Local Authority Decision DC/25/01278/FUL — Land At End Of Sandygate Drive, Marley Hill (REFUSED)

Local Authority Decision DC/25/01278/FUL (Gateshead Council) — 2026-04-24
Outcome: Refused
Case type: Full Planning
Development: Erection of single self build use class c3 dwellinghouse with detached double garage and driveway, car parking, and change of use of land to residential private garden areas front and back with biodiv
Location: Land At End Of Sandygate Drive, Marley Hill
Postcode: NE16 5DF
LPA: Gateshead Council
Case officer: James Hudson
Applicant: Mr Gavin Linscott
LPA reference: DC/25/01278/FUL

=== FULL OFFICER REPORT ===

=== PAGE 1 ===
Delegated Decision Report Application No: DC/25/01278/FUL Case Officer James Hudson Date Application Valid 6 January 2026 Applicant Mr Gavin Linscott Site: Land At End Of Sandygate Drive Marley Hill NE16 5DF Ward: Whickham South And Sunniside Proposal: Erection of single self build use class C3 dwellinghouse with detached double garage and driveway, car parking, and change of use of land to residential private garden areas front and back with biodiversity net gain improvements to adjoining land outside the proposed residential curtilage (amended plans rec'd 27.02.26) Recommendation: REFUSE Application Type Full Application The Application: The proposed development of a single self build use class C3 dwellinghouse with detached double garage and driveway, car parking and change of use of land to residential private garden area front and back with biodiversity net gain improvements to adjoining land outside the proposed residential curtilage at Land at End of Sandygate Drive, Marley Hill. The dwelling would be 3 storeys with a total footprint of approximately 83sqm, the height of the dwelling as measured from the lowest part of the site would measure 9m to the ridge. The dwelling would be 9m in width and 12.2m in length. A detached 2 storey double garage would be located adjacent to the dwelling an occupy a footprint of 52sqm. It measures 7.2m in height from the lowest part of the site, 8.5m in width and 6.5m in length. The floor plans show that the garage would have a storage area on the lower ground floor and 2 vehicle parking spaces on the ground floor. The dwelling and garage would be constructed from stone, with aluminium windows, black PVC rainwater goods. The site would be accessed via Sandygate Drive and would have the provision for 2 external parking spaces. The site is within the Green Belt, within the defined settlement envelope of Marley Hill.

=== PAGE 2 ===
The site is also within Marley Hill Conservation Area, and Sunniside Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS). The land also falls within an area of Medium Landscape Sensitivity and Tanfield Railway Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor. Representations: Neighbour notifications were carried out in accordance with the formal procedures introduced in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015. A Site Notice was put on display outside the site on the 28 th January and 25 th March 2026. 3.no objections have been received and are summarised below: • Overbearing • Overdevelopment • Additional noise • Highways Safety • Loss of natural light • Loss of trees • Out of character with Conservation Area Policies: NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance CS1 Spatial Strategy for Sustainable Growth CS10 Delivering New Homes CS11 Providing a range and choice of housing CS13 Transport CS14 Wellbeing and Health CS15 Place Making CS18 Green Infrastructure/Natural Environment CS19 Green Belt CS20 Minerals MSGP12 Housing Space Standards MSGP15 Transport Aspects of Design of Dev MSGP17 Residential Amenity MSGP20 Land Contamination/Stability MSGP23 Areas of Special Character MSGP24 Design quality MSGP25 Conservation and Enhancement of Heritage Assets MSGP29 Flood Risk Management MSGP34 Development in settlements within the Green Belt MSGP33 Countryside and landscape protection MSGP32 Maintaining, Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure

