Agenda item

21/00561/FUL, Land at Former Point Pleasant House, Point Pleasant Terrace, Wallsend

To determine a full planning application from Montagu Hotels Limited for the development of a vacant site to provide 7no terraced houses and an apartment block, comprised of 15no apartments, with ancillary car parking, using existing assess from Meadow Road.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report from the planning officers in relation to a full planning application from Montagu Hotels Limited for development of a vacant site to 10no.residential dwellings with ancillary car parking, using existing assess from Meadow Road.

 

A planning officer presented details of the application with the aid of various maps, plans and photographs.

 

In accordance with the Committee’s Speaking Rights Scheme, Elaine McMahon, Lucie Cordon and Neil and Andrea Steggel had been granted permission to speak to the Committee. Elaine McMahon spoke on behalf of residents living in Point Pleasant Terrace to describe their objections. Whilst they accepted the principle of development on the site, they believed any development should have a minimal impact for residents of Point Pleasant Terrace. This application was not acceptable because a) the proposed development would generate additional traffic leading to overspill car parking in Point Pleasant Terrace and Ford Terrace and construction traffic accessing the site would create a danger; b) the 10 new homes would create noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents particularly during the construction period; and c) there would be a loss of valuable trees and wildlife from the site.

 

Anton Lang addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicants to respond to the speakers’ comments. He stated that the layout, design and car parking proposals had been deemed to be acceptable by the Council’s officers. Any concerns regarding the impact of the construction works could be addressed by the preparation and submission of a construction management plan. The loss of trees and wildlife habitat had to be balanced against the proposed mitigation and need for housing. Mr Lang addressed each of the proposed reasons for the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. He stated that the applicant was minded to sign up to a legal agreement for the contributions requested by the Council and towards the Coastal Mitigation Scheme but the applicant needed time to discuss and resolve these matters and draw up the agreements. There had been difficulties in carrying out noise assessments at the site but these technical issues could be resolved in the time required to resolve the legal agreements. The loss of trees and habitat could be addressed by reconfiguring the landscape plan. Mr Lang asked the Committee to defer consideration of the application to enable these issues to be addressed.

 

Members of the Committee asked questions of Elaine McMahon, Anton Lang and officers and made comments. In doing so the Committee gave particular consideration to:

a)   the length of time, since the application was deemed valid in June 2021, in which the applicant had had the opportunity to indicate that they were willing to enter a legal agreement;

b)   the likely timescales required to resolve the outstanding issues; and

c)    the impact of the proposed landscaping scheme on the biodiversity of the site resulting in a net loss of 93% of biodiversity habitat. 

 

Resolved that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

1.   Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that appropriate mitigation could be secured to protect the amenity of future occupants of this development in terms of noise and prevent unreasonable restrictions being placed on Smulders yard. As such, the proposed development is contrary to the NPPF and policy DM5.19 of the North Tyneside Local Plan (2017).

2.   In the absence of a scheme of mitigation to address the impact on the Northumbria Coast Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site, the Northumberland Shore SSSI and Tynemouth to Seaton Sluice SSSI, the additional residents at the coast as a result of the proposed development and a subsequent increase in recreational activity, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts with other residential schemes at the coast and the wider area, will result in significant harm to the designated sites.  This is contrary to the advice in NPPF, policies S5.4, DM5.5, and DM5.6 of the North Tyneside Local Plan 2017 and the Coastal Mitigation SPD July 2019.

3.   The development would result in the loss of UK Priority Habitat and trees within a designated wildlife corridor.  It fails to provide adequate mitigation for this loss and results in a net loss of biodiversity units.  This is contrary to the NPPF and Local Plan (2019) Policies DM5.2, S5.4, DM5.5, DM5.7 and DM5.9.

4.   The applicant has not agreed the S106 contributions requested by the Council and has not demonstrated that the development would not viable with the contributions, therefore the development fails to mitigate against the unacceptable impacts of the development contrary to Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document LDD8 (2018), and Policies S7.1, DM7.2 and DM7.5 of the North Tyneside Local Plan 2017.

 

Supporting documents: