Cranbrook drive

Further to previous information provided.

June 22nd 2020

Update – The developer has submitted amendments to the development (this is common with developments)

The application proposes to change the internal layout which will alter the positioning of some of the windows and also proposes the addition of a chimney breast. The properties will not be altered in size and only minor amendments are sought as part of this application.

June 20th 2020

Check out the Courant report –CLICK HERE

June 2020 – Ken writes-

Following a number of complaints regarding the building site at the junction of Western
Avenue & Cranbrook Drive I met with the Planning Enforcement Officer from NCC.
Below are his responses to the many questions raised:

The west retaining wall is allegedly not correctly sited.
Planning has not measured or inspected the wall position as this has not previously been
raised as an issue. Planning will undertake a full inspection to ensure compliance with
planning permission. An update will be posted here when received.

The property does not meet the statutory 21m distance from the nearest property.

The 21m separation distance is not a requirement and is used for guidance only.

The case officer for the original planning permission states in her report that & ac minimum separation distance of 25 metres would normally be sought between the rears of new two storey dwellings and existing dwellings.

In this instance, the distance between the rear of the host property and that of Braeside to the south would be only 18 metres.

However, the proposed dwelling would be only 1 1/12 storey and set at a much lower level than Braeside, and as such it is considered that the proposed dwelling would not adversely impact upon the residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupiers of this property." the officer report also touches upon the properties at
Western Avenue and goes onto say ;The closest neighbouring property to the north on Western Avenue would be located approximately 30 metres away from the proposed dwelling and at a lower level.

As such, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would not impact upon the residential amenity currently enjoyed by this, or indeed any other surrounding dwellings, and as such accords with Local Plan Policy H32 in this respect.

The distance between the houses and the wall is less than the planning permission or minimum distance allowable in planning law is, once the brick skin goes on. Can NCC provide evidence that the foot print of the houses is correct and that the distance around the houses is correct.

Similarly to above, there isn’t a minimum/maximum distance required by planning law and each case/application should be dealt with on its own merits.

As point one, we will fully inspect the distances between the properties to ascertain whether the works conform to the planning permission given.

A connection has been made, and covered, to the wrong drain last week. Can NCC confirm that an inspection and testing of drain connections has been made and provide evidence of the inspection and a date when it was carried out in accordance with building control.

Drainage connections fall outside of the planning remit, this may fall within Building Control legislation or may be considered a civil matter between the developer and the owner of the drain (Northumbrian Water) which has been connected to.

In the first instance, I have passed this to Building Control to confirm whether they have
inspected the connection to the drain.

Can building control provide evidence that the correct notices and inspections have been given and carried out
on the development so far.
As above, this has been passed to Building Control for commentCan NCC confirm and provide evidence that all planning conditions on both properties on the site have been completed and approved I can confirm that all pre-commencement conditions for both sites have been fulfilled. Conditions 6, 7 (in part), 8 and 9 require further information prior to the occupation of the properties.The site boundary has moved beyond the planning area on two sides. Can NCC confirm that the site boundary complies with condition 5 of the planning approval.

The Council have approved the details for the materials of the boundary treatments but would expect the site boundaries to be situated where the plans show them to be.

This is also consistent with the red line boundary plan.

As per points 1 and 3, this is something we can investigate to ensure compliance with the planning permission.
There is a significant storage of materials off site, including spoil excavated from the site itself which has been there over 12 months therefore is not temporary.

Can NCC please confirm that this is allowable and not contravening any duties bound under CDM, Environment Agency or local authority rules

Under Schedule 2, Part 4, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, the developer can utilise land within their ownership directly adjacent to or adjoining the development site, temporarily, in connection with the ongoing development (which must have been given
planning permission by the Local Planning Authority).

There isn’t anything specifically set out within the regulations as to what the land can be used for, but includes storage of materials/material from site, storage of plant/machinery/tools, storage containers, portable toilets, car parking facilities – bigger developers sometime utilise this legislation to build freestanding site sales offices.