=== PAGE 3 ===
MSGP37 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Gateshead Placemaking Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Assessment of the Proposal: Principle of Development Site Allocations The application site is unallocated for housing (or any other land use) within the Local Plan for Gateshead, so would represent a windfall site. Housing Delivery The latest results of the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) show that 96% of required homes are being delivered in the Borough. The proposed development would make a small contribution towards delivery which is a positive factor. Space Standards Local Plan Policy CS11(4) requires adequate space inside and outside of the home to meet the needs of residents. Similarly, Policy MSGP12 (Housing Space Standards) of the MSGP Local Plan Document sets out that new homes should be built in accordance with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS). The submitted plans show that the dwelling would be built in accordance with the required NDSS. Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings Local Plan policy CS11 seeks to encourage the provision of Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes. Whilst there is no explicit requirement, any provision would be welcomed. Range and choice of housing Part 1 of policy CS11 of the Local Plan requires 60% of new private housing across the plan area being suitable for and attractive to families with a minimum target of 16,000 new homes to have 3 or more bedrooms. This proposal would provide a new 5 bedroom dwelling, so would support this, plan- wide, target. Green Belt The site is in the Green Belt, within the Marley Hill Settlement Envelope. Local Plan policy MSGP34 indicates that ‘infilling development will be permitted where it is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement’. Paragraph 153 of the NPPF advises ‘When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by

=== PAGE 4 ===
definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ (VSC) will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Paragraph 154 of the NPPF advises that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless exceptions apply. Having assessed the development against the exemptions under Para 154 of the NPPF the development is considered to be inappropriate development. Para 153 of the NPPF advises that inappropriate devilment shall not be approved unless very special circumstances apply. The proposed development is not considered by Officers to represent infilling nor is the proposal considered to be on previously development land. The development would be an extension of the built up area of the settlement (the settlement envelope has been drawn to include open land on the edges of the village where that land is functionally related to the village). Consequently, location within the settlement envelope boundary does not, in this case, mean that the proposed development would be in accordance with the policy. As inappropriate development, therefore, the proposal has to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances. The applicants Design and Access Statement advises that VSC’s do exist and outweigh any harm to the Green Belt. Having assessed these points it’s considered that they aren’t VCS’s that would outweigh harm to the Green Belt. Grey Belt For the purposes of plan making and decision making the NPPF Glossary defines ‘Grey Belt’ as ‘land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey Belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.’ The areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 include Conservation Areas. It therefore needs to be considered whether the impact on either provides a strong reason for refusal. As detailed in the below section, the development is in the Marley Hill Conservation area and it is considered to result in less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area, without public benefits to outweigh this. This would provide a strong reason for refusal, as such the development would not be considered Grey Belt land. Conclusion The proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt without any identified Very Special Circumstances’ to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Officers have assessed the case put forward by the applicant’s agent, with respect to these points however the proposal is not judged to be infilling development or on Previously Developed Land. The proposal is not considered to meet any of the

=== PAGE 5 ===
Green Belt exceptions outlined in NPPF paragraph 154. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to green belt policy and therefore the principle of development is not acceptable in this instance. Heritage and Design The site is within Marley Hill Conservation Area, at the southern edge where it takes in the historic farmstead but not the open land beyond. The land is on the edge of the village and visible from the surrounding countryside. Policy CS15 of the Local Plan for Gateshead requires development to contribute to good place-making through the delivery of high quality and sustainable design, and the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Furthermore, Policy MSGP25 of the Local Plan for Gateshead states that development will be permitted where it sustains, conserves and, where appropriate, enhances the significance, appearance, character and setting of the identified heritage asset in a manner appropriate to their conservation, and the surrounding historic environment. Local Plan Policy MSGP24 (Design Quality) makes clear that the design quality of proposals will be assessed with regard to the following criteria: a) The proposal’s compatibility with local character including relationship to existing townscape and frontages, scale, height, massing, proportions and form; b) Layout and access; c) Space between buildings and relationship to the public realm; d) Detailing and materials, and; e) The use of a high-quality landscaping scheme, structural landscaping and boundary treatment to enhance the setting of any development The plot is uncultivated land at the northern end of Sandygate farmstead. It has been part of a small field since the earliest mapping and never developed. It slopes steeply down to the north-east. An old farm track which led away to the northeast is now a public footpath running along the site boundary. It is understood that the land has recently been used a construction compound for the development of a new house to the northwest. Sandygate Farm is no longer a working farmstead. The house, cottage and new barn conversion /cottage form a line of built development along the north side of the access road. A new detached house had recently been added to the end of this row. This house is two-storey at the front and has 3rd basement floor to the rear where the land slopes away to the northeast. The building materials of the houses are sandstone with slate roofs, which provides some unity amongst the various modern additions and modernisations. A new twin garage and workshop has recently been built on the south side of the drive, which has been tarmacked and significantly

