 NCC Highways: NCC Highways have been consulted and raised no objection. They have

however recommended that any approval should include a condition requiring the submission

of a Construction Method Statement prior to works commencing and also informatives relating

to the storage of materials and the need to undertake a Highway Condition Survey.

4.3 NCC Public Protection: No objection subject to conditions

There has been a history of noise complaints relating to use of the existing bunkhouse. NCC

Officers have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a Statutory

nuisance was occurring.

A site visit was undertaken to assess the application in line with the principles of the NPPF

and the Noise Policy Statement for England and to view the site in relation to the nearest

noise sensitive receptors and the actions taken by the applicant to reduce noise impact from

existing use of the site.

It was observed that the applicant has sought to move people using the existing bunkhouse

away from this area, to a garden area further away from the nearest voice sensitive receptors,

It would be possible to provide screening to this area, however, this does not form part of this



application and may require planning permission in its own right. As such it would fall outside

the scope of this application.

The applicant already has planning permission for five bothies on site. Three have been

constructed and are already in use. It is proposed to relocate the remaining bothies down the

hill and closer to the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

The building themselves would have limited impact on residential amenity apart from

potentially during the construction phase. However, this could be controlled by a planning

condition. It is the use of this building which could potentially result in noise which would

impact on residential amenity.

When considering the proposal I have given due regard to the proposed reduction in distance

between the existing residential properties and the proposed location of the two bothies. I

would not consider that this reduction in distance would be acoustically significant and as

such would not be an appropriate reason for refusal.

The use of the development could also be controlled by requiring the applicant to submit a

noise management plan. The noise management plan would detail how the site is to be

operated including actions taken to police and deal with visitors. Noise management plans are

often placed on developments of this type and form an effective tool in protecting residential

amenity from excessive noise from proposed developments.

As Public Health are able to recommend appropriate conditions Officers have determined it

would be unreasonable to object on grounds of noise.

4.4 NNPA Landscape and Forestry Officer: No objection: Having reviewed the application

documentation and looked at the topography associated with the Tarset Tor site, I believe that

the principal publicly accessible receptor sites for this development would be the minor county

road, rights of way and Access Land found to the west of Lanehead. Given the scale of the

surrounding landscape and the fact that the applicant wishes to set the two bothies further

down the west facing slope of the development site, I do not believe that the proposals will

have a substantial negative effect upon the landscape character of this part of the National

Park. Indeed, moving the bothies further down the slope is likely to make these less visible

from receptor sites within the wider landscape due to existing trees and hedgerow features. I

understand that an existing permission is in place that would allow these two units to be built

in line with the existing three bothies currently found on site and I believe that setting the

remaining two units further down the slope would in fact be beneficial from a landscape

perspective, particularly as the existing tree planting scheme continues to establish. Keeping

the construction materials and design the same as the original three units is preferable in my

view.



I welcome comments in relation to proposals relating to external lighting as set out in the

Design and Access Statement. However, I do not believe that sufficient information has been

provided as to the specific detail of any such provision for these bothy units, (e.g. lumen

output, unit design) and as such I would recommend that, should this application be

approved, a condition be stipulated such that any external lighting proposals must first be

approved by the Authority before installation in order to protect the Dark Skies Park status of

the National Park. I can also confirm that there are no notable trees affected by the proposals

set out within this application.

4.5 NNPA Ecologist: No objection: I have read the ecology report and agree with the findings

that minimal ecological impact will occur if the proposed bothies are relocated. I therefore

have no objection subject to the mitigation and working methodology in section 7 of the report

being made a condition.

4.6 NNPA Historic Environment Officer: No objection: I have looked at the above application

with reference to the Historic Environment Record and there are no recorded heritage assets

within the application boundary which might be directly impacted upon by the proposal. Nor

are there any Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings or significant undesignated heritage

assets in the wider area which could be impacted. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that

I have no objection to the proposal on historic environment issues.

4.7 A notice was displayed at the site entrance on 5th October 2017. 17 no. neighbour

notification letters were issued on 4th October 2017. As a result of publicity for the application,

a total of 20 representations have been received, 10 objecting, 8 supporting and 2 general

comments. None of the letters of support were received from residents of Lanehead or the

wider National Park.

