Strategic Planning Committee, County Hall, 2 June 2015 Application No: Proposal: Site Address

14/03839/OUT Outline residential development of up to 55 dwellings with all matters reserved. Land South East Of The Shoulder Of Mutton, South Road, Longhorsley, Northumberland

Applicant:

Partner Investments Ltd C/O Agent

Valid Date:

24 November 2014

Case Officer Details:

Name: Job Title: Tel No: Email:

Agent:

Mr Alastair Willis 26 Apex Business Village, Annitsford, Newcastle upon Tyne , Tyne and Wear (Met County) NE23 7BF 23 February 2015

Expiry Date: Mrs Judith Murphy Senior Planning Officer 01670 622640 [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 being recommended for approval contrary to the views of Longhorsley Parish Council and 36 letters of objection and therefore falls to be determined by the Strategic Area Committee. 1.2 The application was removed from the agenda for the North Area Planning Committee on 2nd April as it was brought to the attention of Officers that a Road Safety Audit had been carried out on the A697 in late 2014. Members felt it

necessary to remove the application from the agenda until the content of that Audit could be considered and the Highways Engineer could offer a professional opinion on the findings of the report. This has now been done and will be addressed later in this report. 2. Description of the Proposals 2.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of up to 55 dwellings on land to the east of the A697 and south of the Shoulder of Mutton Public House, Longhorsley. All matters including Access, Appearance, Layout, Scale and Landscaping have been reserved. The site lies outside of the settlement boundary of Morpeth and adjacent to a landscape corridor. The site is unallocated in the Castle Morpeth Local Plan. 2.2 The site extends to approximately 02.62 ha and comprises an agricultural Greenfield site. The northern boundary is formed by the residential properties of East Road and the Shoulder of Mutton. Agricultural fields extend to the east, with the south and western boundaries formed by a dense wedge of trees which gradually deepens towards the south. The A697 and residential properties are further to the west and south. There are no existing public rights of way into the application site, although a footpath does extend in a south easterly direction from the existing bus stop to the south of the site leading to St Helen's Church. 2.3 Part of the village comprises a conservation area. The application site itself is not within the conservation area, although it does share a boundary. Whilst an outline application at this stage, it is proposed that the development would comprise a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom terrace, semi-detached and detached properties. It is intended that the development would respond to and respect the existing characteristics of the conservation area, including the interaction of the application site with the existing residential areas of Longhorsley and the historic characteristics of the village. The supporting information states that the proposal presents an opportunity to deliver a mix of market and affordable housing in a sustainable location by creating a high quality housing scheme which would be informed by a Design Code, securing a high quality design for a sensitive area. The proposal would not seek to replicate the characteristic of a modern housing estate. 2.4 Access would be from the A697 and would be agreed through the reserved matters application. 3. Planning History 3.1 No relevant site history 4. Consultee Responses Education - Schools The Morpeth partnership will be able to accommodate the children generated by such a small development. English Heritage No comments to make. Fire & Rescue Service Longhorsley Parish Council

No objection in principle. Objects - inappropriate size for the village; unsafe proposed access points; pavement too narrow to support scheme; no traffic flow audit submitted; removal of trees; scheme close to

the conservation area therefore scale of dwellings needs careful consideration; density too high and concerns regarding proposed Green Belt. Highways No objection subject to conditions. County Ecologist No objections subject to conditions. Public Protection No objection subject to conditions. Sustainable Drainage No objection subject to conditions. Systems Environment Agency Objection withdrawn, scheme now supported, subject to one condition. Northumbrian Water No objections provided scheme is constructed in accordance Ltd with an approved flood risk assessment. County Archaeologist No objection subject to conditions. 5. Public Responses Neighbour Notification Number of Neighbours Notified Number of Objections Number of Support Number of General Comments

33 35 0 1

Notices Site Notice - departure & conservation, 26 November 2014 and 12th March 2015 Press Notice – Morpeth Herald, departure & conservation area 11 December 2014 and 13 March 2015 Summary of Responses: A total of 35 letters of objection have been received in response to the proposal with concerns as follows:   

      

Disproportionate to size of village Associated light pollution Traffic concerns and added congestion (in respect of a northern or southern access point) Pedestrian safety Noise Potentially dangerous access points (in respect of a northern or southern access point) Loss of trees within the conservation area Insufficient footpaths Impact on the village green Overdevelopment of the village and proposal site Increased traffic a danger to children travelling to/from school Impact on wildlife Overlooking and loss of privacy to existing residents



One general comment received querying impact on gas supply

  

6. Planning Policy 6.1 National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 6.2 Development Plan Policy Castle Morpeth Local Plan (adopted Feb 2003) C1 Settlement boundaries C4 Landscape corridors C11 Protected Species C13 Wildlife corridors C15 Trees in the countryside and urban areas H15 New housing developments R4 Children's play RE5 Surface water run-off and flood defences RE6 Service infrastructure RE8 Contaminated land RE9 Ground stability MC1 Morpeth: settlement boundary 6.3 Other Documents/Strategies Northumberland Five year housing land supply 2014-2019 Northumberland Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHMA) Interim Planning Policy Affordable Housing (IPPAH) 7. Appraisal 7.1

The main issues for consideration in determining this application are:

Principle of the Development Impact on the Conservation Area Highway Matters Impact on the Landscape and Ecology Flooding and Drainage Affordable Housing Impact on Amenity S106 Obligations 7.2 The first issue to consider in the assessment of this application is whether the principle of development is acceptable having regard to the weight that may be given to the policies contained in the Castle Morpeth Local Plan, the emerging Northumberland Core Strategy and in the context of the NPPF. The application also raises a number of detailed and technical material planning considerations which will be considered later in the report. Principle of the Development The Development Plan

7.3 The NPPF was published in March 2012 and set out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied by Local Planning Authorities. The Ministerial Foreword to the NPPF states that: 'development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay - a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan and every decision.' 7.4 The NPPF has not changed planning law insofar as the starting point for considering development proposals remains the development plan. However, it is a significant material consideration in the determination of planning applications. 7.5 Annex A of the NPPF, specifically paragraphs 214 and 215, makes clear that, following an initial 12 months period of grace (which expired on 27 March 2013), due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The closer that policies in the plan align with the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given to them. 7.6 The primary development plan document for the area within which the application site is located comprises the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan, adopted in 2003. A number of the policies within the Local Plan were 'saved' in 2007 following the introduction of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which means that they were identified as continuing to be of relevance and were not, at that time, replicated by national or regional planning guidance. Housing Land Supply 7.7 The Northumberland Five Year Supply of Deliverable Sites 2014-19 (December 2014) identifies that neither Northumberland as a whole, nor the Central Delivery Area demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. AT the Northumberland level, a supply equating to 77% of the revised requirement, or 3.8 years is identified. The Central Delivery Area demonstrates a 3.6 year supply equating to 72 % of the revised housing requirements. 7.8 The consequence of this is that in line with the advice set out in paragraph 49 of NPPF, relevant development plan policies which relate to the supply of housing cannot be considered as being up to date and cannot therefore form part of the decision making process. Recent planning appeal decisions at Loansdean (APP/P2935/A/12/2170840 and APP/P2935/A/13/2208237) and Stobhill (APP/P2935/A/14/2212989) have indicated that Local Plan policies C1 and MC1 which relate to settlement boundaries should also be considered out of date. The site of this proposal is located outside of the Longhorsley settlement boundary as defined by Local Plan Policy LHC1. However, given the above, little weight can be afforded to this policy. Green Belt 7.9 While not defining a boundary, Policy S5 of the revised Northumberland Structure Plan (2005) provided a detailed description of where the boundary of an extension of the Green Belt north of Morpeth should be defined. This policy which remains part of the Development Plan for Northumberland indicates that:

An extension to the Green Belt will extend from the existing boundary northwards to lie: o o o o o

To the west of Netherwitton, Hartburn and Belsay; North of Longhorsley and west of Widdrington Station, excluding the Stobswood Opencast site; East of Pegswood; West of Ashington, Guide Post, Bedlington and the A1068; and East of Bothal, Hepscott, Nedderton and Hartford Bridge.

7.10 While relevant boundaries have been defined in the Wansbeck Local Plan and the Blyth Valley Core Strategy, boundaries within the former Castle Morpeth Borough will be defined through the emerging Northumberland Local Plan. While the Northumberland Core Strategy Full Draft Plan (December 2014) defines boundaries to Morpeth, it does not define boundaries for other settlements located within the general extent of the Green Belt. It does however indicate that inset boundaries will be defined around settlements to allow for an appropriate level of development to allow for sustainable development. Further work and consultation is being undertaken to identify where Green Belt boundaries should be drawn. Work to date identifies that the land parcel area within which the application site lies makes a medium contribution to Green Belt purposes, and has a medium level of constraints. This is consistent with all land parcel areas around Longhorsley. 7.11 In the recent Fenrother wind farm appeal decision (APP/P2935/A/13/2194915) the inspector identified that it was unambiguous as to whether the site of the proposal was in the Green Belt, as it was not located near the margins of the Green Belt as described above. Given that the above proposal at Longhorsley is adjacent to the existing settlement boundary, and that boundaries are still to be defined as indicated above, it could be considered ambiguous as to whether the site of the proposal is within the Green Belt or not. Accordingly limited weight is afforded to the emerging Core Strategy in terms of the Green Belt in the appraisal of this application. Emerging Policy - Principle of Development 7.12 While limited weight can be afforded to the emerging Northumberland Core Strategy, the Full Draft Plan Policy 2 sets out circumstances in which development will be permitted outside of defined main towns and service centres. It indicates development will be allowed which: i. can be accommodated within or if necessary next to the settlement without impacting on its character; ii. is of an appropriate scale for the size of the settlement; iii. maintains or enhances local services and facilities, including those outside the particular settlement in which the proposed development will be located; iv. meets the identified and defined social, economic or cultural needs of the local community; and v. protects the countryside from widespread new development. 7.13 The emerging policy is a material planning consideration; however as stated above, it carries little weight given that it is at an early stage. Officers cannot therefore attach significant weight to the emerging Core Strategy at this stage.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 7.14 The SHLAA describes the site as providing an open aspect to the east with a countryside feel and views over the valley. In terms of development, the SHLAA states that the site presents no prohibitive barriers to the delivery of a sensitively designed development. The delivery is also subject to the definition of Green Belt boundaries. Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 7.15 Given the above there is strong case for allowing the application site to come forward for housing development. Development on this site with 55 new homes would make a positive contribution to helping the Council meet its housing needs and address the current housing shortfall and this is a significant material consideration weighing heavily in favour of the proposal. 7.16 However, the NPPF is quite clear that for development to be acceptable it must be 'sustainable'. 7.17 Whilst paragraph 6 of the NPPF advises that the policies set out in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the document, taken as a whole, constitute the Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system, it is paragraph 7 of the NPPF which provides the key starting point against which the sustainability of a development proposal should be assessed. This identifies three dimensions to sustainable development which are set out as follows: -

-

-

an economic role - contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; a social role - supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and an environmental role - contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