=== PAGE 6 ===
widened to provide parking. Also the front garden of the recent barn conversion has been fully tarmacked. Beyond that to the south is open land. The building has a very shallow felt/composite roof and is rendered white/cream The Marley Hill Conservation Area was designated on 3 February 1989. A Character Statement for the Area was approved by the Council on 31 August 1994. Marley Hill is described as an almost ideal model of the Durham pit village, with its neat terraces and generous community facilities. There is a long history of coal mining around Marley Hill. A colliery was well established in 1787. This was abandoned between 1815 and 1840 when the older of the two modern shafts was sunk. Sandygate Farm predates the development of the pit village. The original pit village was Marley Hill Colliery, south of the present settlement and demolished in the 1960s. The site itself lies in the area described as St Cuthbert's Road: ‘-St Cuthbert's Road leads between the church and The Grange towards the site of the colliery. Beyond The Grange is a group of five houses reflective in scale of the colliery officials' houses nearby. Next, set down the hill, are Sandygate Farm and cottages. The oldest buildings in Marley Hill, they are a much-altered agricultural vernacular group of stone and slate. On the right are first the brown brick and slate Church Hall, built on the site of the Mission Room, and two pit officials' houses, both solidly symmetrical and double- fronted. Beyond is St Cuthbert's Park, a 1990s modern suburban development of 42 houses, which has been adapted to take account of its pit village context. The houses are of a red brick and slate compatible with the character of Marley Hill and are a mixture of detached and semi- detached. It is set apart from the colliery village, beyond the encircling ancillary uses .’ The Heritage Statement contains statements not backed up by the drawings eg parking spaces are tucked back, discreet bin store, native structure planting. There is confusion between the recently built 2-3 storey house, Birkland House and the Sandygate barn conversion. It justifies the development as a means of securing the urgent restoration of, and investment in, Sandygate House without any further information. Sandygate House is in different ownership according to the blue line plan. The HS refers to reinstating the public right of way and improving the footpath approach as benefits of the development. These are within the ownership and control of the applicants and appear to have been damaged by their own activities. The construction of a building in this location is not reflective of the historic development and land-use of the farmstead or village and would be harmful to the character of the conservation area. It would disrupt the linear form of the farmstead and its historic development pattern. The addition of a house would not preserve or enhance the significance of the conservation area. It would further suburbanise the farmstead of Sandygate Farm which is incrementally becoming a detrimental feature in the conservation area.

=== PAGE 7 ===
Furthermore, the design does not resemble a traditional farm building. The inclusion of a separate twin garage building with basement rooms is anomalous. The use of part of the plot as a construction compound and degrading the land is not a reason to justify development. It may amount to deliberate harm to a heritage asset. The construction of a building in this location is not reflective of the historic development and land-use of the farmstead or village and would be harmful to the character of Marely Hill Conservation Area. The development would cause less than substantial harm to the designated Heritage Asset without any public benefits to outweigh the harm. Furthermore, the design, scale and style of the proposal is out of character with local vernacular and is contrary to policy MSGP2, MSGP25 and CS15 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Amenity Impact Officers have considered the comments received from neighbours during the consultation process in relation to the potential amenity impact of the development and they have been assessed below. Policy MSGP 17 (Residential amenity) of the Local Plan for Gateshead makes clear that development will be required to provide a high-quality environment and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Planning permission will be granted for new development where it: 1. does not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or character of an area, and does not cause unacceptable disturbance, through an increase in noise, disturbance, traffic and parking congestion, smells, fumes or other harmful effects, or conflict with other adjoining uses; 2. safeguards the enjoyment of light, outlook and privacy; and 3. ensures a high quality of design and amenity The proposed dwelling will be located adjacent to that of Birkland House, which was approved planning permission in 2016. The proposed double garage will be positioned 2.6m from the windowless gable elevation of the Birkland House. The proposed rear offshoot elevation will be approximately 17.m from the side elevation of Birkland House, however all facing elevation of the proposed dwelling do not have any windows. In terms of the impact on neighbouring residential amenity, including potential loss of light, overshadowing or any overbearing effect, the proposal has been assessed and is considered acceptable. The development would not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers, in accordance with Policies MSGP17 and MSGP18 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. Landscape protection

