Vivienne Geary Head of Law and Governance Council Quadrant The Silverlink North Cobalt Business Park North Tyneside NE27 0BY

This matter is being dealt with by: Michael Robson Tel: (0191) 643 5359 e.mail: [email protected]

17 November 2017

To: All Members of Planning Committee

Dear Councillor

Planning Committee – 21 November 2017

I refer to the agenda for the meeting of Planning Committee to be held on 21 November 2017 and attach the following supplementary papers for consideration at the meeting:

1. Addendum in respect of item 5.1 – 17/01146/FUL, Visitor Centre, St Mary’s Island, Whitley Bay (ST. Mary’s Ward)

2. Addendum in respect of item 5.4 - 17/01197/FUL, Land East of 16 Front Street, Annitsford (Camperdown Ward)

3. Addendum in respect of item 5.7 – 17/01256/FULH, 27 The Oval, Benton (Benton Ward)

4. Addendum in respect to Item 6, Woodlands, North Shields, Tree Preservation Order 2017 (Preston Ward)

Please bring these papers with you to the meeting.

Yours sincerely

Michael Robson On behalf of Vivienne Geary Head of Law and Governance

Circulated to: All Members of the Planning Committee comprising: Councillor Anne Arkle Councillor Frank Lott (Chair) Councillor Brian Burdis Councillor Wendy Lott Councillor Sandra Graham Councillor Gary Madden Councillor Muriel Green Councillor Paul Mason Councillor Ed Hodson Councillor David McMeekan(Deputy Chair) Councillor John Hunter

1 ADDENDUM Item No: 5.1

Application 17/01146/FUL Author Julia Dawson No: : Date valid: 1 August 2017 : 0191 643 6314 Target decision 21 November 2017 Ward: St Marys date:

Application type: full planning application

Location: Visitors Centre St Marys Island St Marys Island Access Road Whitley Bay NE26 4RS

Proposal: Refurbishment of lighthouse, refurbishment and internal re-planning of visitor centre, partial demolition of visitor centre entrance, construction of a single storey extension to visitor centre east elevation, construction of a two storey extension in place of demolished visitor centre entrance, construction of ancillary external storage and plant rooms and renewal of causeway ADDITIONAL AND AMENDED DRAWINGS AND INFORMATION UPLOADED TO APPLICATION on 17/10/2017: Environmental Statement (updated Oct 2017); Responses to Planning Application Consultation Responses; Revised Causeway Arrangement and Sections; Indicative Construction Programme; Viewing Deck Management Plan; Volunteer Profiles; Habitat Creation Plan, and; updated HRA and Non Technical Summary.

Applicant: North Tyneside Council, FAO Mr Chris Bishop Quadrant East Silverlink North Cobalt Business Park North Tyneside NE27 0BY

Agent: Beaumont Brown Architects LLP, FAO Mr David Brown The Old Brewery Castle Eden TS27 4SU

RECOMMENDATION: Application Permitted

1.0 Representations 1.1 A further four objections have been received since the completion of the Committee report. These objections are set out below: Adverse effect on wildlife Affect character of conservation area Providing two first floor viewing platforms Increasing the height of the causeway. Development is not just about coffee shops and cakes. This development is a another grotesque phenomenon like the developments on Longsands Beach that no one is happy about. The noise from the construction and constant stream of people on the viewing deck is going to be evasive.

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 1 Printed:11/17/2017

2 St Mary’s is a tranquil spot and we must preserve its character and uniqueness. No doubt the visitors will also bring more cars, litter and lots of noise. Any building on St Mary’s Island should not be used as a public entertainment space. This is a nature reserve and the natural and peaceful environment is the main reason that people visit the island. The viewing platform will invade the privacy of the residents on the island. There will be increased litter as a result of any commercial operation on the island, there will be increased traffic for deliveries etc. Increasing the height and width of the causeway with a view to increasing footfall and vehicular access would be a disaster for the island. Following the meeting (details set out below) we are in favour of the overall plans however there are three exceptions around design, operation and development which are a major problem for us. It is now clear to use that the extension and enclosed viewing platform will be significant loss of light based on the current design. Therefore we strongly object unless this can be rectified. The viewing platform management plans do not go far enough in controlling potential disturbance. The nearest platform is only a few feet from our house. Please ensure that plans restricting the use of the nearest platform to use are written into the planning conditions. This musty clearly state that it is not an entertainment space, and no use of the platform in the evenings. The proposed working hours of 6am to 9pm, 7 days a weeks are completely unreasonable. We of course recognise the access issues that there will be for working around the tide. The working hours should be restricted to the normal working hours ad then any variations agreed with the residents rather than the other way around. We are very concerns that the request for extended hours, 7 days a week for the duration of the programme plus the access restrictions represent an intimadatory attempt to encourage us to move out into temporary accommodation.