7.18 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF goes on to advise how the three roles of sustainable development are mutually dependent and should not be undertaken in isolation, and makes clear that to achieve sustainable development economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. 7.19 The definition of sustainable development in the NPPF therefore goes beyond a simple assessment of the sustainability of a proposal. Instead, development proposals must be considered in the context of each of their economic, social and environmental roles. Whilst paragraph 14 of the NPPF is therefore

engaged by virtue of the settlement boundary and housing supply policies of the Local Plan being out of date, whether the presumption in favour of sustainable development is successful in this case is dependent on an assessment of whether the proposed development would be sustainable in terms of its economic, social and environmental roles. 7.20 Given the lack of a five year housing land supply, housing policies of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan including those relating to settlement boundaries can be considered out of date, and carry little or no weight in the determination of the application. While the site is located within the general extent of the Green Belt extension as identified by Policy S5 of the Northumberland Structure Plan, given that it is adjacent to the existing settlement boundary, with inset boundaries still be defined to allow for an appropriate level of development to allow for sustainable development, it is ambiguous as to whether the site will be located within the Green Belt when boundaries are defined. Therefore, limited weight should be afforded to Policy S5. 7.21 Given the scale of development required to meet the objectively assessed need for housing, including the proportion allocated to the 'Rest of the Central Delivery Area', it can be expected that settlements the size of Longhorsley will make need to make a telling contribution. Therefore, in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, if the criteria identified above can be met by the development proposal, the principle of development should be supported. Affordable Housing 7.22 There are no policies within the Castle Morpeth Local Plan which require the provision of affordable housing. The former Castle Morpeth District Council adopted an interim Planning Policy for Affordable Housing (IPPAH) in February 2008 pending adoption of its Core Strategy. Subsequently, the Castle Morpeth Core Strategy was not adopted prior to local government reorganisation in 2009. The IPPAH now forms part of the Northumberland Consolidated Planning Policy Framework. It is, however, 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 starting point in negotiations on affordable housing provision in the former Castle Morpeth are, very limited weight can be attached to it for the purpose of insisting on a higher proportion of affordable housing than a developer is willing to provide. 7.23 The NPPF advises that Local Planning Authorities should, in order to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, set policies for meeting affordable housing needs on-site where the need for such provision has been identified unless off-site provision or a financial contribution can be robustly justified. The Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy - Full Draft Plan, published in December 2014 sets out a target in Policy 15 for the provision of 30% affordable housing. It is worth noting however that at this stage, only limited weight can be given to this emerging policy. 7.24 The need for affordable housing provision at County and Housing Market Area level is also evidenced in the Draft Northumberland Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA). The 2012 Northumberland County Wide Needs Assessment, whilst not a formally approved evidence base document, provides the most up to date survey data and also highlights a requirement for 382 affordable

units per annum over the next five years across the County as a whole in addition to providing 242 units per annum to address a ten year backlog in delivery. 7.25 It has been established in previous applications within Morpeth by the Council's Strategic Housing Team, that it is an area of high demand, low availability and low turnover of affordable homes. In order to deliver affordable housing in areas of high demand and need, the Strategic Housing Team would seek 30% affordable housing on all sites, although only limited weight can be given to this requirement given that the Core Strategy is currently out for consultation. 7.26 Longhorsley is considered a suitable and sustainable location for affordable housing. The mix and tenure of affordable homes on development sites should reflect current housing needs evidence base. Homefinder statistics show that in the recent calendar year 5 properties became vacant attracting and average of 10 bids per property indicating that Longhorsley is a popular location. 77% of the bidders were 55 and over and all of the vacant homes went to people of Longhorsley. 7.27 The emerging core strategy (Central Delivery Area) seeks 30% affordable housing on development sites, which equate to around 17 homes on this site. A Section 106 agreement would secure an agreed level of affordable housing. The legal agreement is currently in the process of being drawn up therefore should Members be minded to approve the application there would be an appropriate mechanism in place to secure the delivery of an appropriate level of affordable units. Impact on Amenity 7.28 Concerns have been raised by objectors regarding the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring properties, including loss of privacy. The indicative layout plan shows that the site can accommodate up to 55 dwellings and can meet the required separation distances of approximately 21m from elevation to elevation (habitable rooms). Some of the proposed dwellings to the northern part of the site are indicated to be 2 storeys high, which could impact on the privacy of the properties to the rear, namely Rest Harrow, The Sheiling and Beeswing Cottage and to some extent the neighbouring dwellings to the east of those. However, this is an outline planning application with all matters reserved and whilst indicative plans have been submitted the full detail of the layout, scale, appearance and design of all dwellings will be subject to further assessment at the reserved matters stage. The concerns surrounding separation distances, overlooking and loss of privacy will be fully considered when that application is received. 7.29 Notwithstanding this, a revised ‘Design Code’ was submitted by the applicant on 16th March in direct response to some of the objections raised. This revision shows a change on Page 8 which demonstrates which area of the site is referred to when restricting properties to single storey. One again, the full impact of this would be assessed at the reserved matters stage. Highway Matters 7.30 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that all development that are likely to generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement (TS or Transport Assessment (TA)). Development should only be refused or prevented on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development would be severe.

7.31 The application was originally submitted showing the access point from the A697 towards the northern area of the application site. A Transport Assessment was also submitted to support the proposed access arrangement. The highways engineer considered this proposal and deemed it acceptable, subject to a number of planning conditions. However, the proposed access point proved to be a source of concern with many of the neighbouring residents who submitted objections. The details of these objections are highlighted earlier in the report. With equal concerns from the Parish Council, the applicant agreed to look at a southern access point, details of which were submitted in early February as an alternative access point and an amendment to the proposed scheme. The applicant requested that the access was not to be approved as part of the outline application and placed as a reserved matter to enable all objectors and everyone concerned to look at both proposed access points in more detail. 7.32 The draft layout plan defines the likely road markings required on the A697, the location and the general orientation of the access into the site. In constructing a southern access point, and following a further arboricultural survey that has been carried out, an approximate number of 3 individual trees would be lost along with some lower scrub. The report further concluded that no arboricultural reasons were found to retain those trees should they significantly constrain development of the site. It finally concluded that the loss of the trees within this area would be screened by the adjacent denser sections of group 3 to the south and, it would not be expected that a southern access location would result in any significant visual impact in this area. Further, Policy C4 of the Castle Morpeth Local Plan does not entirely prohibit the loss of some trees along a landscape corridor, and more accepts that limited degrees of loss may be inevitable. 7.33 An additional bat report was carried out based on the newly proposed southern access point. The report focussed on the bat roost potential of trees on the site, including those near the southern access location and the northern access location. It concluded that the trees to be removed as a result of either the northern or southern access locations would be unlikely to result in any impacts on bats, and that their loss is acceptable in ecological terms. Planning conditions have been attached with regards to landscaping and bat protection. 7.34 As a result of these surveys and given that the highways engineer supports both access points, Members are requested to consider the access proposals, in principle, for either a northern or southern access point. If an access from either point is deemed acceptable, the full details of an agreed access point, including associated changes to existing footpaths, where required, would be submitted at the reserved matters stage. Highways – Road Safety Audit 7.35 In response to the Road Safety Audit carried out in 2014, the Highway Engineer has considered its content and has offered the following comments: The report highlights 3 main locations along the A697 of concern and suggests measures to make these safer. It also advises on general ways to make the A697 safer such as carriageway edge markings and maintenance in order to reduce the risk of accidents. However, the report confirms that Longhorsley Village has no accident black spots and does not make any reference to problems with in the

Village. I therefore do not have any reason to change my comments previously made. Although reference has been made to right turning at junctions, properly designed junctions to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) with in a 30mph speed limit would mitigate against any road safety concerns. 7.36 It is evident therefore from these comments that the report has not altered the outcome of this proposal from a highways viewpoint and the previous comments still stand. There are no additional conditions to be added and none of the suggested conditions need to be changed as a result of the Audit. Drainage and Flooding 7.37 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following a Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that: Development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems. 7.38 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) originally submitted looked to dispose surface water from the development by discharging into a watercourse at the south of the development. However, no topographic survey or further information on the watercourse was included with the submission. The proposal demonstrated the use of underground oversized pipes as the means of attenuation throughout the development, which was considered to contradict paragraph 103 of the NPPF, which gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems. The Environment Agency concurred with this assessment of the FRA and requested further information be submitted for re-consideration. 7.39 Further information was duly submitted by the applicant which demonstrated that the development would increase the impermeable area of the site above that of the existing, the development would be designed to ensure that it would not increase the risk of flooding downstream. To attenuate the increase in surface water run off produced by the site it is proposed to provide a surface water storage system within the on-site infrastructure to limit the surface water runoff. This would be restricted to 8.7 l/s. A storage scheme would be designed for the site during the detailed design stage. This would be designed to ensure that surface water run off rate is restricted to the above rate prior to discharging into the existing drainage ditch. 7.40 The storage strategy could contain a mixture of plot specific storage and sustainable urban drainage techniques. This could include soakaways, swales, ponds and filter strips. This system is to be designed within the detailed design stage and calculations supplied to the local authority for approval. 7.41 The on-site storage has to be designed to be capable of providing storage for a 1 in 30 year storm event without any on-site flooding occurring. A 1 in 100 year storm event should also be analysed to ensure no dwellings are at risk of flooding. 7.42 The site has also been shown to be entirely within flood zone 1 and, as such, not at risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore appropriate in relation

to flood risk. Consideration of other sources of flooding have been investigated and found to be negligible. 7.43 The County’s Drainage Officer has assessed this information and has confirmed there are no records of the development site experiencing flooding from any source in the past. As this is an outline planning application the principles of the disposal of surface water to be established from the development site are required. It has been proposed that surface water from the development is attenuated on site, with the provision of sustainable drainage techniques to be looked at and a final discharge into a tributary of the Paxtondean Burn at a rate of 8.7l/s. This matches and betters the current existing greenfield runoff rate from the development site. The Officer is therefore satisfied that there would be enough room with the development to accommodate the required attenuation for all events up and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. The drainage proposals are therefore acceptable, subject to a condition requiring further information to be submitted and approved regarding the adoption and maintenance of any surface water drainage system. Landscape and Ecology 7.44 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF advises local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity when determining planning applications by applying certain principals. Applications should be carefully balanced against any potential significant harm created as a result of the development. 7.45 The County Ecologist has assessed the proposals with the access from both the north and the south in mind (addressed in paras 7.31 and 7.32). No objections to the scheme have been raised, subject to planning conditions being attached, which are detailed at the end of the report. The conditions relate to the protection of bats, retention of trees, a lighting scheme, bat and bird boxes, landscaping and planting and breeding birds. Impact on Conservation Area 7.46 While the majority of the proposed development site is not situated within the designated heritage asset ‘the Longhorsley Conservation Area’ it borders the boundary of and partially impinges into the conservation area. The impact of the development on the conservation area therefore has to be considered in line with Paragraph 128 of the NPPF. 7.47 Due to the fact that no part of the development site falls within the conservation area itself and given that the nearest listed building is over 200m away from the site to the south-west, it was not considered necessary for a comprehensive heritage statement to be submitted. Notwithstanding this, the County’s Conservation Officer has specified that a heritage statement would be a valuable document in providing more specific detail of the impact on the conservation area and those heritage buildings. 7.48 The heritage statement has been duly submitted and assessed by the Conservation Officer who has confirmed that the proposed development is not considered harmful to the setting of the Longhorsley Conservation Area and the listed buildings within the designated heritage asset. The assessment has been made with regard to Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Chapter 12 of the NPPF and it is considered that