=== PAGE 8 ===
The site is identified as of Medium Landscape Sensitivity, as designated in the Local Plan for Gateshead. Local Plan policy MSGP33 indicates that within areas of medium landscape sensitivity, development which would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape will be resisted unless the impact would be short-term and would be followed by restoration or enhancement, and/or the proposed development would result in major public benefit, and mitigation forms part of the proposal as far as is feasible. Proposals will be expected to: i. Protect, conserve and where possible enhance landscape character and local distinctiveness, reflecting landscape sensitivity; ii. Demonstrate that any adverse impact on views and vistas, and on the skyline, is acceptable and unavoidable; and iii. Preserve the tranquillity of the countryside and its quiet enjoyment, by resisting proposals that would cause significant increases in noise, night- time light, or traffic, or reduce the sense of openness. The levels of landscape sensitivity identified in the Local Plan reflect the findings of the 2007 Landscape Character Assessment, accepted as remaining up to date at the 2018 Public Local Inquiry into Making Spaces for Growing Places. It is not considered that the development would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape in this location, having regard to the scale of work proposed. Green Infrastructure The entire site is in the Tanfield Railway Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor, along the former Tanfield Railway line from Hedley Fell to the River Tyne at Teams, incorporating Hedley Hall nature reserve, Burdon Moor and Watergate Forest Park, as identified by the Newcastle Gateshead Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011). Local Plan policy CS18 sets out that a high quality, comprehensive framework of interconnected green infrastructure, offering ease of movement and an appealing natural environment for people and wildlife will be achieved by: 1. Maintaining, protecting and enhancing the integrity, connectivity, multifunctionality and accessibility of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network. 2. Protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure assets which include: i. Biodiversity and geodiversity assets, including designated sites, designated wildlife corridors and priority habitats and species, ii. Distinctive landscape character, recognising the particular importance of our rivers and topography, and iii. Trees, woodland and hedgerows. 3. Addressing gaps in the network and making improvements in Opportunity Areas.

=== PAGE 9 ===
4. Improving and extending linkages to and within the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network. 5. Protecting and enhancing open spaces, sport and recreational facilities in accordance with agreed standards in line with National Policy. 6. Improving access to, along and onto the River Tyne and tributaries, without adversely impacting on the local ecology or damaging the river banks. Local Plan policy MSGP32 requires development to maintain and protect existing green infrastructure assets and, where appropriate, contribute to the delivery of new or enhanced GI assets by ensuring that development proposals which could adversely affect green infrastructure assets demonstrate that: a) Alternative provision is made which maintains or creates new GI assets or; b) The benefits outweigh the harm. The policy also requires development of off-site provision where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not possible. As the site is in the Tanfield Railway Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor, it should be demonstrated that the proposed development would not have adverse impacts on the green infrastructure network. For the reasons outlined in the below Ecology section, it is considered that the development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on biodiversity and geodiversity assets. The benefits of delivering a single dwelling on the site are not considered to outweigh this harm, so the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policy. Ecology The proposed development site is located within an area of Sunniside Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Sunniside Wood LWS comprises a mosaic of acid woodland, willow carr, meadow, pond and marsh considered unique in Gateshead. Habitats within the LWS support a varied flora and fauna including priority/notable species. In 2004, Sunniside Wood LWS was extended to incorporate an area of rough grassland and scattered scrub supporting a varied avifauna. The proposed development site lies within the southeast corner of the 2004 extension and adjoins semi-natural habitat to the south and east providing ecological connectivity with Tanfield Railway Sidings LWS. Aerial photography indicates that bit of Sunniside Wood LWS in which the proposed development site is located has, at times, been subject to varying degrees of disturbance over an approx. 20-year period. This has included periodic horse grazing and the removal of vegetation including scrub habitat. More recently, it appears some mechanical clearance and potential engineering operations have been undertaken on site.