1.2 In paragraph 10.12 of the Officer report it states that, ‘an addendum will be provided to the Planning Committee to advise on the outcome of a meeting between the applicant and residents.

1.3 The following key points arose in the meeting:

1.4 Hours – Residents reiterated concern about control of hours of work and the need for agreed quiet periods. Their ideal would be in line with usual residential times i.e. 8am till 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am till 2pm Saturday with no Sundays or Bank Holiday working. Applicant emphasised the need for flexibility beyond this due to the unique access issue with tides and the restrictions on works to the designations of the site. Principal raised of involving residents in advance in viewing programme of works so their view is considered and there are no surprises.

1.5 Access – Residents accepted that vehicle access would not be possible during the period of causeway construction (scheduled for 9 weeks) however

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 2 Printed:11/17/2017

3 access across the causeway for residents would be maintained to allow them to access their home throughout the work programme. Should access not be possible for any unforeseen reason residents should be compensated for costs of suitable alternative accommodation. Agreed two annual car park passes will be issued to residents to ensure that they can park on the landside car park if required during the work programme.

1.6 Viewing Platform - Agreed with residents that timing of occasionally Astronomy events would be agreed in advance with residents. Agreed that the South viewing platform would not be used for such events.

1.7 Residential Access – agreed that area beyond causeway turning point should be for residential access and shouldn’t be blocked by contractors during the construction programme and should be sign as residential access only.

1.8 Loss of Light to East of Residents Cottage – Concern raised with regard to potential reduction in light resulting from installation of glass enclosed viewing area. Agreed to look at this with architects to assess potential impact and any necessary mitigation.

1.9 Noise – Residents reiterated view that noise survey focussed on garden/amenity area and did not account sufficiently for noise impact on cottage.

1.10 Communication – Agreed that a single point of contact with the site manager should in place so that residents can raise any concerns directly and also that they can have adequate arrangements to cross the causeway when required.

1.11 Officer Comments 1.12 Officer advice remains that subject to conditions to control the operation of the site (conditions 11 and 20), and viewing desks (conditions 12 and 13) that it would not result in any significant harm in terms of the amenity of surrounding residents. The proposal would therefore accord with policy S1.4 and DM6.1 of the Local Plan and the advice in NPPF.

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 3 Printed:11/17/2017

4 ADDENDUM Item No: 5.4

Application No: 17/01197/FUL Author: Maxine Ingram Date valid: 7 September 2017 : 0191 643 6322 Target decision 7 December 2017 Ward: Camperdown date:

Application type: full planning application

Location: Land East Of 16 Front Street Annitsford

Proposal: Development of 10 dwellings on land to the east of Front Street, Annitsford

Applicant: W Hedley & Sons, West Lane Farm Backworth NE27 0BG

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP, Miss Jo Evans 1-3 Oldgate Morpeth NE61 1PY

RECOMMENDATION: Application Refused

1.0 External Consultees 1.1 Newcastle International Airport 1.2 The following comments were received from NIA on the 15 November 2017:

1.3 Noise 1.4 The development site is located circa 300m south of the eastern approach to the Airport where aircraft are typically flying at around 1300ft. It is also close to the helicopter landing pad at Emergency Hospital.

1.5 The noise contours produced for the Airport’s 2013 masterplan indicate that the development site is beyond the Airport’s 57 dBLAeq,16h noise contour. However the Airport is in the process of revising its Masterplan, based on new growth forecasts up to 2035. New noise contours have been produced for these revised forecasts, which also include an outer 54 dBLAeq,16h contour. The development site falls within the 54 dBLAeq,16h line in our contours for 2035. Therefore the site is forecast to experience noise levels up to 55 dBLAeq,16h as the Airport grows.

1.6 For all noise sensitive developments such as housing which fall within or close to our current or forecast future noise contours the Airport would generally expect at least one month of noise monitoring to be undertaken over the peak summer period (June to September). This will provide a mix of operations, runway usage, and weather conditions, which can all impact on noise levels. The applicant has only provided 3 hours of monitoring on the 20th April. This will not have captured a representative sample of noise associated with aircraft movements. For example, on this day only landing aircraft would have been recorded. The Airport is concerned that the proposed mitigation measures indicated in the acoustic report may not be based on a robust assessment of ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 1 Printed:11/16/2017

5 the current and future noise environment on the site.