the proposal would not result in harm to the setting and significance of the Longhorsely Conservation Area, the listed buildings within it and the non-designated heritage assets within the survey area. The Conservation Officer is of the opinion that Plot 17 can be revised so as to reduce any potential harm to the setting and significance of the Parish Church of St. Helen. As this forms part of the layout which is a reserved matter, this will be considered in greater detail at the reserved matters stage. Section 106 Agreement 7.49 A Section 106 Agreement is currently in the process of being formalised with the County's Legal Team to secure the affordable housing on site provision. With regards to requesting on site play provision under Policy R4 of the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan, further to recent discussions with the Active Northumberland Team, it has been confirmed that Northumberland County Council will not accept maintenance of any new play areas in housing developments. If one is deemed absolutely necessary the developer would need to make provision to maintain it themselves in perpetuity or negotiate with the Parish Council to take over the maintenance after a period of (normally) 5 years for a commuted sum. In this case, the Parish Council has confirmed that they cannot guarantee the potential to take on and maintain any play area included in this scheme. 7.50 Leading on from this, new legislation was implemented on 6th April 2015 stating that it is not possible to pool more than five Section 106 contributions for a particular typed of infrastructure or a particular project. The pooling restriction takes into account all contributions made from April 2010 onwards. In the case of sport, play and recreation contributions, that threshold has already been met i.e. the Council has already secured five or more contributions for sport, play and recreation. Therefore, based on this legislation, we cannot secure any further request for financial contributions. 7.51 To enter into a S106 agreement, it is now a legal requirement to meet 3 tests, which are: 1. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; 2. Directly related to the development; 3. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Whilst Policy R4 seeks on site/off site provision and it is a saved policy, it was saved in 2007 and housebuilding circumstances have changed quite considerably since then. In this case, the request for a financial contribution towards play provision does not meet the 3 tests and we are therefore legally unable to request it. Other Matters 7.52 A number of other concerns were raised by residents and other to the proposal which will be addressed here. 7.53 With regards to the impact on the school, a development of this size would not warrant consultation with the Education Team. Any children moving onto the site would be of different ages thereby minimising the impact on any one class at any

one time. Some of the potential residents may already attend the school and relocating within Longhorsley which, in turn, would also minimise new entrants to the school. Notwithstanding this, the County’s Education Officer has confirmed that the existing school could comfortably accommodate additional children as a result of this development. 7.54 A number of comments have related to there being no need for new housing in the Village and the scale of the development being disproportionate to the size of the Village. This has been explained in the Affordable Housing paragraphs of the report; however, the number of houses for sale currently in Longhorsley and surrounding villages has not been considered in the determination of this planning application as this is not a material planning consideration and is for the market to determine. 7.55 In terms of the comments regarding lack of supporting footpaths related to the development, this is referred to in the Highway Matters paragraphs of this report. The access and associated footpath works are seeking approval in principle in this outline application. The finer details of this would be assessed at the reserved matters stage. 7.56 With regards to a comment concerning the lack of gas supply to the village. This is not a material planning consideration and will not therefore be addressed. 7.57 One final comment has been raised regarding the impact of the proposed development on the Village Green. Legal advice has been sought on this and it is not a material planning consideration. Planning permission could still be granted and any restrictions outwith the planning remit that might otherwise prevent the development from going ahead would be for the parties involved to resolve. 8. Conclusion 8.1 The Council considers that the statutory development plan is out of date and acknowledges that it is not able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in Paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies. 8.2 The definition of sustainable development as set out in Paragraph 7 of the NPPF and paragraphs 18 to 219 taken as a whole, goes beyond a simple assessment of the sustainability of a proposal. Instead, development proposals must be considered in the context of each of their economic, social and environmental roles. 8.3 Subject to the recommended conditions it is considered that the development would be sustainable in terms of its economic role by providing housing in an appropriate location and providing economic benefits. From a social perspective, the scheme would provide much needed market houses and provide a proportion amount of much needed affordable homes, on site. In terms on the environmental role, it is acknowledged that the development of the site would have some impact on the landscape but this is not considered to be so severe as to warrant the refusal of the application. 8.4 Further, the County Ecologist has confirmed that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on biodiversity and the highways engineer has advised that an

access at either the northern point or southern point of the development site would be achievable, subject to conditions which have been listed later in the report. 8.5 In light of the above, it is considered that the scheme represents sustainable development and should therefore be approved in the absence of an up to date development plan and a five year supply of housing. When assessing the application, it is not considered that there are any adverse impacts that would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF nor are there any specific policies within the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted. 9. Recommendation That this application be granted outline planning permission subject to the following conditions and the successful completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure onsite affordable provision. Conditions/Reason 01. Application for the approval of all reserved matters including Access, Layout, Appearance (including sample materials), Scale and Landscaping shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 02. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in general accordance with the following plans: 1. Location Plan, received 24 November 2014 2. Design & Access Statement, Signet Planning, November 2014 3. Flood Risk Assessment MD0887/rep/001 Rev A, M Design Reason: To ensure that the development as carried out does not significantly vary from the original proposal. 03. No development shall commence until a Highways and Site Management Statement for the duration of the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall provide for off the highway parking and manoeuvring of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; wheel washing and/or road cleaning facilities and the timing/routing of deliveries to the sites. The approved Statement shall be implemented and complied with during and for the life of the works associated with the development thereafter. Reason: In order to achieve a satisfactory form of development having regard to highway safety. 04. No development shall take place until a survey, including photographs, of the existing condition of the highway and footpaths in the vicinity of the site has been carried out and the results submitted to, and verified in writing by, the Local Planning

Authority. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use 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. 05. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until parking spaces have been provided within the curtilage of the site for each dwelling and visitor parking in line with Northumberland County Council parking Standards. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway. 06. The development hereby approved shall provide a turning area within the curtilage of the site in to accommodate refuse vehicles in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The turning area shall be used in accordance with the approved scheme thereafter. Reason: To enable vehicles to join the highway in a forward direction at all times, in the interests of highway safety. 07. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the new vehicular access (including a right turn lane, widening of the existing footway on the West of the A697 and new pedestrian links) to the site has been constructed 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 so as not cause significant danger and inconvenience to other road users. 08. Details of cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. These facilities shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. Reason:

To ensure that adequate provision is made for cyclists visiting the site.

09. No development shall take place until a dust management plan/method statement to mitigate the effects of any dust created during the earthworks construction and track-out phases on neighbouring premises. This dust action plan shall contain emergency contact telephone numbers in the event of a dust complaint being received and this plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity and surrounding premises. 10. No development shall commence until such time as a scheme for foul water disposal has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with Northumbrian Water. The scheme shall be fully

implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme thereafter. Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. 11. Prior to commencement of development a scheme to dispose surface water from the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in the NPPF and within the Planning Practice Guidance, the results of the assessment shall be provided to the local planning authority. This scheme shall: i. Limit discharge to 8.7 l/s to the tributary of the Paxtondean Burn at the south of the development site in all rainfall return periods up to and including the 1 in 100 year event, otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. ii. Provide attenuation on site for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 30 year event ensuring no flood water occurs on site. iii. Provide attenuation on site for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event, ensuring any flood water is kept on site and is safe. iv. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; v. include a timetable for its implementation; and vi. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Reason: To ensure the effective disposal of surface water from the development by not increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. 12. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a scheme to deal with any contamination of land or pollution of controlled waters has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and until the measures approved in that scheme have been implemented. The scheme shall include all of the following measures unless the Local Planning Authority dispenses with any such requirement in writing: a) As identified and recommended in the Preliminary Investigation Report, dated October 2014, a site investigation shall be carried out to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land contamination and/or pollution of controlled waters. It shall specifically include a risk assessment that adopts the Source-Pathway-Receptor principle, in order that any potential risks are adequately assessed taking into account the sites existing status and proposed new use. Two full copies of the site investigation and finding shall be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority without delay upon completion. b) Thereafter, a written method statement detailing the remediation requirements for the land contamination and/or pollution of controlled waters affecting the site shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and all requirements shall

be implemented and completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. No deviation shall be made from this scheme without express written approval from the Local Planning Authority. c) Two full copies of a full closure report shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall provide verification that the required works regarding contamination have been carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement(s). Post remediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the closure report to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Reason: To ensure that any contaminants within the site are dealt with in an appropriate manner to afford protection to the public, the buildings and the environment. 13. 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. 14. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of protective measures, which shall include a heavy membrane to be incorporated in the development hereby approved, or site evaluation and analysis assessing the likelihood of the production of stythe so as to demonstrate that the incorporation of a membrane is unnecessary, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to prevent any accumulation of oxygen deficient air which may potentially be prejudicial to the occupants of the premises. 15. Prior to the commencement of development, an assessment of noise emanating from road traffic noise upon the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measurement and assessments of road traffic noise shall be made using the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise 1988. Should the noise assessments indicate the need for additional works to mitigate noise from road traffic, then these works shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full prior to occupation of any dwellings. Reason: To ensure that the development is not detrimental to residential amenity. 16. Prior to the commencement of development, as assessment of sound emanating from the fixed plant upon the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measurement and assessments shall be made using The Rating and Assessing Industrial and Commercial Sound: BS4142:2014. Should the sound assessments indicate the need for additional works to mitigate sound for the fixed plant, then these works shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwellings.

Reason: To ensure that the development is not detrimental to residential amenity. 17. Prior to the commencement of development a topographical survey of the surviving ridge and furrow earthworks, a programme of archaeological recording in the northern part of the site in the vicinity of Trent 2 comprising the stripping of the area to the top of the archaeological deposits under archaeological supervision, and the subsequent sampling and recording of the remains encountered shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable a permanent record of the remains be stored on file. 18. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the installation of any permanent and temporary lighting on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be designed so that lighting levels are minimised in accordance with the document Bats and Lighting in the UK', Institute of Lighting Engineers and BCT, 2009. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the dwellings being occupied. Reason: To prevent the risk of harm to protected species. 19. No floodlighting shall be installed unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The floodlighting shall thereafter be installed and operated fully in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To retain control over floodlighting in the interests of visual amenity. 20. Prior to first occupation, details of all boundary treatment including walls and fences shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All boundary treatment shall be installed as approved thereafter. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 21. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of integrated bird boxes and integrated bat boxes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail the location, height, orientation, numbers and specification of bird nesting provision. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the dwellings being occupied. Reason: To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site. 22. Prior to the commencement of development a plan for the landscape planting and maintenance of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall detail the species and number of trees, hedgerows, shrubs and use only Northumberland native species. The plan shall include a species rich hedgerow with hedgerow trees at the eastern boundary of the site, sowing of a wildflower rich boundary grassland at the north western limit of the site and replanting of a continuous wildlife corridor comprising hedge and trees species adjacent to the site entrance at the western limit of the site. The scheme shall also detail tree, hedge and wildflower management measures for a period of not less than 10 years to ensure the successful establishment of vegetation. Once approved the plan shall be implemented in full during the first planting season (November - March inclusive) following the commencement of development.

Reason: To maintain and protect the landscape value of the area and to enhance the biodiversity value of the site. 23. Tree numbers 27, 30, 31 and tree group 3 shall be retained in accordance with the guidance set out in 'BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction: Recommendations' British Standards Institution, 2012. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the protection of the above trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved scheme thereafter. . Reason: To maintain and protect trees which may support protected species. 24. Notwithstanding the information contained within the Design and Access Statement, prior to the commencement of the development, full details of a scheme to minimise energy consumption shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall consist of energy from renewable or low carbon sources provided on-site, or an equivalent scheme that minimises carbon emissions through energy efficiency measures. The scheme shall be implemented as approved thereafter and in accordance with the approved timetable. Reason: To achieve environmental benefits. 25. 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 MondayFriday 0800 - 1800 and Saturday 0800-1300. Any repeatedly noisy activity at any time may render the developer liable to complaints which could result in an investigation into statutory nuisance. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

Date of Report: 20 May 2015 Background Papers: Planning application file(s) 14/03839/OUT

List and Comments of representations received:Name

Address

Summary of Comments

Mrs Lizzy Prescott

Braefoot Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UU

I wish to state my absolute objection to the proposed development of 55 houses. Such a development is totally disproportionate in a village the size of Longhorsley and would irrevocably destroy its traditional character. Longhorsley currently has a balance of older traditional steadings and more modern estate housing. Developments such as those proposed would totally overwhelm the original steadings including the listed Peel Tower, old school, vicarage and village farms. Longhorsley's characteris also dependent on the restricted village curtilage and the existing greenfield sites. Building on the open fields to the west of Whitegates, south of the East Road and north of Reivers Gate represents a wholly undesirable sprawl into our rural areas with associated light pollution, traffic issues and noise. Longhorsley is currently a delightful Northumbrian village but this would be lost if these developments are allowed to go ahead.