=== PAGE 10 ===
Habitats immediately north and east of the proposed development site comprise a mosaic of semi-natural grassland, tall ruderal vegetation, scrub/developing woodland and wetland. These habitats and the wider Sunniside LWS have the potential/are likely to support various statutorily protected and priority/notable species including, but not limited to, breeding birds, foraging and commuting bats, breeding and terrestrial amphibians and small mammals, including hedgehog. The proposed development will result in the direct and permanent loss of an area of Local Wildlife Site (Sunniside Wood LWS) and those semi-natural habitats remaining within the proposed development site. The proposal also is likely to result in a range of indirect adverse impacts, including:  damage/degradation of adjacent retained semi-natural habitats, including priority habitats within Sunniside Wood LWS, through increased emissions (e.g. noise and artificial lighting), the disposal of garden waste, and/or changes to hydrology and water quality  harm to statutorily protected and/or priority/notable species through increased disturbance and displacement resulting from increased emissions (e.g. noise and artificial lighting), changes in hydrology and water quality, and the predation of wildlife by pets  reduced ecological connectivity resulting from the loss, damage, degradation and disturbance of retained habitats within and connecting Sunniside Wood LWS and Tanfield Railway Sidings LWS (located approx. 120m east of the proposed development site). The application is supported by: - Design and Access Statement (no listed author, undated); - Ecological Impact Assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain Report (Rachel Forsyth, November 2025) [EcIA and BNG Assessment] - Bird Survey Report (Richard Barnes, June 2025) The submitted supporting ecology reports do not provide an adequate level of survey and assessment in accordance with relevant industry best practice guidance, including but not limited to the following: Impact on GCN The submitted EcIA and BNG Assessment concludes that an EPS Mitigation Licence for GCN will be required from Natural England before works can commence. The EcIA and BNG Assessment lists elements that a licence method statement would need to include at a high-level but does not include sufficient detail to satisfy the LPA Ecologist that a licence would be granted i.e. that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Red line and blue line issues

=== PAGE 11 ===
The red line boundary and blue line boundary within the submitted EcIA and BNG Assessment (Rachel Forsyth, November 2025) does not match boundaries show on the submitted Site Location Plan or Existing Site Layout Plan. The baseline habitats included within the submitted metric for the blue-line (offsite) habitats do not match the habitats shown within Figure 1 of the BNG Assessment, where dense scrub habitats and areas of sparsely vegetated urban land are shown, whilst the submitted metric only includes other neutral grassland within the baseline habitats. Lack of habitat reference numbers Habitat reference numbers have not been used to allow for cross referencing between the submitted metric and the baseline and post-development habitat plans e.g. it is not clear in the of-site baseline habitats which area of other neutral grassland is which or why these have been recorded separately. Habitat degradation It is not clear on what basis it has been assumed that the grassland which has been degraded was of a similar condition as that recorded at TN3a. Quadrat data has not been provided for the baseline habitat assessment. Strategic Significance incorrectly applied Strategic Significance has been incorrectly applied to the baseline and post- development habitats within the submitted metric. Post-development habitats The submitted metric lists the on-site post-development habitats as including Vegetated garden, whilst this is not shown on Figure 3, the post-development habitat plan. The proposals for the offsite (blueline) habitats are not shown on any submitted plans which does not provide confidence that they can be achieved. The proposals to incorporate a pond within the off-site area are not supported by any hydrological/drainage information Securing habitats for 30 years It is not confirmed that the intention is for the offsite habitats to be secured via a legal agreement and managed and monitored for a period of 30 years. The site would also need to be registered as a Net Gain Site. The LPA Ecologist must be satisfied that the proposed habitat enhancements are realistic, achievable and able to be secured for a 30 year period. There is insufficient information to determine whether the development is capable of delivering a 10% net gain in biodiversity. In addition, the area identified for offsite enhancements is already considered to provide a high level of ecological value and functionality, including in supporting ecological connectivity between Sunniside Wood and Tanfield Railway Sidings LWSs. It’s the LPA Ecologist’s view that the proposed offsite measures carry a high degree of risk in securing their successful implementation, establishment and long- term retention and management.