The objections can be summarised as follows:

The Inspectors expectation that the development would not impact on local residents was

mistaken – the decision has resulted in considerable distress for the immediate

neighbours who have found their residential amenity destroyed and right to ‘quiet

enjoyment’ of their own properties constantly abused;

Recent attempts by the applicant to impose an 11pm have only been partially successful

and the holiday camp is still promoted to large groups such as stag and hen parties;

The re-siting of the bothies will not enhance the special qualities of the National Park nor

support the well-being of the local community; rather it will intensify the loss of amenity

the community has already experienced by placing visitors closer to existing homes

contrary to Core Strategy Policy 1 and 3c

The proposals will not safeguard the Park’s tranquillity – it will bring noise closer to

residents; spread light pollution more widely and be detrimental to the Park’s ‘sense of

openness’ as buildings will be spread across the whole site, contrary to Policy 19.

The re-siting would increase visual clutter, contrary to Policy 20;



Concerned about further loss of views and spread of nuisance from expanded footprint;

No material justification has been given for the need to relocate the bothies;

The existing business was approved at appeal contrary to the recommendation of the DC

Committee, Tarset and Greystead PC and a large number of the resident community;

The developer and approving authority have underestimated the actual size, prominence

and elevation of these bothies and now attempt is being made to avoid cramming bothies

together and causing disturbance to each other;

Further clarification is required in relation to mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the

local community;

Louvered windows which were meant to prevent light pollution have not been included in

the built bothies resulting in light spillage which detracts from the dark skies;

The three existing bothies have large areas of glazing which is not shaded and the

external lights on the bothies are switched on all day and night;

The earthworks and plinth required for the siting of the bothies will make them appear

taller, increasing negative impact;

The bothies could be used for eight people – consider that the site is overdeveloped and

the numbers of site users could outnumber local residents;

The road on site is meant to be for emergency vehicles only, not to service the building or

the parking of cars;

More cars using the access road will increase noise pollution, light pollution and loss of

amenity. Where will additional cars park as the official car park next to the bunk barn is

often full in the summer months?;

Guests in the existing bothies can use binoculars to look directly in to our bathroom, such

problems will be much worse if we have two more bothies closer to our doorstep;

The applicant have failed to implement adequate landscaping to help screen there

existing developments;

Some neighbouring properties have already suffered flooding since construction of the

bothies;

The design of the buildings is such that they act as sound boxes – neighbours in their

gardens can hear every conversation;

The design and materials of the structures are out of character and detrimental to the

landscape;

Bothies would be in an area which is supposed to be a wildlife pond;

The proposals drastically change the location of the bothies in relation to neighbouring

properties, particularly in relation to Sheep Cottage which would now be immediately

overlooked;

The Inspectors assertion that the behaviour of holidaymakers would not disturb

neighbours has proved not to be the case; NNPA, NCC and the police are all aware of

the anti-social behaviour occurring on site;

The topography of the site and prevailing winds means that the properties affected by

noise disturbance are not always the same;



The existing development has already caused drainage problems. Run-off from the site

has caused significant problems for neighbouring properties with muddy water and silt

affecting the access road and gardens;

The earthworks (including curved mounds beneath each of the two relocated bothies)

required as part of the new application would further worsen the drainage situation – this

represent a significant change from the application approved on appeal by the Inspector;

The letters of support can be summarised as follows:

Will make this part of the National Park more accessible to all;

Provides a superb vantage point to view the spectacular dark skies;

Will support the local economy;

Provides a design which is sympathetic to the area;

Will provide eco-solutions for tourists;

The re-siting of the bothies will enhance the development;

The new location would be lower down the hill and so more hidden from view;

5. Assessment

5.1 Introduction

The key material planning considerations are:

The principle of the development;

Design, appearance and scale;

Impact upon National Park special qualities

Impact on Residential Amenity

Renewable Energy

Highways

5.2 The Principle of the Development

5.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) places emphasis on a presumption in favour

of sustainable development to guide decision making. Policy 1 of the NNPA Core Strategy

Local Development Framework (Core Strategy) seeks to ensure that development proposals

will conserve or enhance the special qualities of the National Park. The effects of the

proposed scheme on these qualities are discussed in more detail later in this report.

5.2.2 It is considered that the principle of the development has already been established through

planning approval 10NP0041. This application does not seek to increase the level or nature of

development allowed under the existing approval but rather seeks to site two of the unbuilt



approved bothies in different locations. The principle of development is therefore considered

to be in accord with Core Strategy Policies 5, 6, 14 and 15.