The Barns Felton Morpeth Northumberland NE65 9QG

I wish to object to the proposal on the basis that the access road will open out on to the highway at a dangerous position close to other access roads. Increasing the number of junctions will almost certainly increase the likelihood of accidents. Including the pub there will be 6 junctions over a short distance. The junction is on a gradient and due to the fact that the safety camera is sited at the proposed junction point there has obviously been concerns for safety raised at that point in the past. I disagree with the finding of the Road safety Survey. Trees will be removed in in a tree conservation area. The area is planned to be green belt. There will be increased dust and disturbance as a result of the development. It will have series impact on the adjacent properties providing loss of privacy and light.

Mr Philip Hantman

The increase number of dwellings in the village will put too great a pressure on the services of the village including the school which is already at capacity along with broadband. The village will be overdeveloped and will the proposal could potentially put more dwellings into the village than local SHLAA plans have allowed for. I have not seen any notices displayed about this proposal and was surprised to learn about it. I would suggest that if there are notices abut this publication they have either been removed or are not in a prominent position. Mrs Eleanor Ricalton

4 South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

I strongly object to the proposed erection of 55 dwellings on green field land south east of The Shoulder of Mutton Longhorsley for the following reasons: 1) An additional junction to the A697 with associated danger. 2) The removal of trees from within a conservation area which also has an impact on my 3rd and main objection. 3) The problem of global warming is a serious concern to us all. Mr Ban Ki-moon the esteemed Secretary-General of the United Nations, no less, has pleaded, no, demanded that we all reduce our carbon emissions by reducing the need to travel, this development does not meet that requirement. Permission has already been granted for 12 houses at the east of the village and this proposed development will result in a further 55, and potentially more, commuter journeys. More traffic, more carbon, more danger. Houses should only be built at, or near the places of work, Longhorsley is not such a place, for that reason alone, permission must be refused.

Mr And Mrs

Richard And Susan Cansdale

The Bakers Chest Hartburn Morpeth Northumberland NE61 4JB

Councilor Glen Sanderson has said "I don't think anyone objects to some new housing as this might be good for the village longer-term, but it has to be in the right place and of the right quality and quantity" I don't believe this is the best place for new homes in Longhorsley for several reasons. 1.The location is adjacent to, and on the wrong side of a busy trunk road which separates it from the rest of the village. Anyone wanting to walk or drive to the village, be it to the shop, school, village hall, sports facilities or churches, or visit residents in the village will need to cross a busy road. Particularly dangerous for children. 2. The fact screening has been included in the application proves that screening is necessary for two reasons! First, the site is alongside a main road so the development needs to be screened visually from the road. But just as important, the road needs to be screened from the development to minimize noise from the road. 3. Northumberland has wonderful wide open vistas, so new houses should whenever possible be sited where there is minimum visual impact , particularly when seen from the main roads. This is the principle behind Green Belt legislation. In this case the development significantly increases the visual impact of the village as seen from the A697 4. With most commuters travelling south to Morpeth and Tyneside, any new building at the northern extremity of Longhorsley will increase the traffic passing the rest of the village, and cause tailbacks as they turn into the estate through a new access. ALL these concerns would be addressed if the site was to be invisible from the main road, on the south western edge of the village and able to make use of a wide, safe existing access onto the A697. In my opinion Robsons Field, adjacent to

Whitegates, flagged by SCLAA as suitable and available development ticks all these boxes as a far more appropriate location for new homes. Re: Land South of the Shoulder of Mutton, Longhorsley14/03839/OUT Would you support a Planning Application which would physically divide Longhorsley Village by a busy trunk road if there was a better alternative? We wonder if anyone has flagged up the fact that if this planning application is approved, it will effectively create a village which is split in two by an already busy trunk road. Once the houses are built the residents will be pressing for a village by-pass to be constructed at public expense. We would like to draw your attention to a better alternative site which would not divide the village: Robsons Field (SHLAA 3529) to the west of and adjacent to, Whitegates Estate, is already capable, without alteration, of accommodating all the houses Longhorsley will be obliged to provide over the next 20 years, 1. without creating a divided village, 2. without the need for a new access onto the A697, 3. already having a safe public footpath directly to all the amenities in the village. 4. without compromising the purpose of the proposed Green Belt in that it will not bring Longhorsley any closer to an adjacent settlement which both these other proposed sites will. 5. Virtually invisible from the A697 without waiting 15 years for screening trees to grow. 6. without creating ribbon development as both these other sites would. Objection: With regard to the resubmission of Planning application 14/03839/OUT although an alternative access junction has been proposed onto the A697 further south

than the original location, that does not alter the fact that the proposed development will still physically divide the village and will necessitate the creation of yet another uneccessary access onto a busy trunk road, making 4 junctions within a few hundred yards in a relatively small settlement. This is not only dangerous but unacceptable given that there are other preferable sites adjacent to the west of the village which would not require an aditional junction being constructed. Mrs Kay Lister Hope House South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

I object strongly to the proposal for the following reasons. It will have a detrimental impact on the structure of St Helen¿s First School, Longhorsley. As a Deputy Headteacher with over 25 years teaching experience and a parent who has a child currently at St Helen¿s First School, I have major concerns over how an increase in pupil numbers will change what is a nurturing village school into an oversubscribed and over-crowded place of learning. The school has restricted space to accommodate even more children and it would affect the storage of resources needed to teach effectively and teacher /pupil morale and comfort. Above all this village changing proposal would undoubtedly change the learning capacity for its pupils and the real 'feel' of what is a village school, something which the children who currently live in the village deserve. The plan of the junction does not appear to show the Northumbrian Water manhole cover which is at the proposed new access. This may require resiting and is not mentioned as an issue in the utilities statement. The island refuge on the new pedestrian crossing is not sufficiently wide to accommodate a cycle or a pram without it overhanging onto the carriageway.

The development has not catered for the potential increase in cycling. The site layout has not included 3m wide shared paths and the existing footpath to the west of the development does not appear to be wide enough for both cyclists and pedestrians. Has a swept path analysis been provided indicating the safe ability of a refuse wagon to enter the right turn pocket into the development? A swept path should also be demonstrated for the refuse vehicle exiting the development site and turning right. Mrs Susan Etchells

Old School Cottage West Road Longhorsley Northumberland NE65 8UY

The Housing Policy document submitted as a Consultee Response to this planning application sets out circumstances in which development will be permitted outside of defined main towns and service centres. It concludes that if the criteria identified can be met by the development proposal, the principle of development should be supported. i. This development is outside the Longhorsley settlement boundary and can't be accommodated next to the settlement without impacting on its character. The proposed site is between a conservation area and a woodland area containing 8,000 oak, alder, birch and native shrubs. ii. This development is not of an appropriate scale for the size of the settlement. There are 288 homes in Longhorsley village and the first stage of this development alone would increase the village by 19%. iii. Although the development could help maintain local services, these local services have been misrepresented in the application. One example of this is the statement that high level of accessibility by existing bus services will ensure residents can access a wide range of services and facilities. The truth is, we have a regular bus that runs once an hour for 6 days a week with the last bus from Morpeth

leaving at 7:05pm. iv. The need for more housing in Longhorsley has not been established. The case for this application rests on the need for housing in Northumberland. It therefore does not meet any identified or defined social, economic or cultural need of the local community. v. It does not protect the countryside from widespread new development. In fact this development deliberately establishes a route into the remaining 42% of the SHLAA site 6795 so this can be developed at some time in the future. This development fails to meet any of the criteria identified for the application to be supported. Alan Etchells Old School Cottage West Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UY

Application Reference: 14/03839/OUT Address: Land South East Of The Shoulder Of Mutton Name: Alan Etchells Address: Old School Cottage, West Road, Longhorsley NE65 8UY Commentor type: Member of the public Stance: Object I strongly object to this application because it materially misrepresents the facts. Anyone reading the application would be led to believe that there was no reason to object to the application. The misrepresentations include: Sustainability The application represents Longhorsley as having easy access to the local transport network, jobs, shops and existing services within the settlement. (Planning Statement 2.3) It says that high level of accessibility by existing bus services will ensure residents can access a wide range of services and facilities. (Statement of Community Involvement 4.17) The facts are:

Transport: we have a bus that runs once an hour for 6 days a week with the last bus from Morpeth leaving at 7:05pm. We do not have "modes of transport other than the private car". Residents are not able to access a wide range of services and facilities. Jobs: Apart from the school and the pub the employers in the village are all small, family businesses. There is, therefore, virtually no opportunity for local employment and the limited bus services makes it difficult to commute to work except by car. Shops: We have a small village shop and a hairdressers. The Post Office outreach services fails to deliver a usable service in the 10hours a week that it is in the village hall. Services: The only services we have in the village are a first school, a pub and a garage. Housing Density The application says that the SHLAA states that the site could yield 66 units. (Planning Statement 4.32) The truth is that the application is to develop only 58% of the SHLAA site. SHLAA 6795 says 66 units in the full 10.9 acre site = 6 units/acre The proposal is for 55 units in 6.3 acres = 8.7 units/acre - 45% denser If the SHLAA site were to be developed at this density there would be 95 units rather than 66 units. Village Green The application says that almost all options for future growth in the village require the crossing of village green. (Statement of Community Involvement 4.10) The SHLAA identifies four sites for future growth adjacent to the village settlement boundary - SHLAA 3529, 3644, 3570 and 6795. In fact this is the only site requiring crossing of the village green. (Note: Bellway are considering developing 3529 with 3644, Cussins are considering

3570 and Signet Planning are proposing 6795 so, although there are four SHLAA sites, there are only three options for future growth. I have not included SHLAA 3420 in this list because it already has outline planning permission.) Green Belt The SHLAA says that delivery of this site is subject to the definition of Green Belt boundaries. The Core Strategy Full Draft Plan defines this site as being within the Green Belt. I could not find any reference to the Green Belt in this application. Tim Jones 5 Whitegates Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UJ

I know there are a number of planning applications in the pipeline for Longhorsley. I am sure part of those developments will look at a certain volume of affordable housing. We have no mains supply gas to the village, so heating costs are high via Oil/coal/LPG deliveries. Also we cannot get any dual fuel deals. Will any of these developments look to provide a mains gas supply to the sites involved? It would seem pointless providing affordable housing that is too expensive to heat so I hope that has been considered in any plans you have.

Mr Derek Knox Colli-Linn Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UU

I object to the development of the houses south of the Shoulder of Mutton becauseThe A697 is not wide enough to have a filter lane along with the island on the main road`There have been 2 deaths near the proposed entrance in the past when the traffic was lighter. The entrance would cross over an old footpath and common land, The entrance is only about 50 yards from a blind corner with large lorries possibly unable to stop if traffic was leaving the estate, There is about 30 houses for sale in the village

and the addition of another 55 just doesnt make sense Mr David Weakford

Ms Lynne Woodfine

3 Smallburn Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8QQ

I object to these proposals on the following grounds: Loss of green belt land and impact on the local ecology. If planning for this development is granted, it will set a precedence for future applications on green belt around the village. Increase in traffic on an already very busy stretch of road very near to other junctions and a blind bend in the road increasing potential safety issues.