=== PAGE 12 ===
It is therefore considered the proposed development would result in an unacceptable direct and/or indirect adverse impact on:  Sunniside Wood LWS;  Priority habitats;  Protected and priority/notable species;  Ecological connectivity; and as such would be contrary to the NPPF and above listed local planning policies. The principle of the proposed development is therefore considered to be unacceptable. Highway Safety Policy MSGP 15 of the Local Plan for Gateshead addresses the transport aspect of the design of new development. Under the requirements of MSGP15, new development is required to: 1. secure safe access to the site for all people and provide adequate servicing facilities; 2. not have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the transport network, or a severe residual cumulative impact on the efficient operation of the road network, or levels of congestion; 3. give priority to access by sustainable travel including the improvement of existing links and the removal of barriers to sustainable means of access and; 4. protect, and where necessary, enhance the public right of way and cycle networks. Where it is necessary to disturb either network, suitable replacement sections of route will be required; and 5. provide the level of parking necessary to secure the safe and effective operation of the development by: a) providing car parking for residential development to the levels set out in the Council’s parking standards (Appendix 4a of Making Spaces for Growing Places) b) limiting car parking for non-residential development in line with the Council’s parking standards (Appendix 4b) c) providing electric vehicle charging points in line with the Council’s parking standards (Appendices 4a & 4b) d) providing motorcycle parking facilities in line with Council’s parking standards (Appendix 4b) e) providing cycle parking facilities in line with the standards set out in the Council’s cycle parking standards (Appendix 5)

=== PAGE 13 ===
The site lies on the periphery of the established village of Marley Hill and whilst Marley Hill provides few facilities, there are bus stops within a reasonable walking distance offering regular services to nearby Sunniside, as well as more major destinations such as Newcastle, Team Valley and Gateshead to the east and Consett and Stanley to the west. There are lit footways and a pedestrian refuge on the route between the development site and the bus stops on the A692. The junction with the public highway does have poor visibility to the left and this is made worse by the steep gradient of the road, however, the additional traffic generated by this development should not create any significant problems. I would also expect traffic movements along St Cuthbert’s Road to be very infrequent so the likelihood of conflict would be low. The maximum permitted driveway gradient is 1 in 8 and driveways should typically have a 6m circulating aisle behind them. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to establish whether this has been achieved as the drawing is not scaling as suggested. Tracking should therefore be provided to demonstrate that the driveways proposed would be operational. It should also be confirmed and demonstrated through tracking how delivery drivers using the lane would turn, as reversing the length of the private access road would not be appropriate as this is shared with pedestrians and the general public accessing the public right of way. The designated public right of way (PROW) running to the south of the site must be retained and protected for users. Having assessed the application in respect to highways safety it is considered that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the development does not pose a risk to highways safety and therefore the proposal is contrary to MSGP 15 and the NPPF. Waste Management Policy MSGP 49 relates to the provision for collection and recycling facilities will be required for new development. In particular, development proposals will be required to: 1. Ensure that the layout allows for adequate access and manoeuvrability for refuse collection vehicles, as far as practicable designing out the need to reverse. 2. Ensure sufficient bin storage capacity, and storage space within the curtilage of each new house and bungalow, for a minimum of 1 x 240L residual waste bin and 1 x 240L recycling bin, and for dwellings with gardens, 1 x 240L garden waste bin. We have assessed this application from a waste servicing perspective and although the household has ample space in which to store their bins, it is not clear what the proposal is in respect of collection point. If waste is to be collected outside of the property then it is considered there is insufficient information to demonstrate that Sandygate Drive is suitable for 26 tonne HGV waste servicing vehicles. Furthermore, there appears to be insufficient information to demonstrate large vehicles could safely turn at the end of Sandygate