5.2.3 Having consideration of the site as a whole it is considered that a further two bothies would

lead to increased urbanisation of the site which would be harmful to the character of the

immediate area. As such, it is considered appropriate to limit the number of bothies on this

part of the site to no more than the five already approved. If Members are mindful to approve

the application, it is advised this should be subject to the signing of a legal agreement

revoking the permission for the two bothies in the location approved under 10NP0041 and

limiting the number of this style and size of bothy to no more than five in this immediate area.

In the absence of such an agreement, it would be possible for the two originally approved

bothies to be built in addition to the two to which this application relates. It is considered that

this could harm the character of the area and the special qualities of the National Park.

5.2.4 If Members are mindful to refuse this application, the applicant would retain the fallback

position of being able to construct the remaining two bothies in their previously approved

locations, in line with bothies 1, 3 and 5.

5.2.5 It is considered that the principle of development would only be acceptable for holiday

accommodation as by nature of their design, the units would not be suitable for full time

residential use. If Members are mindful to approve the application it is therefore

recommended that a condition is attached restricting use to holiday accommodation.

5.3 Design, Appearance and Scale

5.3.1 The NPPF highlights the importance of good design principles within planning. This is echoed

within Core Strategy policy 3, which promotes the principles of sustainable development,

requiring the design and construction of a proposal to protect and enhance local character.

Additional guidance is set out within the NNPA Design Guide Supplementary Planning

Document (SPD).

5.3.2 The Design and Access statement indicates that there will be no change to the design of

bothies approved under 10NP0041 and as such they would mirror the three already

constructed on site. However, the submitted elevations differ slightly from those elevations

approved (but the elevations are consistent with those already constructed), for example they

show timber louvres and solar panels. In the Inspectors Report, note was made of the ‘striking

glazed gabled form’ of the bothies and that while the design was of its time the bothies would

‘reflect the form and materials of traditional domestic / agricultural sheds in the area’. This

would remain true in relation to the current iteration of the proposals.

5.3.3 The proposed relocation of the bothies would result in a change to the approved ‘arrowhead’

layout with the two bothies located at a lower elevation and further west. This would result in



the front of bothy two sitting approximately 30m forward (west) of the existing front elevation

of bothy three, the most westerly of the bothies already constructed.

5.3.4 As such, the relocation of the bothies would result in the loss of symmetry achieved under the

previously approved plans. It would also result in a more sprawling from of development in

comparison to the approved arrangement leading to more of an urbanising effect which has

been raised as a concern by a number of local residents. However, this would be consistent

with the nature of development in the locality, with the settlement being a scattered mix of

older and newer properties of varying form and style. There are existing residential properties

to the north, east, south and west of the wider Tarset Tor site.

5.3.5 The area around the already constructed bothies has been laid to amenity grassland to

provide a recreation area for guests. This has had the effect of changing the largely ‘wild’

nature of this part of the site and, if approved, the relocated bothies would have the potential

to extend this effect. A condition requiring the submission of an appropriate landscaping

scheme to ensure potential impacts are minimised would therefore be considered appropriate

in this instance. The new location would also require earthworks to achieve the required

gradient for the bothies to sit flush to the slope, further changing the character of the site.

However, the areas chosen to relocate the bothies have relatively shallow gradients which

would go some way to mitigating this effect.

5.3.6 While the relocation of the bothies would undoubtedly have an effect on the character of the

site, on balance it is considered that the size and nature of the site is such that the change

could be accommodated without undue harm. The construction of the five bothies as

approved would result in high concentration of buildings within a relatively small development

footprint, less in keeping with the character of the existing settlement of Lanehead. While the

relocation would extend the developed footprint, it is not considered that this would represent

overdevelopment as large areas of the site would continue to be left undeveloped. The

bothies would be of a good quality design as evidenced by those already constructed, and, in

their proposed locations, would sit more comfortably within the landscape. The proposed

development is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy Policy 3 and the NPPF in

this regard.

Figure 3: Bothies as Constructed



5.4 Impact Upon National Park Special Qualities

Landscape Character

5.4.1 A number of objections have been received on the grounds that the proposed relocation of

the bothies would increase visual clutter within the site, increase the area subject to light

pollution and be to the detriment of the Park’s ‘sense of openness’ as development would be

spread further across the site compared to the approved scheme.