The Neuk Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UP

I am writing to object to the planning application for up to 55 houses behind the shoulder of mutton. The A697 already has a great deal of traffic through this rural village, which despite a camera (which is occasionally live), often involves excess speed and traffic issues. There is major congestion around Drummonds Close during school transport times and peak shop use. A further estate directly off the A697 near the camera will lead to further traffic congestion, increased noise level & There is also the issue of loss of established mature trees which line the road, adding to the beautiful rural outlook of the village and offering wildlife areas. Although I do in principle support a small amount of new housing in the village to support the local economy and school the access from the A697 in the main thoroughfare, I feel is dangerous, the entrance should be further down away from the housing on the main road and nearer the entrance to Church view. I also strongly feel that any new housing should not be built close to existing period housing, here families have had privacy,. The closest housing should be a significant distance away, with perhaps woodland planted or left in situ so as not to physically impact on long established buildings

where families have lived happily for many years. There are very few facilities for local children adults and any new housing would need to increase local leisure facilities and school transport issues without damaging the beautiful rural village we live in. Mr Craig Whitehouse

Hillside South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

Poor access from A697 especially busy during commuter times, weekends and Bank holidays. This is a narrow part of the main road running through the village with blind bends at either end of the stretch of road. Obviously not monitored by the planners as any villager knows the danger along this stretch of road which is why there is a speed camera there. Access should be via the East Road if there is to be any development. Northumberland core strategy draft plan (4th stage consultation) suggests maximum 45 new houses for the whole parish over 20 years. As there also other houses planned in the village already this development alone far exceeds that number in the plan. If Northumberland planners want to make Longhorsley a dormitory town for Morpeth then perhaps they should also be planning a bypass for the village which would alleviate some of the issues raised. This development will take sometime to sell as existing properties in the village take a while now which means disruption along the main road for years to come with a very large building site stuck effectively right in the middle of the village. Please show some sort of consideration for existing villagers and seriously reduce this development or refuse the application.

22 Church View Badgers Ford Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UQ

I object mainly on safety grounds as the new junction would seem to be fraught with danger. Traffic thunders up and down the A697 all day long and I am most concerned that even allowing for the 30 mph limit at this stretch , as the junction is close to a blind bend , large

Mr Peter Blake

lorries and wagons will not be able to slow or stop in time particularly at those inevitable times when there will be tailbacks on the filter lane. There does not seem to be any mention of the access crossing public land and an old footpath down to the ruined church. If there has to be expansion to a village whose rural identity is being steadily eroded it should not be at this dangerous location. Mr Phil Souter The Nook Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UP

I object to the current plans on the grounds of road safety: 1. Road safety - the proposed junction is at a narrow part of the road immediately after a sharp turn and will likely prove an accident "black spot". 2. The island refuge on the new pedestrian crossing is not sufficiently wide to accommodate a cycle or a pram without it overhanging onto the carriageway. I don't understand why you would not put access further down the road, opposite Church View where the road is much wider and there is no bend immediately before the turn to get round these issues.

Mrs Joanne Souter The Nook Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UP

I object to the location of the entrance to the proposed development and the removal of the line of trees.

County Hall Road To County Hall Morpeth

A development of this size will have little impact on the ability of the local first school in Longhorsley and the feeder middle and high schools to accommodate children generated

Miss Linda Vernon

Northumberland NE61 2EF

by the new build.

1 Village Farm North Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UZ

I strongly object to this proposal for two headline reasons:

Mr Ross Forster

1) Government Ministers have recently revised the government¿s commitment to protect the green belt from development; opting instead to support proposals on brownfield sites with the view to using brownfield developments to address the UK shortage of housing stock. Given that HM Government is still looking at this policy I cannot see justifiable reason for commencing this, or any other Longhorsley development. 2) As the report clearly identifies, this site is on an area of archaeological interest. I consider that the review covers insignificant detail on the historical clues buried on the site which will be lost indefinately should housing development go ahead. There are unanswered questions on why the old church is located half a mile south of Longhorsley village. It is acknowledged that this Norman structure possibly replaced a wooden Saxon building (who in turn built on Roman remains whose presence is well documented in the locality). The evidence to this important question may lie within the site itself. Quick fix housing developments do not take precedence.

Dr Ajay Bedi Moor View South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

Dear Madam I write to strongly object to proposed development detailed above on the following grounds 1. Traffic/Access Implications: The intended increase in traffic that would be created by the development would stretch the density and

frequency of traffic flow to unacceptably high levels, with consequent risks to pedestrians and road users. In addition creating a vehicular access point at such a critical bend would, I propose, produce an enhanced risk for all concerned. There have been a number of accidents through the village over the years, including, as I understand it, fatalities. To further contribute to the danger to those who traverse Longhorsley is irresponsible in the extreme. 2. Overdevelopment of the Village. Longhorsley is a compact area of Northumberland that has the majority of residents centred on the "cross" created by the A697 and the East/West Roads. The suggested number of dwellings would create a surge of population too dense for the existing facilities within the village. What consideration has been given to the impact on the local school, for example? 3. Archaeological/Conservation Concerns. The impact of the proposed development on the greenbelt surrounding the village is contrary to the direction of travel outlined in government strategy. The erosion of the asthetic aspects of the village combined with the impact on local wildwife would be considerable. Furthermore, the pejorative effect on the vista of the significant number of existing properties suggests a lack of care and concern for existing residents. There are many other villagers with a greater knowledge of the architectural value of some aspects of the proposed site however my understanding is that the proposed dwellings would risk an area of historical interest and therefore the heritage of Northumberland Yours Faithfully Dr Ajay Bedi MB.BCh.BAO.DipMH.MSc(GP Ed). MRCGP Dear Sir/Madam I write to register my objection to the amended

plans in respect of the above application. I would refer the reader of this correspondence to my objections in respect of the original submission, in particular with regard to the traffic risks associated with the proposed entry to the planned development. None of the risks I have highlighted previously are in any way mitigated by the the southern access to the site which is at a point of existing danger to the public and road users alike. A Southerly access merely moves the significant risks to a different point within the village and does not ease my concerns in any manner. Indeed, I would propose that the risks are increased given the vehicular access to Church View and Whitegates which would be in close proximity to the proposed access point. The combination of the extremely short distance northerly flowing traffic has between the bend at the southern end of the village(just prior to the 30mph sign), the traffic entering and exiting the aforementioned estates AND the proposed access point, would add to the complexity of cross flow with unacceptable risks to the public and road users alike. Such intense traffic flow in different directions over such a small section of carriageway is, in my view, a potentially lethal combination and as a member of the public, a resident and indeed a physician who has seen the human consequences of ill conceived road placement I must register my resistance to this planned development in the strongest possible manner. Yours Sincerely Dr Ajay Bedi Mrs Imelda Marshall

Badgers Ford House Church View Badgers Ford Longhorsley

I live in Longhorsley and my objection is based on the number of houses planned. Given the strategy this is a large number of houses within the small village area and would appear that Longhorsley is taking on an inappropriate

Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UQ

level of new housing within Northumberland. In addition I am concerned regarding the personal impact on the village. The additional traffic within the village with the increase in noise and potential risk to others on top of the current volume would be significant. I also have concerns regarding the siting of the entrance onto the main road and the difficulty with visibility as the entrance will be sited in between two difficult bends in the road. On an observation level I am not convinced there is a market for houses in the area. There are a number of houses within the village that remain for sale for a significant period of time, which would suggest there is not a local demand. Additional housing could therefore have a significant impact upon local house prices perhaps placing people into negative equity and affect people's ability to move. I remain unconvinced of the need for these additional houses and consider the large size of the project will have an adverse effect upon the village. I recognise the value of some additional building within the village and would welcome smaller developments within key areas across the whole village, such as the development at Normandy Terrace. Having examined the new proposed location for access onto the A697 the junction continues to pose difficulties with poor vision of oncoming traffic travelling south through the village. The proposed junction would be only a matter of metres down from a significant curve in the road resulting in an effective blind bend. I would also note that the proposed exit is alongside the bus stops used by the village children for both the middle and high schools potentially increasing traffic risk to children crossing at peak travel times. I would suggest that the proposed new junction does not solve the objections raised with regards to access noted with the original plan.

The Shieling

I write with reference to the above Planning

Mr Alan R Pagan

East Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8SY

application which I object to as there are several matters about which I am concerned. Longhorsley is situated in rural Northumberland and the proposed development will have a significant effect on the conservation areas close to the village. I feel that the Size and position of this development is inappropriate. From my long association with the village I am aware that there is a main power cable supplying part of the village which is underground and passes through the site. There appears to be no mention of this in the proposal There will of course be an increase in traffic from the proposed development. The proposed entrance to this development is of major concern. If the audit survey had taken place at peak times then this would have shown entirely different figures. In addition, in the afternoons when the schools are finishing there is a significant amount of traffic in and around the village when parents are collection the children. The proposed entrance is situated on a very narrow and busy road through the village which will require the removal of trees and shrubbery to allow access to the site. The A697 is a major road through Northumberland and the daily volume of traffic includes large vehicles and buses which frequently have difficulties negotiating this section of the road in Longhorsley. I am aware that the draft core strategy for Northumberland is aimed at protecting the county from wide spread new development and that this site is within the proposed extension of the green belt. This proposed development could lead to

Longhorsley no longer being a rural village which is part of its history and why many of the residents choose to live there. Ms Sally Atchison Whincot South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

I should like to register my strong objection to the revised road access to this proposed site and to the housing themselves. Firstly: The newly proposed site access is to be located just past a corner situated on a small brow of a hill (for south bound traffic) and is also currently the area where all southbound traffic speeds up as they have passed the speed camera! There is already a junction with a filter to Church View and if this new proposed junction were to go ahead it would make the road more a kin to the large housing estate developments in town, and spoil the ethos of Longhorsley village. Add to this the amount of standing traffic trying to both turn into the new estate and Church View will, I believe, create a significant danger to the public. Secondly: The proposal of 55 houses I believe is too many - and will significantly change the character of the village. Thirdly: I dispute the findings in the Traffic survey, to carry out such a thing and not consider peak times and weekend traffic is wrong and therefore you can not possibly take it seriously. The traffic through Longhorsley is already considerable with many hgv lorries using the A697 rather than the A1 and from 6.30 am onwards there is a constant stream of traffic. I should like to register my strong objection to the revised road access to this proposed site and to the housing themselves. Firstly: The newly proposed site access is to be located just past a corner situated on a small brow of a hill (for south bound traffic) and is also currently the area where all southbound traffic speeds up as they have passed the speed camera! There is already a junction with a filter to Church View and if this new proposed junction were to go ahead it

would make the road more a kin to the large housing estate developments in town, and spoil the ethos of Longhorsley village. Add to this the amount of standing traffic trying to both turn into the new estate and Church View will, I believe, create a significant danger to the public. Secondly: The proposal of 55 houses I believe is too many - and will significantly change the character of the village. Thirdly: I dispute the findings in the Traffic survey, to carry out such a thing and not consider peak times and weekend traffic is wrong and therefore you can not possibly take it seriously. The traffic through Longhorsley is already considerable with many hgv lorries using the A697 rather than the A1 and from 6.30 am onwards there is a constant stream of traffic. Mrs Judy Whitehouse

Mr Simon Lewthwaite

Hillside South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO THE POSITIONING OF THE ACCESS TO THIS PROPOSED SITE. THE A697 IS A VERY BUSY ROAD,WHICH OFTEN TAKES DIVERTED TRAFFIC FROM THE A1.ACCESS TO THIS ROAD FOR THE PRESENT RESIDENTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH ROAD IS OFTEN DIFFICULT AND IF, FIRSTLYCONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND THEN RESIDENTS FROM 55 HOUSES WERE TO APPROACH FROM THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD THIS WOULD BE BE VERY DANGEROUS.ALTHOUGH THE ACESS IS WITHIN THE 30M.P.H.RESTRICTION ,DRIVERS OFTEN SPEED THROUGH THE VILLAGE AND THE HAZARD OF TRAFFIC TURNING RIGHT SO CLOSE TO A BLIND CORNER IN FRONT OF SPEEDING TRAFFIC WOULD CERTAINLY BE DANGEROUS!