The caveat with using this legislation is that ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’; the use of the land for whatever it is being used for ceases, any development
(storage containers etc) are removed and the land is restored to its condition prior to the works being carried out.
This point refers solely to planning legislation – the storage of material on the land doesnt amount to a planning breach, but I cannot speak for other areas of legislation which it may fall within.
In the Design and Access statement it states that a path will be provided to the East of the site.

Can NCC please confirm that this is in place ?
I note the path mentioned within the D&M ; A statement and shown on the approved plan, I’ll speak to the developer and ask for further information in relation to this

The party wall boundary issues have highlighted the builders lack of competence, ability to do the work safely and NCC should be minded to ask to see a CDM plan and undertake regular site visits to ensure the safety of the people working there and also to witness the blight in the community.
CDM Plans fall within Health and Safety legislation which is dealt with and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), I would suggest this point should be redirected to the HSE for comment

Where reference has been made to matters that are the remit of Building Control we will post the responses here upon receipt.

December 2019

Appeal – Dismissed

The planning inspector wrote –

‘I have found that the proposed development would cause significant harm
to the character and appearance of the area and would lead to an
unacceptable loss of open space of public value’

November 2019

The applicant has appealed against the decision of NCC to refuse his application.

The Independent Inspector will visit the site unannounced and make a decision as a result of that visit and referring to the documents provided in the planning application including any objections.

The Inspector is only looking to see if NCC acted lawfully in refusing the application.

We have been informed that the decision will be made before the end of 2019.

We are still working with all of the agencies that are able to assist with the ongoing issues in Cranbrook Drive.

Highways are aware of the problems with ice and will grit the area when they are able, obviously priority has to be given to the major routes.

The drains above and below the site are cleared on a regular basis.

We have asked for a grit bin to be provided,

Planning enforcement has been asked to look again at the planning conditions to see if there has been any breach and, if so, to take appropriate action.

But we are dealing with planning permission that was granted before we were in office, and can not add conditions after the permission was granted.

Guy Opperman is also involved and is doing all he can to assist.

We are planning another meeting with residents before Christmas, details will be circulated as soon as a date is agreed

Please contact Ken with any queries you may have – Contact info – Click here

Summer 2019

We have received several enquiries from residents about the below issues, and as you will appreciate the matter is subject to planning law and legal advice has had to be sought.

We have been working with Guy Opperman MP, PTC Cllrs & NCC officers.

The planning application has now been formally refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would result in the loss of amenity open space that makes a positive contribution to the visual amenity and character of the site and surrounding area. The proposed development and the resultant loss of open space would have a harmful impact on the amenity of local residents, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policy BE1 of the Tynedale Core Strategy, Policies GD2, H32 and LR3 of the Tynedale Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

This decision has been communicated to the applicant who has a legal right to appeal the decision or to amend his application and resubmit for further consideration.

In terms of the maintenance of the land at Cranbrook Drive –

The County Council has previously maintained this area as amenity grass, cutting it on the same frequency as other public open space in the area. This was when the land was classified as public open space and the landowner had given us permission to do so.

The Council stopped mowing this area once the land class designation changed to housing land.

The cutting of the grass is explained as follows that if the land category has now been redesignated as public open space that we would seek permission from the new land owner to start cutting the grass again.

The Neighbourhood Services team are now in the process of identifying the current land owner to seek this permission.

As planning applications are a matter of public record all relevant materials are available to view online through the public access system – https://publicaccess.northumberland.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple

This remains NCC ‘s preferred route for keeping members of the public informed about planning matters .

We do not enter into discussions or take reports via social media but offer a range of methods for residents to contact Gordon & Ken their County Cllrs

Contact us section https://prudhoeconservatives.wordpress.com/contact-us/

You can follow us on facebook & Instagram ‘Prudhoe matters’ and twitter ‘PrudhoeNland’