5.4.2 The Inspector noted in relation to 10NP0041 that ‘from the access road and closest properties

along the west boundary, the main bulk of each bothy would be seen against the backdrop of

the rising site behind, with the upper walls and roof breaking the immediate skyline’. Although

the Inspector recognised that they would be noticeable against the sky in this foreshortened

view, the impact was not considered sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal. This application

would, by virtue of relocating the bothies to a lower elevation, reduce their prominence

against the skyline with the bothies now being viewed against the backdrop of the rising slope

and existing bothies.

5.4.3 The Inspector also considered wider views from Donkleywood Road and across the small

valley below the site to the west. It was noted that the bothies would be seen set against the

higher land behind the site and that the development would appear loosely encircled by the

dwellings ranged across the hillside around the site with the bothies (and bunkhouse)

becoming a part of the overall group. It was further noted that with time the natural cedar

cladding would weather and blend with the muted colours of the existing traditional stone

buildings and the surrounding landscape. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would sit

easily within the sparse widely spaced settlement and would be further assimilated into the

landscape though new planting. The proposal was therefore deemed to accord with Policy

Core Strategy Policy 20.

5.4.4 It is considered that the proposed relocation of the bothies would not result in any

fundamental change to the Inspectors assessment or conclusion. As was suggested, since

construction the existing bothies have started to weather and the landscaping planting has

begun to mature which has helped with the integration of the bothies and bunkhouse into the

wider landscape. The proposed relocation of the bothies to a lower elevation would mean that

they would be less prominent within the landscape than under the approved arrangement and

would be better screened by the maturing landscape planting both in terms of short views

from the immediate west and also in terms of longer views from across the valley. The

proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy Policy 20 in this

regard.



Ecology and Biodiversity

5.4.5 The impact of the proposed scheme upon the ecology and biodiversity of the National Park

has been taken into consideration. The Ecologist has been consulted and has raised no

objection subject to the mitigation measures detailed within the Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal being made a condition of any planning approval which may be issued. This

includes measures relating to: the timing of work, use of appropriate lighting, covering

trenches or pits overnight; the protection of watercourses and tree protection zones. The

proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy Policy 19 in this

regard.

Tranquility

5.4.6 As previously noted the application does not seek to increase the level or nature of

development allowed under the existing approval but rather seeks to change the siting of two

of the already approved bothies. As such it is not considered that the proposals would

generate any additional noise or traffic over and above that associated with the approved

scheme. The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy

Policy 19 in this regard.

5.4.7 The Northumberland International Dark Sky Park was designated in 2013 after the approval

of the original application. In relation to 10NP0041, no specific conditions were attached to

limit or minimise internal or external lighting. However, as this application proposes two new

bothies further away from the existing bothies, it is now considered reasonable to ensure the

Figure 4: View to the site from Donkleywood Road to the west



impact of external lighting on the Dark Sky Park is minimised in accordance with the NNPA

‘Good Practice Guide for External Lighting in Northumberland International Dark Sky Park’.

While no specific details of any external lighting required in connection with the proposed

development has been submitted, The Design and Access Statement does state that any

external lighting will be in line with the ‘Good Practice Guide’ which is welcomed. However, in

the absence of specific detail, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any planning

approval in order to restrict the installation of any external lighting required in association with

the proposed development without approval first being sought from the Authority. Subject to

the inclusion of such a condition, the proposed development is therefore considered to accord

with Core Strategy Policy 19 in this regard. The previous 10NP0041 permission did not

contain such a condition.

5.4.8 Although the approved plans showed the bothies having timbered louvres, they have not

been installed on the constructed bothies and there was no condition requiring their

installation prior to occupation. Because the bothies are now being moved within the site, it is

considered that the provision of the louvres would be necessary to prevent excessive light

spill. As such, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any approval which may be

issued requiring their installation and maintenance of the timber louvres prior to first

occupation of the bothies.

5.4.9 Nevertheless, the fallback position is that all 5 bothies could be built in their previously

approved locations. Officers do not consider that the impact of the two bothies would give rise

to impacts worse than the fall back position, in fact due to the Dark Sky Park now being a

material planning consideration and lighting of these two bothies could be controlled through

a planning condition, there should be an improvement in the situation in respect of lighting.

Cultural Heritage

5.4.10 The Historic Environment Officer has been consulted and advised that there are no heritage

assists within the site that could be affected by proposals. The proposals therefore accord

with Core Strategy Policy 18 in this respect.