Dawn Cottage South Road Longhorsley

I object to this plan primarily on the safety aspect:

Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

The road safety audit was conducted over a short period of time during a low traffic phase, physical measurements were not accurately taken or considered. The proposed situation for both intersection and roadside/curbside dimensions do not take into account current national guidelines. For example, the width of adjacent pedestrian pavements and the distance of line of sight., also the distance to signage etc.. The proposed intersection would be directly opposite residential properties, and will significantly reduce safe access to these properties, which includes disabled access, a legal consideration of any planning development, a legal consideration which seems to have been omitted. More suitable, and safer locations can be found further south along the A697, away from residential properties by modifying existing intersections, or along the East Road, away from busy A roads. I suspect the decision is being based on cost and expediency rather than safety or consideration. More generally my objection also covers the following: There are no noticeable notices posted. The number of houses is disproportionate for the village, as outlined in the SHLAA. The development would proceed prior to the identified timeline in the SHLAA. The developers appear to be rushing to avoid any issues with building on a greenbelt. The developers do not seem to mind removing (not trimming) established trees from a conservation area. The developers have not determined if the plan is located on the village green. The developers have not effectively determined what archaeological resources may be destroyed by building on a site of archaeological interest. The developers have produced a proposal

which is poorly written, contains omissions, contains errors, and overall reinforces the notion that the plan is being rushed for money and expediency, not for good, let alone best, practice, and certainly not with consideration. Mr William Ricalton

4 South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

Re my comments dated 5th Dec. Objection 3 on line 3 the measurement should read 790mm NOT 79mm as written. I wish to object to the proposed development on the land to the south east of the Shoulder of Mutton Longhorsley for the following reasons:

1) Within the comparatively short distance, that the A697 traverses the village of Longhorsley, there are presently SIX junctions where traffic exits and joins the main carriageway. To add another, in my opinion, is foolhardy in the extreme. 2) In my lifetime there have been numerous accidents on the short stretch of South Road, mainly of a minor nature, However, regretfully, there have been of two fatalities, and only two weeks ago a tyre came off a HGV, thankfully narrowly missing a pedestrian, consequently instead of a fatality it was yet another unreported incident. 3) Surprisingly the Road Safety Audit undertaken by consultants failed to mention the pavement on the west side of the A697. Directly opposite the proposed site entrance, it is only 1123mm wide and just to the south of it, only 79mm wide. Set against the Department of Transport guideline of a 2000mm minimum width, it most surely can not be considered adequate, or safe, for

pedestrians presently negotiating the path. The increased danger is clearly obvious to a lay man, as they attempt to squeeze three lanes into the space available, however apparently not by highly qualified consultants, but then they, by their own admission, only spent 25 minutes on site. 4) On the east side of the road is an ancient path which leads to the old church and the current cemetery. The path possibly dates from the time the church was built over 700 years ago. It is certainly mentioned in the Wardens Book of 1737 and again in 1826 when Mr C W Bigge of Linden paid for its repair. It is no longer used having been eroded by traffic over the years and with a street light, a telegraph pole and a speed camera erected on it, use is no longer possible. Again I am surprised that highly qualified consultants made no mention of it in their report. It could still may be of archaeological value despite its previous misuse. I object most strongly to the development for the following reasons. The plan proposes, with both the north and south entrances, that access be made over registered village green, resulting in the loss of wild life habitat and the destruction of a causeway which leads to the old Parish Church and is possibly 800 years old. This is, most assuredly, not in the public interest for this work to be undertaken May I respectfully draw your attention to the following? 1) The public interest is defined at sections 16(8) and 39(2) of the 2006 Commons Act ¿as including the public interest in nature conservation, the conservation of the landscape and the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest¿

2) The Defra ¿Common Land Consents¿ Policy Guidance of July 2009 Section 4.10 ¿ The Secretary of State generally has no power to grant consent to construct or improve a driveway across town or village green, and construction and subsequent use of such a driveway may be illegal¿

Mrs A Brannan Meadow View West Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UY

Position of single point of access onto A697 for this no. of dwellings is inappropriate. Bend in the road restricts visibility to on-coming traffic from north. A697 is well-used by heavy vehicles & transporters; traffic is constant throughout the day & is busier morning/early evening. It is already difficult to get onto it from East Road and West Road & additional motorists will compound problem. 55 dwellings is a considerable number when added to the proposed 33 near Reivers Gate. It is questionable whether village infrastructure will support such an influx of inhabitants and cars. Schooling, facilities, parking, access are already stretched to limits. A697 is a trunk route to the north & Scotland. Proposed dualling of A1 just agreed, is likely to mean more traffic on A697 as motorists and transportation use it as an alternative route to avoid roadworks. Side roads off A697 are little more than lanes & are in a parlous state. More motorists are likely to resort to using them to avoid congestion on main roads, & for easier access to A1/Morpeth, causing the lanes to become more dangerous & worsen their condition.

Beeswing Cottage East Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland

I write in response to the planning application 14/03839/OUT. There are a number of concerns regarding the application as it stands and as such I object on the basis of the following material considerations. 1) Effect on the character of the

Mr Ian Pagan

NE65 8SY

neighbourhood As the applicants have identified, the site lies close to a number of environmentally significant sites, specifically Longhorsley Moor, the conservation area already designated in the village, and ancient woodland. In particular, the proposed development directly borders the conservation area and has the potential to adversely contrast with the heritage character and appearance of this area. In line with the strategic objective for Northumberland outlined in the draft core strategy, "Protecting and enhancing Northumberland's distinctive and valued natural, historic and built environment" (p30), Longhorsley contributes value in terms of its history and natural beauty as a village and the development of a large estate as proposed threatens this value. 2) Issues of density There are discrepancies in the reports provided by the applicants as to the number of units, with some documents referring to 'up to 50' and others referring to 55. These numbers are disproportionate to the existing nature and character of our neighbourhood. In addition, the numbers of housing proposed for Northumberland in the draft core strategy would suggest that the proposed density for Longhorsley would be disproportionate in relation to these overall numbers. The strategic objective of the draft core strategy to "provid[e] everyone with access to a decent, affordable home" (p29) sets out key outcomes including the focus of new housing development to be in main towns and service areas, and for the level of development in smaller settlements to be proportionate to the size of the settlement/appropriate to character (p29) - this proposed development does not seem to fit either of these outcomes. 3) Utilities Although the Northern Power Grid map was described as 'vague', there is an undisclosed main power cable affected by the site that serves a large part of the village. From a pole

receiving overhead lines, it currently crosses the site underground to a substation adjacent to the Shoulder of Mutton. This does not seem to have been taken into account. 4) Traffic generation There are discrepancies in the reports as to the number of vehicular movements per peak hour, with one stating 28-30 movements and one stating 20 per peak hour. The Road Safety audit was conducted for 25 minutes at non-peak time (12.45-13.10) on a single day (where peak times have been defined in a report as being 08.00-09.00 and 17.00-18.00) so it is difficult to know how they have made accurate assessments of safety on this basis. It is of note that there is a significant amount of traffic in the village centre between 15.30 and 16.30 because of children returning on school buses and being picked up by taxis and/or parents. This does not seem to have been taken into account. 5) Nature conservation Although the documentation accounts for some bushes and trees to be cut back to provide appropriate visibility splay, this minimises the actual impact of the proposed access to the site. A significant number of mature trees and hedgerow material will have to be removed along the entrance landscape corridor to the village in order to allow for the proposed access road to be built. There is a heritage walkway which will also be affected by this access. Given the aforementioned contribution of value in terms of its history and natural beauty as a village, such removal of quality, mature landscape material again conflicts with the strategic objective for Northumberland. 6) Green Belt According to the draft core strategy for Northumberland, this site falls within the proposed extension of the green belt (p119 map). It is understood that this has implications for any building, particularly given the commitment outlined in the draft core strategy to "protec[t] the countryside from

widespread new development" (p38). Application shows no regard for the need, stated in section 3.1 of the Design and Access statement of the proposal, to protect the residential amenity of adjoining properties. The proposal as it stands would cause a serious and unacceptable loss of privacy and residential amenity of all the houses and gardens bordering the development. Despite the revisions to the plans regarding access, there is still no account taken of the proximity to the conservation area. The size of proposed development is also still disproportionate to sustainable village development. As such, much of my previous objection still stands. Mr Andrew Lister Hope House South Road Longhorsley Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

I would like to object to this proposed development on the following grounds: o The proposal to build on green belt land in contravention of national policy o The proposal to put an additional junction onto the A697 which will increase the likelihood of road accidents o Inadequate specification of the junction and road modifications for the road conditions in the village o Increased danger to pedestrians including school children who use the pavement to get to bus stops at both ends of the village o Lack of consideration of existing access to the A697 in the vicinity of the proposed junction o The loss of privacy to my property from the proposed road junction o The loss of privacy to my property from the building of 2 or greater storey properties on elevated ground overlooking the front of my property o The loss of trees in a tree conservation area o The impact on wildlife from the loss of trees and shrubs to the proposed junction o The loss of the speed camera

o The impact of the development on community infrastructure o The impact of the development on ground water run off o The overdevelopment of the site o The impact on the village school of potential overcrowding o Inadequate consultation on the outline planning proposal both in terms of notice of the proposals and the quality of the documents submitted The application is riddled with inaccuracies and omissions which either suggest an ill thought out proposal or an attempt to mislead residents and decision makers. It describes trimming of trees when it can be seen that to achieve the inadequate visibility splays for the plans of the proposed junction around 12 trees will be removed. Examples also include the lack of parking place numbers in the main application. Anyone who knows the village appreciates that parking is an issue as evidenced by the no waiting restrictions around the school and the frequency of discussions about parking on the East road and Drummonds close at Parish council meetings including increased enforcement by police. The lack of hectare numbers on page 6 and 14 of the design and access statement. The lack of parking space numbers on page 21 of the transport statement which is headed up as relating to 50 dwellings when 55 dwellings are mentioned elsewhere. The lack of content in the road safety audit which relies entirely on very recent accident history. Why does the area around the proposed junction have slow sign markings on the road surface, a pelican crossing and a speed camera if road safety was not perceived to be an issue. NCC has obviously listened to resident concerns and invested in these safety schemes to prevent the very accidents which might otherwise have shown up in this flimsy report. My main concern is the proposed junction onto

the A697 which the applicant is asking for a decision in principle, i.e. not just outline consent. A decision cannot be taken in favour of this based on the inadequate proposal put forward. The A697 was recently a trunk road and therefore road improvements should bear in mind the standards for trunk road junctions i.e. they should be at the upper end of specification. The A697 already has high traffic flows of car and lorries. These are likely to be increased over the next few years as the A697 will be used as alternate route whilst the A1 undergoes upgrading. This is particularly a problem from vehicles unfamiliar with the route drive through the village at excess speed not expecting pedestrian crossings and junctions. If travelling from London to Edinburgh Longhorsley will be the first urban area travelled through. Traffic from the South used to travelling at the national speed limit (or above) finds it difficult to travel through the village at 30mph. Vehicles from the North will have just completed one of the few straight stretches of road on the A697 where overtaking is possible and having negotiated the sharp bend will immediately be upon the proposed junction. Road literature (DMRB) suggests that to minimise accidents the number of junctions should be minimised. There should not be a new junction for this development it should utilise the existing access to the field on the East Road in accordance with NCC policy. Failing that access should be opposite Church view where there is an existing junction. The proposed junction takes no account of existing access onto the A697 from neighbouring properties or those on the opposite side of the road. Some of the drawings submitted fade out these accesses. The vehicle access for Hope House and Dawn Cottage to the South of the proposed junction will struggle to turn right if vehicles are exiting the proposed junction or left if there is traffic turning right into the new junction. There are