=== PAGE 14 ===
Road. Therefore there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed can comply with Policy MSGP 49 with respect to waste servicing. Contaminated Land and Coal Mining Legacy The Council’s Land Contamination team have assessed the development and have advised that it is unlikely that the development area will be affected by significant ground contamination and consequently a planning Condition will not be required for a preliminary risk assessment report in relation to specific potential land contamination issues. Planning Conditions will also not be required for an intrusive site investigation with a Phase II Detailed Risk Assessment, and conditions for Remediation, and Verification Reports will also not be necessary. However, a more detailed land gas risk assessment in conjunction with gas monitoring is required as the development area is situated in an area containing coal measures and near to a known mine entry and historic landfill. The site is not situated within a Coal Authority defined “Development High Risk Area”. However, there is a recorded mine entry in the vicinity of the western area of the site near to the line of the proposed access road. Consequently, the applicant has provided a coal mining risk assessment which assessed the risk from underlying mining activity in the area. The report has concluded that the site is not at risk however from mine workings or the nearby mine shafts. The Coal Authority were consulted on the proposal and have no objections to the proposal and have not recommended any planning conditions. The proposed development is considered acceptable in relation to land contamination subject to a condition in relation to a land gas risk assessment. Surface Water Drainage Paragraph 182 of the NPPF states: Applications which could affect drainage on or around the site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff, and which are proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. These should provide multifunctional benefits wherever possible, through facilitating improvements in water quality and biodiversity, as well as benefits for amenity. Sustainable drainage systems provided as part of proposals for major development should: a) take account of advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority; b) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards; and c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development

=== PAGE 15 ===
The Gateshead Council Interim SuDS Guidelines for New Development states that for a Full Planning Application:  Provide scale drawings showing the proposed layout of the drainage network. These must show clearly numbered pipes, falls, diameters and manhole invert and cover levels together with size and level of any other drainage devices that correspond with the drainage model submitted. The Gateshead Council Interim SuDS Guidelines for New Development also states that: It must be demonstrated that surface water is managed within the site to ensure no flooding within any building in a 1 in 100 storm event plus 45% climate change allowance and no flooding on site for a 1:30 storm event plus 40% climate change allowance. In addition, a 10% uplift must be applied to the impermeable area within the property curtilage to allow for the effects of urban creep. A detailed design has not been provided. The analysis should include the 1:30 storm event with a 40% climate change allowance and a 1 in 100 storm event plus 45% climate change allowance. The analysis should also demonstrate that the 10% uplift for urban creep has been applied to the impermeable area. The Gateshead Council Interim SuDS Guidelines for New Development states that: As part of a planning submission, it is expected that an electronic copy of the drainage model is submitted in Microdrainage format which corresponds with any drawings within the submission. This information has not been provided. The Gateshead Council Interim SuDS Guidelines for New Development also states that the following information must be provided:  Existing and proposed site sections and levels.  Long and cross sections of the proposed drainage system (including exceedance flow management routes) and final building finished floor levels.  Details for connections to watercourses and sewers. Detailed drawings of all SuDS features and connections. (show permanent water levels and levels at 1:1, 1:30 and 1:100, plus areas, volumes and gradients.) Compliance with best practice should be demonstrated. Detailed drawings of all drainage features should be provided, including typical sections of permeable paving and all other SuDS features. The applicants design and access statement section 9 states: Crucially, both foul and surface water drainage infrastructure are already in place, having been installed and approved as part of the neighbouring Plot 2 development. These systems were designed in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority and approved by Northumbrian Water. The current proposal would connect into this existing, policy- compliant infrastructure. The system is designed to accommodate 1 in 100-year storm events plus climate change and will not increase flood risk either on or off site. The drainage design and details of the consultation with Northumbrian Water has not been provided, so it cannot be verified that the drainage system is acceptable.