5.5 Impact on Residential Amenity

Overlooking

5.5.1 Core Strategy Policy 3 states that new development will be permitted when it supports the

wellbeing of local communities by ensuring that ‘amenity is not adversely affected in terms of

visual impact, pollution, noise and waste’. Under the proposed arrangements, the bothies

would be closer to properties to the north and west of the site than under the approved

scheme. Sheep Cottage located to the north-west of the site would be approximately 50m

from bothy four which is approximately 30m closer than it would be to bothy five under the



approved scheme. There would be a similar reduction in separation distance between the

bothies and properties to the west, although none of these would be closer than 65m.

5.5.2 In relation to overlooking / loss of privacy issues, the Inspector noted in her report for

10NP0041 that separation distances would be generous and sufficient to minimise any direct

overlooking. However, a number of residents have objected as the proposed bothy relocation

would exacerbate impacts as separation distances would be reduced. While this is accepted,

any impact would at least in part be mitigated by the lowered elevation of the bothies and as

the maturing boundary planting provides a good degree of screening which will continue to

develop over time.

5.5.3 In addition, the orientation of the bothies in relation to the closest properties (Sheep Cottage

and Lanehead Cottages) means there would be no direct facing. As such, while it is accepted

that the potential for overlooking is increased under the proposed arrangements, given the

distances involved, the orientation of the bothies, the topography of the site and the existing /

developing boundary treatments, the level of magnitude is not considered sufficient to warrant

refusal of the application as the position of the bothies would not be unacceptably closer to

residential dwellings. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy

Policy 3 in this respect

Noise, Visual Disturbance and Anti-Social Behaviour

5.5.4 The Inspector’s view in relation to noise and disturbance arising from the development was

that it would not be expected to be materially greater than that which might arise from time to

time at any residential property in the area, or at the Village Hall. This application would not

Figure 5: Sheep Cottage (left) and New Houses (right) viewed from the pond



be expected to generate any greater noise and disturbance than under the approved scheme.

Indeed, although externally the bothies would mirror those already constructed on site, the

applicant has stated that changes to internal design will reduce potential occupancy levels

from eight people down to four. However, numerous representations have been received

suggesting the Inspector severely underestimated the level of disturbance that the proposals

would generate.

5.5.5 Representations have been received outlining various occurrences of anti-social behaviour

emanating from the site, including noise and visual disturbance, littering and invasions of

privacy. By virtue of the relocation of the bothies, any noise or disturbance or other anti-social

acts would be potentially closer to residential properties and more capable of causing harm

than under the present arrangements. In particular, Sheep Cottage would be closer to the

nearest bothy than under the approved arrangements.

5.5.6 The concerns raised are genuine and have clearly resulted in distress to the residents of

Lanehead who have been directly affected. However, the development is not considered to

be inherently harmful to the amenity of residents and rather than being planning issues, the

instances of anti-social behaviour suffered by the residents of Lanehead relate to the wider

management of the site and the adequacy or otherwise of measures in place to prevent or

quickly address anti-social activities when they occur. For example, the ‘Bunkhouse Working

Guide’ which is provided to guests advises that the site operates an 11pm curfew for external

activities.

5.5.7 An NCC Public Protection Officer has confirmed that there is a history of noise complaints

relating to the site but insufficient evidence has been found to demonstrate that any Statutory

Nuisance has occurred. In relation to this application, the Officer has considered the reduction

in separation distances between the bothies and residential receptors and concluded that it

would not be acoustically significant. It is considered there would therefore not be grounds for

refusal of the application on noise and disturbance. Conditions have however been

recommended restricting the hours when noisy construction works would be allowed and also

requiring the submission of an operational Noise Management Plan which would allow for

control over noise across the wider site which are considered an improvement upon the

existing situation.



5.5.8 While neither of these conditions were attached to the original permission, as the bothies are

now closer to residential properties than under the approved scheme and as noise from the

site has exceeded levels anticipated by the Inspector, if Members are mindful to approve the

application it is recommended that these conditions form part of the approval. Members

should be aware that if the applicant was to invoke the fall back position of building the

bothies in their previously permitted location, there would be no requirement to submit an

Operational Noise Management Plan and there would no formal mechanism through planning

to ensure residential amenity was protected. Subject to the proposed conditions, the

proposals are considered to accord with Core Strategy Policy 3 in this respect.