additional concerns over access in relation to Dawn cottage due to the requirements for pick up and drop off of their disabled child by adapted transport to get him to and from school etc. Similarly access onto the A697 will be made more difficult for 4 South Road which will have a new traffic island to negotiate as well as traffic entering and exiting the new junction. It is not clear from the plans if the proposed junction has visibility of the access from 4 South Road. Traffic from the Shoulder of Mutton will also have visibility issues in relation to the proposed junction. The Shoulder of Mutton is used by parents at the beginning and end of the school day as part of St Helen's First School school's traffic Management plan. Traffic peaks exiting the proposed junction are likely to coincide with the busiest time of the day for the Shoulder of Mutton car park. Increasing complexity of the road is also therefore likely to be a concern for parents of children using this route which was put in place due to the parking issues within the village. The proposed junction's plans appear to omit the road sign which is adjacent to the proposed new pedestrian crossing point. Again national policy suggests complexity such as signage at a junction can confuse motorists increasing the likelihood of accidents. There should not be obstructions to sight distance from street furniture such as street signs. The street sign indicating a crossroad would fall into this category. Traffic should be able to see any potential hazard and slow down or stop before reaching it. This requires a direct line of sight for the desirable minimum stopping distance. The plans for the proposed junction appear to show that 70m line of sight is just possible which equates to 40kph. It is not clear if the gradient of the road has been included in this assessment of line of sight. The road is on a hill. I can see no reference to the gradient of the road in the proposed junction. Again

national policy points to the problems that gradient poses to modifications to the road network. The gradient should be taken into account along with all the other issues in determining if the visibility, lines of sight and effective stopping distances have been adequately mitigated in the proposed development. A driveabililty check should have been performed to perform a visibility check from a drivers eye view. I feel that the assessment of the road at 40kph (24.9mph) is unrealistic based on current experience and the safety measures put in place precisely because of excess speed through the village. My assessment of the plans of the junction are that a 90m visibility splay is not possible to the corner to the north and possibly not even to the bend to the south. A 90m visibility is required for desirable stopping distances for 60kph i.e. 37mph. Vehicles can frequently be observed travelling at these speeds and above. The proposed filter lane will also require traffic from both directions to have line of sight to achieve the minimum stopping distance. We do not want cars to be surprised to find stopped vehicles as they round the bends from either direction. The proposed plans do not appear to demonstrate this line of sight is achievable and again the gradient should be accounted for in considering this aspect of the proposal. Has the context of the adjacent links and junctions and accesses been adequately compensated for in the proposed plans. In my opinion they have not. They are not referenced and are ignored as far as possible in the plans. The omissions of some of the details and the lack of discussion of some of these issues suggest to me that the proposed junction does not fit the required standards particularly if the former status of the road as a trunk road and the current prevalent speed of traffic are included in considerations.

The existing pavement is already narrow on the west side of South road without any potential loss to widen the road or increased possibility of encroachment from cars trying to negotiate the narrowing of the road proposed in the plans. As well as my concerns over the safety of the proposed junction there is no doubt that it will lead to a serious loss of privacy. Placing a junction opposite the front of our property which will look directly into our front rooms from an elevated position is an unacceptable loss of privacy. There is insufficient garden to the front of the house to plant a screen of hedge or shrubs without serious loss of light to these front rooms. The proposal to build multi-storied properties at an elevated position opposite the front of our house will also lead to loss of privacy. The field opposite is on a bank overlooking the front of our house which should not be exacerbated by multi storey properties, particularly if the screen of trees has been removed to make way for a new junction. The removal of trees for the proposed junction is also an objectionable proposal. These trees are used by wildlife such as barn owls and wrens. Hen harriers and deer are visitors to the site of the proposed development. The trees are in a tree conservation area despite what is said on page 6 of the design and access statement submitted. The proposed junction would remove - not trim around 12 well established trees as well as shrub life which abounds with berries to tide wildlife over through the winter months. Why has no tree survey been included when section 15 of the application form refers to the usual requirement for one in cases such as this? The proposed junction would also require resiting the telephone connection to my property from the telegraph pole within the site of the proposed junction. Again I can see no mention of this in the utilities section of the plans.

The junction would also remove the speed camera. Is there any other location in the village or nearby which would be suitable for resiting this feature which observably reduces traffic speeds? In addition to concerns over the proposed junction there are also concerns over the extent of the proposed development which is over development of the site and the village. The proposals are vague on the scale of the development but the number of dwellings per hectare appears to exceed those anticipated in the SHLAA. Local plans for housing suggested 45 properties over the next 20 years for this area. This development would exceed those plans in one fail swoop. The village school is already oversubscribed in many year groups and one fears for other communal infrastructure such as broadband and sewerage. The electricity for the village can already be inconsistent with bulb failures a feature of life. There has to be a concern that surface water from the development will flow onto the South Road which already can resemble a river at times of high rainfall. There are no gullies on the east side of the road which suggests streams of water crossing the road which will create a further driving hazard as a direct result of the proposed development and in particular the proposed junction. I have concerns over the lack of awareness by residents to this consultation window on the proposed development. It is procedure for notices to be placed adjacent to property where a planning application is being considered. The site notice was placed on the East Road dated the 10th of December. This was the day that the Parish Council met to consider the proposal so it is no surprise that they had not had many representations at this stage. The proposal is named land to south East of Shoulder of Mutton and yet the site notice is not in this area but along the East Road. Should the posting not be in the area opposite

the proposed junction which would experience the most impact from these proposals. It is perfectly possible that many of the Longhorsley residents who walk or drive up the South Road are unaware that this development is undergoing consideration for outline planning consent and detailed consent of the junction proposals. The lack of local detail in many of the documents which appear to be cut and pasted from other development proposals suggest a lack of regard for the local residents and their concerns. It is NCC policy that the area covered by the development should be Green Belt land. National policy since October 2014 is for a presumption against housing development on green belt land. Eric Pickles the Secretary of State for Department of Communities and Local Government said: "This government has been very clear that when planning for new buildings, protecting our precious green belt must be paramount. Local people don't want to lose their countryside to urban sprawl, or see the vital green lungs around their towns and cities to unnecessary development." In this instance I echo his sentiments and have serious concerns over the proposed development and wish my concerns to be taken into consideration in deciding the outcome of this planning application. I would like to object to this proposed development on the following grounds: ¿ The proposal to build on green belt land in contravention of national policy ¿ The proposal to put an additional junction onto the A697 which will increase the likelihood of road accidents ¿ Inadequate specification of the junction and road modifications for the road conditions in the village ¿ Increased danger to pedestrians including school children who use the pavement to get to bus stops at both ends of the village

¿ Lack of consideration of existing access to the A697 in the vicinity of the proposed junction ¿ The loss of privacy to my property from the proposed road junction ¿ The loss of privacy to my property from the building of 2 or greater storey properties on elevated ground overlooking the front of my property ¿ The loss of trees in a tree conservation area ¿ The impact on wildlife from the loss of trees and shrubs to the proposed junction ¿ The loss of the speed camera ¿ The impact of the development on community infrastructure ¿ The impact of the development on ground water run off ¿ The overdevelopment of the site ¿ The impact on the village school of potential overcrowding ¿ Inadequate consultation on the outline planning proposal both in terms of notice of the proposals and the quality of the documents submitted The visibility requirements for the proposed junction are not feasible. The current plans do not take account of existing access from neighbouring properties. The visibility requirements arising from gradient. The visibility requirements for the filter lane and traffic island. The prevailing speed of traffic. The application is riddled with inaccuracies and omissions which either suggest an ill thought out proposal or an attempt to mislead residents and decision makers. e.g. It describes trimming of trees when around 12 trees will be removed. More detailed comments are being forwarded by email. The alterations to the proposals for this development do not alter my earlier comments. Policy guidance for housing developments is

to utilise existing entrances. The existing entrance to this site is from the West Road. The alternative junction put forward in the revised proposal still adds a junction onto the busy A697. The proposals still represent over development of the rural village of Longhorsley. Officers own advice demonstrates that the proposal is at the outer envelope of development that would be allowed for the village. There are increasing doubts that the Draft Core Strategy upon which the Officer advice is based is realistic. The plans for Durham County Council were rejected by the planning inspectorate for containing over-ambitious forecasts for economic development. Without the projected growth the scale of housing development in their plans was too great. Northumberland has used similar models for economic growth and required housing development in developing its draft plans. It is therefore likely that the growth expectations and level of housing required will be scaled back in the final plan for it to be acceptable to the planning inspectorate. Northumberland's Local Plans should have already been in place. It would be wrong to over-develop Longhorsley through agreeing to this application based on a flawed draft Core Strategy. Such action would compound the failings of Officers and Members in not putting robust Local Plans in place upon which a coherent planning policy could be assessed based on realistic growth and housing need forecasts within the timescales suggested by DCLG.

Mrs Sarah Lowrie Rest Harrow East Road Longhorsley

I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in Longhorsley

Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8SY

3, Overlooking. The indicative layout in the application would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy and residential amenity to all the houses and gardens along the northern and north western boundary of the development. Our house, Rest Harrow, would have, according to the indicative layout, 4 two storey houses close along the Southern boundary, and two more to the East side.. The placing of overlooking windows along the Southern boundary would cause a total loss of privacy, and a significant loss of residential amenity. This applies to most of the homes along our lane. Following the community involvement process the developer has attempted to reduce this problem, by restricting buildings to single storey along the northern edge of the development. However this has been done in a way which is so badly worded and contradictory that it is not clear what the developer means. On the statement of community involvement at section 4.13, it states that the layout is not restricted to single storey buildings on the north side of the development. In the Design Code on page 8, it says that it is restricted to single storey.. These paragraphs conflict and need clarified. The layout diagram which accompanies this paragraph (page 8, design code) shows buildings backing onto the lane to Rest Harrow as 2 storey buildings, which conflicts with the text above it. The paragraph in the Design Code (page 8) refers to houses ¿backing onto East Road¿. There are no houses in this development that can back onto East Road, so this part of the design code is unclear. If they had said houses along the Northern boundary of the

site, it would be clearer, and have improved the situation for Hope House and Dawn Cottage also. We request that it be made a clear condition of any consent that is granted, that houses along the northern edge of the development be restricted to single storey. To Judith Murphy, Northumberland County Council. From Sarah Lowrie, Rest Harrow, Longhorsley I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in Longhorsley 1, The application is for too many houses at too high a density. 55 houses are too many for the proposed area. The SHLAA site assessment recognises the site as being feasible for 66 houses, but only half of the SHLAA site area is being proposed for development at this stage. 55 houses is too high an increase for the village. The pro-rata increase for housing in Longhorsley based on the core strategy housing numbers for Northumberland, is around 45 over the life of the plan. We already have 12 approved. More than 33 homes, therefore, would increase the size of the village more than the rate expected over the county. Longhorsley is not a service centre, therefore should not have a bigger rate of population increase than the county as a whole. The excessively high density creates too high an impact on the adjacent conservation area to the North and Northwest of the site. On the indicative layout the density of housing is highest along the North of the site, with a virtual wall of houses up against the conservation area.