1.7 With regard to noise in private gardens, the World Health Organisation states in its guidelines for community noise (1999) that in order to protect people from serious annoyance, noise levels should not exceed 55dBLAeq,16h for a steady continuous noise during the day, and to protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed the outdoor noise level should not exceed 50 dBLAeq,16h. This is mirrored in the British Standard guidance (BS 8233) which states that it is desirable that outdoor noise levels should not exceed 50 dBLAeq,16h, and 55 dBLAeq,16h should be regarded as the upper limit. Much of the site falls within the Airport’s 54 dBLAeq,16h contour for 2035.

1.8 Forecast night-time noise levels to 2035 are likely to result in much of the site falling within the 48dBLAEQ8h. 48 dBLAEQ8h is the level at night time that the World Health Organisation indicates that adverse health effects can be observed.

1.9 The very limited noise monitoring undertaken does not give comfort that the proposed design measures are based on robust assessment of external noise levels. It is also the Airport’s view that the development may be subject to aircraft noise levels close to or above 55 dBLAeq,16 in external private gardens. The Airport would hope that the planning authority is satisfied that the indicate external noise levels are robust and the mitigation measures proposed are appropriate. However, it is not clear how acceptable external noise levels can be achieved.

1.10 As the Airport’s future noise contours indicate that the site will likely be exposed to aircraft noise levels closer to or above 55 dBLAeq,16h, it is requested that an informative be added to a grant of planning permission so that it is clear to future residents that they will hear noise from approaching and departing aircraft. The requested wording is –

‘The development hereby approved lies within close proximity to Newcastle International Airports approach and departure flightpaths. The airport operates unrestricted, flying 365 days per year, 24 hours per day. The airport is also a co-opted military airfield and therefore unrestrictedly accepts military aircraft.

1.11 Airfield Safeguarding 1.12 Landscaping 1.13 Certain types of landscaping can be bird attracting, providing a habitat/feeding source for birds with the potential to result in an increase in bird strike incidences. The grouping of trees in certain arrangements can also provide roosting habitat for species such as starlings, which can be especially hazardous to aircraft owing to the density of flocks. Given the distance of the site from the airport is considered that the below species should not make up greater than 15% of the planting schedule for the site.

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 2 Printed:11/16/2017

6 Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn Lonicera Honeysuckle Ilex aquifolium Holly Mahonia Rosa canina Dog Rose Malus Crab Apple Berberis spp Barberry Sorbus aucuparia Rowan Cotoneaster Pernettya Prickly Heath Viburnum Prunus avium Wild Cherry Aucuba Buddleia Pyracantha Firethorn Callicarpa Beauty Berry Rhus Sumac Chaenomeles Japonica Ribes Ornamental Currant Clerodendrum Sambucus nigra Elder Danae Butcher's Broom Skimmia Daphne Euonymus Spindle Stransvaesia Hypericum St John's Wort Symphoricarpus Snowberry Lonicera Honeysuckle Taxus Yew

1.14 Physical Development 1.15 As the site is located close to the Airport’s eastern approach the use of cranes above 45m could impact on protected navigational and obstacle limitation surfaces. If a crane or other construction equipment is required of any height it is requested that the jib is only in the raised position during use, the Airport’s air traffic control service is informed before use, should be fit with low intensity lighting, and work should cease during poor visibility and low cloud ceilings.

1.16 Lighting 1.17 Lighting can act as a distraction to pilots whilst landing at the airport. All street lighting should be cut off so as to not distract pilots flying aircraft overhead. There is also a risk that lighting, if set out in certain patterns, could be confused as operational lighting to pilots, especially in poor visibility. The layout proposed does not appear to mimic the layout of airfield lighting. The Airport would require further detail on the technical specification of the street lighting to be installed.

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 3 Printed:11/16/2017

7 ADDENDUM Item No: 5.7

Application 17/01256/FULH Author Maxine Ingram No: : Date valid: 29 August 2017 : 0191 643 6322 Target decision 24 October 2017 Ward: Benton date:

Application type: Householder Full application

Location: 27 The Oval Benton NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE12 9PP

Proposal: Single storey and two storey extensions to the side and rear elevations including first floor balcony. Alterations to form flat roof with roof lights. Demolish existing garage and form enclosed parking area (Amended plans received 25.10.17)

Applicant: Mr Richard Hammond, C/o Agent 27 The Oval BENTON NE12 9PP

Agent: O' Sullivan Beare Partnership, Donal O'Sullivan 13 Greenfield Road Brunton Park Gosforth Newcastle Upon Tyne NE3 5TN

RECOMMENDATION: Application Permitted

1.0 Representations 1.1 A further three objections have been received since the completion of the Committee report. These objections are set out below:

- Adverse effect on wildlife - Affect character of conservation area - Inadequate parking provision - Inappropriate design - Loss of privacy - Loss of residential amenity - Loss of visual amenity - Loss of/damage to trees - Nuisance - disturbance - Nuisance - dust/dirt - Nuisance - fumes - Nuisance - noise - Out of keeping with surroundings - Poor/unsuitable vehicular access - Precedent will be set - Will result in visual intrusion - Within greenbelt/no special circumstance -Intrusion of privacy in our upstairs rear bedroom, downstairs kitchen/living space and rear garden.