=== PAGE 16 ===
The Gateshead Council Interim SuDS Guidelines for New Development states that the following information must be provided:  A SuDS Management and Maintenance Plan  A management and maintenance document which should: - Clearly describe the drainage system and define the SuDS features, describing how each element is expected to work. - Present management objectives for the site. Confirm party responsible for the system maintenance in the short and long term. - Provide specification of maintenance tasks; and schedule of tasks and inspections for the lifetime of the development. This should include specification and schedule for replacement of any items with a design life shorter than the expected lifetime of the development. Refer to Appendix B8 of the CIRIA SuDS Manual for best practice. A SuDS Management Plan should be provided, including all the information required in the Guidelines document. Section 9B of the design and access statement states: Drainage containment – all surface water to be managed on site via permeable paving, temporary attenuation, and controlled discharge at greenfield run-off rates. Details of the permeable paving, temporary attenuation and means of managing the discharge rate have not been provided. The North-East Lead Local Flood Authorities Sustainable Drainage Local Standards states: Local Standard 1 – Equivalent Greenfield Run-Off (GFRO) discharge rates should be provided for new development at all sites (Greenfield and Brownfield). The only limitation on the lowest restricted run-off rate for smaller sites may be the smallest orifice sized flow control as accepted by Northumbrian Water (i.e. 100mm unprotected and 50mm protected – See Design and Construction Guidance). A calculation to demonstrate the Equivalent Greenfield Run-Off (GFRO) discharge rates should be provided, together with details as to how this rate will be achieved. A scale drawing should be provided showing cover levels, invert levels and gradients of existing and proposed pipes, including foul and surface water drainage. Summary of insufficient information  A scale drawing should be provided showing cover levels, invert levels and gradients of existing and proposed pipes.  A detailed drainage design should be provided.  An electronic copy of the drainage model should be provided.  Detailed drawings of all drainage features should be provided, including typical sections of permeable paving and all other SuDS features.

=== PAGE 17 ===
 Details of all consultations and agreements with Northumbrian Water should be provided.  A SuDS Management Plan should be provided, including all the information required in the Guidelines document.  A calculation to demonstrate the Equivalent Greenfield Run-Off (GFRO) discharge rates should be provided, together with details as to how this rate will be achieved. It is therefore not possible to conclude whether flooding and drainage would be acceptable in accordance with policies MSGP29 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. It should be noted that additional information to address the above points was not requested, given the principle concerns the Local Planning Authority have regarding the development. Conclusion The proposal has been assessed against both national and local planning policies and is inappropriate development within the Green Belt without any identified Very Special Circumstances to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The proposal is not considered to meet any of the Green Belt exceptions outlined in NPPF paragraph 154. The development would cause less than substantial harm to the designated Heritage Asset (Marley Hill Conservation Area) without any public benefits to outweigh the harm. Furthermore the design, scale and style of the proposal is out of character with the local vernacular and is contrary to policy MSGP2, MSGP25 and CS15 of the Local Plan and the NPPF Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the proposal is acceptable with regard to highway safety, ecology and drainage and therefore nor in accordance with local and national planning policies. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal. Recommendation: That permission be REFUSED permission for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not meet any of the exceptions for Green Belt development set out in Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the NPPF and is considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would outweigh the Green Belt Harm. The proposal is in conflict with Paragraphs 142, 143, 153, 154 and 155 of the NPPF and Policy CS19 of the Local Plan for Gateshead.

=== PAGE 18 ===
2. The construction of a building in this location is not reflective of the historic development and land-use of the farmstead or village and would be harmful to the character of the Marley Hill Conservation Area. It would disrupt the linear form of the farmstead and its historic development pattern. The addition of a house would not preserve or enhance the significance of the Conservation Area and would further suburbanise the farmstead of Sandygate Farm. The development would therefore cause less than substantial harm to the designated Heritage Asset (Marley Hill Conservation Area) without any public benefits to outweigh the harm, contrary to CS15, MSGP25, MSGP26 and NPPF. 3. The design, scale and style of the proposed dwelling is not in keeping with the local agricultural character and vernacular of the surrounding area and is contrary to policy MSGP24 and CS15 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. 4. There is insufficient information in the application to demonstrate that the development would not impact on the adjacent Sunniside Wood Local Wildlife Site and protected/priority species, in conflict with Policies CS18 and MSGP37 of the Local Plan for Gateshead and Paragraphs 187 and 193 of the NPPF. 5. Insufficient information has been provided in relation to vehicle access to demonstrate that the proposal would comply with the requirements of policy MSGP15 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 6. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated without being affected by flood risk or increasing flood risk elsewhere and without resulting in any water quality issues, contrary to Part 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CS16, CS17, CS18, MSGP29 and MSGP30 of the Local Plan for Gateshead.

=== PAGE 19 ===
This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Gateshead Council. Licence Number LA07618X Team Leader Date The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.