2, Loss of Trees The application proposes the removal of about 12 trees that are protected because they are inside the conservation area. This will have a major negative impact on the character of the conservation area of the village. The ecology survey at section 21 states that no trees will be removed for the development or its access. This is a significant error that invalidates this report which was required by NCC. Following the Public Consultation changes were made to the indicative layout to reduce the harm caused to a protected tree in our garden (SE corner of Rest Harrow). These changes have been erratically applied across the application, with some of the plans showing the modified version, and some showing the original version. Design and Access statement section 2.14 shows the unmodified version; Pages 8 and 9 of the Design Code have conflicting versions. The developer's intentions are not clear. A tree survey is referred to in the application, but is not on the website. 3, Overlooking. The indicative layout in the application would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy and residential amenity to all the houses and gardens along the northern and north western boundary of the development. Constraint 3.1 in the design and access statement has not been achieved. Our house, Rest Harrow, would have, according to the indicative layout, 4 two storey houses close along the Southern boundary, and two more to the East side. Because the houses along our lane are directly adjacent the

right of way to the North, all main rooms and windows face the South. The placing of overlooking windows along the Southern boundary would cause a total loss of privacy, and a significant loss of residential amenity. This applies to most of the homes along our lane. Following the community involvement process the developer may have attempted to reduce this problem, by restricting buildings to single storey along the northern edge of the development. However this has been done in a way which is so badly worded and contradictory that it is not clear what the developer means. On the statement of community involvement at section 4.13, it states that the layout is not restricted to single storey buildings on the north side of the development. In the Design Code on page 8, it says that it is restricted. These paragraphs conflict and need to be clarified. The layout diagram which accompanies this paragraph (page 8, design code) shows buildings backing onto the lane to Rest Harrow as 2 storey buildings, which conflicts with the text above it. The last paragraph in the Design Code on page 8, refers to houses 'backing onto East Road'. No houses in this development can back onto East Road, so this part of the design code is unclear. If they had said houses along the Northern boundary of the site, or houses within 15m of the northern boundary, it would be clearer, and have improved the situation for Hope House and Dawn Cottage also. There is also potential for rearranging the layout to place the open ground component to the north, to reduce the impact on adjacent homes, and reduce the impact on the conservation area. We request that it be made a clear condition of any consent that is granted, that houses along

the northern edge of the development be restricted to single storey. 4, Consultation The Design Code and Ecology Statements are not available on the website. This denies people who have no access to the paper copies the opportunity to point out the errors within them. Apart from the mail out to directly adjoining properties, there was inadequate notification of the application. No forms were displayed until 10th December, and this was in completely the wrong location, on East Road, not South Road. Many people will be unaware that this application has been formally submitted. At 3.9 in the Statement of Community Involvement it is unjustified to claim that those who didn't come either support or have no opinion on the development. There are many reasons why people don't come to events, and it can't be assumed that they support the proposal. At 4.2 in the Statement of Community Involvement twice as many respondents objected to the proposal than supported it. The remaining 32% are in effect objections if their concern has not been addressed. At 4.10 in the Statement of Community Involvement it states that all options for the expansion of the village involve crossing village green land. This is a factual error as the large SHLAA sites 3570 and 3529 do not. 5, Junction The junction design proposed is not the best option for the site, access to east road is available to the applicant, and would be better. Alternatively access near the bus stop opposite Church View would be less

problematic. The footpath along South Road is extremely narrow. Cars waiting in the centre lane to turn right into the new estate will force North going traffic to be even closer to pedestrians on the narrow path. The extra hazard this junction creates means the footpath should be widened. The road safety audit is inadequate. Section 1.1.3 states that no attempt has been made to the appropriateness of the design or to carry out a design check. This should be done. At section 1.4.2, it uses a 20 vehicle per hour figure which is taken from the developer and is likely wrong. In the Transport Statement page 4, paragraph x, a figure of 30 per hour is given. Given that the development only covers half of the SHLAA site, the junction should have been designed for twice as many vehicles. It is inconceivable that it would be remodelled when the development is extended. At section 1.7.2 in the Road Safety Audit, it refers to road safety reservations held by the assessor which have not been made public. There is no assessment of the additional hazard caused by the bank down to the A697. The junction will be on a significant down slope. Estate roads are rarely gritted, in ice and snow vehicles will slide down to the main road. No other access onto the A697 has this additional hazard. 6, Owls The ecology survey neglects to mention Barn Owls. These definitely regularly hunt and roost at the site, and probably nest here. There are two dilapidated buildings on the site which provide roosts. They are protected species,

and should have been considered in the survey. In mitigation an owl tower should be built on the SW corner of the site. Thank you for considering our objections, Sarah Lowrie Rest Harrow, Longhorsley I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in Longhorsley 2, Trees The application proposes the removal of about 12 trees that are protected because they are inside the conservation area. This will have a major negative impact on the character of the conservation area of the village. The ecology survey at section 21 states that no trees will be removed for the development or its access. This is a significant error that invalidates this report which was required by NCC. Following the Public Consultation changes were made to the indicative layout to reduce the harm caused to a protected tree in our (SE corner of Rest Harrow). These changes have been erratically applied across the application, with some of the plans showing the modified version, and some showing the original version. Design and Access statement section 2.14 shows the unmodified version; Pages 8 and 9 of the Design Code have conflicting versions. The developer¿s intentions are not clear. A tree survey is referred to in the application, but is not on the website. I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in Longhorsley

5, Junction The junction design proposed is not the best option for the site, access to east road is available to the applicant, and would be better. Alternatively access near the bus stop opposite Whitegates would be less problematic. The footpath along South Road is extremely narrow. Cars waiting in the centre lane to turn right into the new estate will force North going traffic to be even closer to pedestrians on the narrow path. The extra hazard this junction creates means the footpath should be widened. The road safety audit is inadequate. Section 1.1.3 states that no attempt has been made to the appropriateness of the design or to carry out a design check. This should be done. At section 1.4.2, it uses a 20 vehicle per hour figure which is taken from the developer and is likely wrong. In the Transport Statement page 4, paragraph x a figure of 30 per hour is given. Given that the development only covers half of the SHLAA site, the junction should have been designed for twice as many vehicles. It is inconceivable that it would be remodelled when the development is extended. At section 1.7.2 in the Road Safety Audit, it refers to road safety reservations held by the assessor which have not been made public. There is no assessment of the additional hazard caused by the bank down to the A697. The junction will be on a significant down slope. Estate roads are rarely gritted, in ice and snow vehicles will slide down to the main road. No other access onto the A697 has this additional hazard.

6, Owls The ecology survey neglects to mention Barn Owls. These definitely regularly hunt and roost at the site, and probably nest here. There are two dilapidated buildings on the site which provide roosts. They are protected species, and should have been considered in the survey. In mitigation an owl tower should be built on the SW corner of the site. I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in Longhorsley 1, The application is for too many houses at too high a density. 55 houses are too many for the proposed area. The SHLAA site assessment recognises the site as being feasible for 66 houses, but only half of the SHLAA site area is being proposed for development at this stage. 55 houses is too high an increase for the village. The pro-rata increase for housing in Longhorsley based on the core strategy housing numbers for Northumberland, is around 45 over the life of the plan. We already have 12 approved. More than 33 homes, therefore, would increase the size of the village more than the rate expected over the county. Longhorsley is not a service centre, therefore should not have a bigger rate of population increase than the county as a whole. The excessively high density creates too high an impact on the adjacent conservation area to the North and Northwest of the site. On the indicative layout the density of housing is highest along the North of the site, with a virtual wall of houses up against the conservation area. I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in

Longhorsley 2, Trees The application proposes the removal of about 12 trees that are protected because they are inside the conservation area. This will have a major negative impact on the character of the conservation area of the village. The ecology survey at section 21 states that no trees will be removed for the development or its access. This is a significant error that invalidates this report which was required by NCC. Following the Public Consultation changes were made to the indicative layout to reduce the harm caused to a protected tree in our (SE corner of Rest Harrow). These changes have been erratically applied across the application, with some of the plans showing the modified version, and some showing the original version. Design and Access statement section 2.14 shows the unmodified version; Pages 8 and 9 of the Design Code have conflicting versions. The developer¿s intentions are not clear. A tree survey is referred to in the application, but is not on the website. I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in Longhorsley 2, Trees The application proposes the removal of about 12 trees that are protected because they are inside the conservation area. This will have a major negative impact on the character of the conservation area of the village. The ecology survey at section 21 states that no trees will be removed for the development

or its access. This is a significant error that invalidates this report which was required by NCC. Following the Public Consultation changes were made to the indicative layout to reduce the harm caused to a protected tree in our (SE corner of Rest Harrow). These changes have been erratically applied across the application, with some of the plans showing the modified version, and some showing the original version. Design and Access statement section 2.14 shows the unmodified version; Pages 8 and 9 of the Design Code have conflicting versions. The developer¿s intentions are not clear. A tree survey is referred to in the application, but is not on the website.

I have the following objections to outline application 14/03839/OUT for 55 houses in Longhorsley

4, Consultation The Design Code and Ecology Statements are not available on the website. This denies people who have no access to the paper copies the opportunity to point out the errors within them. Apart from the mail out to directly adjoining properties, there was inadequate notification of the application. No forms were displayed until 10th December, and this was in completely the wrong location, on East Road, not South Road. Many people will be unaware that this application has been formally submitted. At 3.9 in the Statement of Community Involvement it is unjustified to claim that those who didn¿t come either support or have no opinion on the development. There are many

reasons why people don¿t come to events, and it can¿t be assumed that they support the proposal. At 4.2 in the Statement of Community Involvement twice as many respondents objected to the proposal than supported it. The remaining 32% are in effect objections if their concern has not been addressed. At 4.10 in the statement of the community involvement it states that all options for the expansion of the village involve crossing village green land. This is a factual error as the large SHLAA sites 3570 and 3529 do not.

Miss Kelly Mcewan 45 The Pastures Kirkhill Morpeth Northumberland NE61 2AT

Planning Application Ref. 14/03839/OUT South Road Longhorsley Dear Mrs Murphy, I wish to object to this planning application based on concerns regarding the additional junction which will be required for the development. The junction would be added to an already dangerous stretch of road in the centre of the village. There are a number of potential hazards that need to be seriously considered including sharp (blind) bends, nearby bus stop and junctions leading to Church View/Whitegates. I object to this application on the grounds of safety. Regards Kelly Mcewan

Miss Louise Metcalfe

Dawn Cottage South Road Longhorsley

I am writing to submit my objection to and express my concerns about the proposed development 14/03839/OUT.

Morpeth Northumberland NE65 8UW

Whilst not against development that is appropriate in scale to the size of a locality, I feel that this, and the proposed other developments for Longhorsley, which total 92, would overwhelm the village and destroy its rural character. A further 92 houses would increase the village by around 32% and would be more than a 'fair share' compared to other villages in Northumberland. Longhorsley has a very limited amount of services and buses to neighbouring Morpeth are infrequent making it hard to travel to Morpeth and beyond for employment. The local school is small and has, as I understand it, capacity issues with nursery and reception classes. I am concerned about the viability of another access point onto the already busy A697. I feel the traffic survey for 14/03839/OUT should have taken place at a more realistic time of day when a more realistic volume of traffic would have been recorded. Lorries increasingly use the A697 in preference to the A1 due to on-going road works. They thunder by at all times of day and night, often at a speed which rattles the windows and doors of roadside properties. I fear for the safety of my own children and other pedestrians as the pavement alongside the A697 is inadequate and is too narrow in parts for me to safely push my son in his wheelchair. I therefore feel that any parents of children in the new development would be reluctant to cross the A697 at busy times and would drive their children nearer to school, thus exacerbating traffic problems in the centre of the village at drop off and pick up times.