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 1 Printed:11/16/2017

8 -Increase in noise due to the balcony extension and removal of the garage - we believe that voices will easily carry into our garden and property. -Increase in light pollution from the new upstairs windows/balcony. -Increase in traffic in what is already becoming a thoroughfare due to the new road layout. -Increased risk of subsidence for ourselves and our and neighbours (there is a history of subsidence in this area). -The plans state that the extensions will be 'single storey', yet the drawings clearly show an upstairs extension. -As the plot at No 27 is sizeable, we are unhappy about the owner's decision to build on the small area of the plot which is closest to other residents, rather than using other parts of the garden/land available on the site. The proposed building work will not in any way improve the outlook from neighbouring properties. -As we live in a conservation area, the size and design, including heightening of the roof are not in keeping with the other properties and will impact on quality of residents' lives and views. -As very new residents in The Oval we did not have sufficient time to review and comment meaningfully on the planning application that was originally submitted for No.27. -Regrettably, we did not receive by post notification that amended plans had been submitted and were, once again, available for comment. -We have now reviewed the plans and other comments/objections "retrospectively" and we would like to support the concerns raised by other residents. A simple assessment of the revised plans highlight clearly that residents' previous objections have not been mitigated by the changes and, consequently, still stand. -Whilst we appreciate the importance and enjoyment of moulding a new house into a home, this cannot be at the cost of other residents. Our greatest concerns are therefore three-fold: 1) the noise nuisance and danger from multiple/large vehicles along an already restrictive street (noisy preparatory work has already been carried out late into the evening), 2) the significant loss of privacy and quality of life for those directly next to the property and 3) the risk of degradation to the community and community spirit of The Oval in approving the application. -The extensions are still too close to the main row of houses and the revised window locations to the north west corner of the property infringes further on the privacy of our property No. 17 and that of Nos. 19 and 21. -There is no continuity in the proposed design quality i.e. mix of windows to all elevations and mix of roof designs. The revised plans have an additional window next to the door on the north side of the new storage space and there is now a Juliet balcony to bedroom 3. The latter does not directly impact on neighbouring properties but suggests the applicant is open to utilising the east facing aspects of the site. -The revised proposal states in paragraph 4.2 that “the new roof to this section of the house has been specifically designed to negate its impact on neighbouring properties.” The revised roof design, including revised window replacements, still has an impact on Nos. 23 and 25 and now has a greater impact on Nos. 17, 19 and 21 in terms of being intrusive. The statement in the

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 2 Printed:11/16/2017

9 revised proposal is misleading. -The proposal appears to be the exact opposite i.e. making the front elevation less attractive, equally cluttered and more intrusive on the main row of houses. -It would appear from the revised plans and our knowledge of the site, the balcony will still overlook Nos. 23, 25, 29, 31 and 33, so this additional statement is misleading. -The plans still do not show the large existing brick built storage space, which is misleading in terms of the requirement for the new storage space. We know that vehicles can access the new storage space and while the response has been there is no current intention for vehicles to be parked in this part of the site, there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future. The proposed roof design of the storage space could be used for commercial purposes in the future. The proposed store remains hugely intrusive to the aspect of a number of neighbouring properties and to the overall aesthetic and natural haven in the quiet corner plot on the site. -The fact that we live in Conservation Area means planning should enhance and preserve the area and outlook of the neighbourhood which this extension will clearly be breaching. -The store has been moved back slightly but does nothing to address the impact on neighbours. The overall floor area appears to be the same, with the same overall design i.e. intrusive in volume and height and adding no continuity to the overall house design, particularly the roof construction.

1.2 Officer Advice 1.3 It is the view of officer’s that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact upon neighbouring residential properties including No. 17 The Oval in accordance with policy DM6.2 of the Local Plan.

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 3 Printed:11/16/2017

10 ADDENDUM 17 November 2017

Item No: TPO report

Application TPO report Author Phil Scott No: :

Ward: Preston

Location: Woodlands, North Shields Tyne and Wear Tree Preservation order 2017

RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Order with modifications

ADDENDUM

Additional modification to order:

The address location for T12 should state the following:

Measured from the south east corner of No. 11 Woodlands.

Additional representation from the resident of 11 Woodlands with photographs of T12 (attached). In addition to their previous comments, this also states:

North Tyneside Council has been enforcing its will without legal authority as the original TPO was not confirmed.

ADDEND Committee Addendum Report 1

Printed:11/16/2017

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19