5.6 Renewable Energy

5.6.1 Policy 25 requires new development including tourism facilities to embed renewable energy

within the development. This has been achieved in the bothies already constructed through

the installation and use of bio-mass pellet boilers. Subject to a condition requiring the use of

bio-mass pellet boilers or other renewable energies in the proposed bothies, it is considered

the proposals would accord with Core Strategy Policy 25.

5.7 Highways

5.7.1 As the application is seeking to change the approved location of two bothies rather than

introducing new development, there is no additional parking requirement over and above that

approved under 10NP0041. NCC Highways have been consulted and raised no objection.

They have however recommended that any approval should include a condition requiring the

submission of a Construction Method Statement prior to works commencing. However,

Figure 6: View west showing existing western boundary



Officers consider that such a condition (e.g. requiring details of wheel washing, parking

allocated for site operatives) would not meet the tests of being proportionate and necessary

as the proposal only relates to the construction of two bothies and there is clearly sufficient

space available within the site to accommodate Highway Officers requirements. Informatives

relating to the storage of materials and the need to undertake a Highway Condition Survey

would be included on any approval.

5.8 Other Issues

5.8.1 A number of comments have been received requesting that a condition be attached to any

approval restricting the occupancy levels of the bothies to four people. However, as no such

condition was attached to original permission and as this proposal seeks no change other

than the relocation of two bothies, it would be considered unreasonable to attach such a

condition should Members be mindful to approve the application. This is in the context where

the applicant could construct the bothies in their previously approved location without any

restriction on occupancy levels.

5.8.2 Concerns have been raised that the bothies already built are not in accordance with the

approved plans. This matter has previously been investigated by the Authority and it was

deemed that any variations which may have occurred were minor, or due to the conditions

attached by the Inspector could not be controlled through the planning process. As these

variations caused no additional harm to local amenity, or the special qualities of the National

Park, compared to the approved scheme, no enforcement action could be taken.

5.8.3 A number of representations have been received stating that since commencement of

development, surface water run-off from the site has caused problems for neighbouring

properties with muddy water and silt affecting the access road to the west and private

gardens and has also resulted in water pooling on Donkleywood Road. The Environment

Agency has not been consulted on this application as it falls outside the scope of applications

on which they would wish to comment.

5.8.4 While the application states that the surface water would be dealt with by means of a

soakaway, its location is not shown on the site plan. However, the topography of the site

means that any surface water would naturally be directed towards the pond. As the proposals

would not introduce any significant new areas of non-porous hard standing, although there

would be some change to existing site gradients, it is not considered that there would be a

significant change to the existing regime of surface water run-off on site. As such, and as

there would be no requirement to provide any further information on surface water / drainage

if the bothies were built in their approved location, it would not be considered reasonable to

require the applicant to submit any further information in this regard and would not constitute

a material reason for refusal of the application.



6. Conclusion

6.1 It is considered that subject to the signing of a legal agreement revoking the permission for

the two bothies approved under 10NP0041 to ensure that no more than five bothies are

constructed in this area of the site, the principle of the development has been established

through planning approval 10NP0041. It is also considered the proposal would meet the

requirements of Policy 3 and 20 in respect of the quality of design, impacts on residential

amenity and local landscape character. The scheme also accords with Core Strategy Policies

17, 18 and 19 as it would not have a detrimental impact upon the special qualities of the

National Park. Subject to the signing of the aforementioned legal agreement and inclusion of

a number of planning conditions and informatives it is considered that the scheme would

accord with the Core Strategy policies, SPD Guidance and national planning policies listed

within the report.

7. Recommendation

7.1 Following consideration of the information submitted it is recommended that Members are

minded to approve and authorise the Head of Development Management to grant planning

permission following the completion of a suitably worded legal agreement and subject to the

conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from

the date of this permission

Reason: To ensure that the development is commenced within a reasonable period of time

from the date of this permission, as required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans and documents:

Proposed Relocation Site Plan Drawing No: 003 Received 13th October 2017

Proposed Relocation Site Plan Drawing No: 006 received 13th September 2017

Proposed New Development Bothies Ground and First Floor Plan Drawing No: (11)001

received 20th September 2017

Proposed New Development Bothies Elevations Drawing No: (11)002 received 20th

September 2017

Sterna Ecology ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal’ June 2017 received 18th September

2017

Design and Access Statement September 2017 received 18th September 2017



Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to enable the Local Planning Authority to adequately

manage the development and to ensure the proposal accords with policies 1, 3, 5, 17, 18, 19

and 20 of the Northumberland National Park Authority Core Strategy & Development Policies

Document (Core Strategy) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3. Prior to the fixing of any external lighting in association with the development hereby permitted,

details of the external lighting shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. Details should include

The specific location of all external lighting units;

Design of all lighting units;

Details of beam orientation and lux levels; and

Any proposed measures such as motion sensors and timers that will be used on lighting

units

The approved lighting scheme shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and

shall be maintained as such thereafter, unless removed entirely

Reason: In order to ensure that there is no harmful effect upon the tranquillity and intrinsically

dark character of the area, including the Northumberland Dark Sky Park through excessive

light pollution, in accordance with Core Strategy policy 19 and the NPPF

4. The development hereby approved should be carried out in strict accordance with the Bat

Roost Method Statement detailed in Appendix 2 of the Sterna Ecology ‘Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal Report’ dated June 2017. In particular, attention is drawn to the need to undertake

the development in accordance with the requirements in respect of:

the timing of work,

use of appropriate lighting,

covering trenches or pits overnight;

the protection of watercourses;

tree protection zones

Reason: To ensure the development poses no risk of unacceptable harm to protected species

and to ensure the development is in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 17, Chapter 11 of

the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations (as amended).

5. During the construction period there should be no noisy activity, i.e. audible at the site

boundary, on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours: Monday to Friday – 08:00 to

18.00, Saturday 08:00 to 13.00

Reason: To protect residential amenity and provide a commensurate level of protection

against noise, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 19 and the NPPF.



6. Prior to development hereby permitted being brought into first use, the applicant shall submit a

noise management plan to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval, with the

approved scheme implemented in full and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and provide a commensurate level of protection

against noise, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 19 and the NPPF.

7. No development shall take place until full details of a scheme for both hard and soft landscape

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These

details shall include; planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other

operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting plant

sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; proposed finished internal ground

floor and ridge levels in relation to existing and proposed external ground levels or contours;

an implementation programme and a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum

period of 3 years. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved

details and maintained in accordance with the agreed schedule.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area in accordance with Core Strategy

Policies 3 and 20.

8. The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall not be used for any residential purpose

other than holiday uses by the same person, group of persons or family for periods not

exceeding a total of 6 weeks in any one calendar year and shall not be occupied during a

period of 2 consecutive weeks during January each year, the period to be agreed in writing by

the Park Authority prior to occupation of the development. A register of holiday makers shall be

kept. This shall be made available for inspection, with 24 hours notice, by an authorised officer

of the Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the property is used for holiday accommodation only and to prevent

permanent residential use of units which because of their design may not be appropriate for

such a use in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 3.

9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of renewable energy

measures for generating energy from decentralised renewable and/or low carbon sources

shall be submitted to and formally approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any

approved renewable energy measures required shall be implemented in full before the first

occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate renewable energy and/or low carbon energy measures

are included in line with Core Strategy Policy 25.



10. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, the louvered windows shown on

the west elevation shall be installed and retained in perpetuity.

Reason: In order to ensure that there is no harmful effect upon the tranquillity and intrinsically

dark character of the area, including the Northumberland Dark Sky Park through excessive

light pollution, in accordance with Core Strategy policy 19 and the NPPF.

Informative Notes

1. Northumberland County Council Highways – Building Materials or equipment shall not be

stored on the highway unless otherwise agreed. You are advised to contact the Streetworks

team on 0345 600 6400 for skips and Containers licences

2. You should note that a highway condition survey should be carried out before the

commencement of demolition and construction vehicle movements from this site. To arrange

a survey contact Highway Development Management at

[email protected]

3. The effectiveness of the development’s design in ensuring that a nuisance is not created, is

the responsibility of the applicant / developer and their professional advisors / consultants.

Developers should therefore fully appreciate the importance of obtaining competent

professional advice. In all cases, the Council retains its right under Section 79 of the

Environment Protection Act 1990, in respect of the enforcement of Statutory Nuisance.

Contact Officer:

For further information contact Colin Godfrey Planning Officer or Susannah Buylla, Head of

Development Management on 01434 611577 or e-mail: [email protected]

Background Papers:

Planning Application File: 17NP0105

EIA Screening Opinion: 17NP0105

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Development Management Committee th November 2015 …...Development Management Committee Wednesday...

Documents

Transcript of Development Management Committee th November 2015 …...Development Management Committee Wednesday...