Agenda item

Demolition of existing public house (full permission) and outline planning permission for the erection of a pub/restaurant (Use Classes A3/A4), gym (Use Class D2), restaurant (Use Classes A3/A5) and hotel (Use Class C1), with all matters reserved except for access, and full planning permission for the erection of a drive-through coffee shop (Use Classes A3/A5) and retail bakery unit (Use Class A1), along with associated car parking, servicing and landscaping.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of the existing public house (full permission) and outline planning permission for the erection of a pub/restaurant (Use Classes A3/A4), Gym (Use Class D2), restaurant (Use Classes A3/A5) and hotel (Use Class C1), with all matters reserved except for access, and full planning permission for the erection of a drive-through coffee shop (Use Classes A3/A5) and retail bakery unit (Use Class A1), along with associated car parking, servicing and landscaping (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer advised of a late representation from Roberta Blackman-Woods MP that the application failed the sequential test and would have a detrimental impact on DurhamGate.  Thinford roundabout was heavily trafficked and the proposed development would exacerbate this.

Councillor Blakey, local Member addressed the Committee expressing concerns with regard to the reasons for refusal. The public house had been a listed building but the status had been removed. The building had suffered from an internal fire. There were already new developments surrounding the roundabout and this site was in need of re-development. The proposals would promote tourism, encourage overnights stays in the County and boost jobs. The A688 was a fast road and the development would remove a rat-run. This development did not pertain to Festival Walk and DurhamGate. The Member noted the comments in the report with regard to the archaeological assessment and asked why a geographical survey had not been carried out, and if it could be included as a condition.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that the archaeological assessment was carried out by the applicant which concluded that a survey should be required. In accordance with the NPPF developers were required to submit appropriate desk based assessments at the pre-determination stage to identify any features of national significance ie ‘showstoppers’. As this work should have been completed before determination of the application it was not possible to require an assessment by condition.

Councillor Williams, local Member agreed with the views of Councillor Blakey and noted the conflicting evidence in the report in terms of the retail impact on the town centres and the sequential test. Furthermore, Festival Walk was not in Coxhoe Division and local Members for the Spennymoor Division were in support of the proposals. The report stated that there were concerns that the lay-by was used as a rat-run at present but the Thinford roundabout itself caused problems which had not been addressed.  Coxhoe Parish Council had conveyed its support to the application but this had not been highlighted in the report. Councillor Williams advised that local members had complained about the building next to the Coach and Horses on the A167 which was a blight with no proposals for its development.

I Beaumont, Project Director of CAST addressed the Committee against the application. CAST was a local development consortium for DurhamGate with a strong interest in Spennymoor.

He commenced by explaining that there were proposals for the DurhamGate North site adjacent to the Coach and Horses which had not yet been brought to Committee.

DurhamGate was one of the largest mixed-use regeneration schemes in the North East and over £100m was being invested. The scheme would deliver a mix of residential and business park developments. DurhamGate would provide a very large number of jobs.  

The proposed development would have a negative impact on the marketability of DurhamGate; a development of the size of DurhamGate took considerable time to be delivered. For example the recent acquisition of the North site would allow Black and Decker to relocate whilst maintaining a presence in Spennymoor. DurhamGate already benefited from consent for the majority of uses proposed at Thinford Inn.

The proposed development would result in a direct loss of jobs and he was also concerned about the impact upon Spennymoor and Ferryhill as it was important that these were vibrant town centres. He noted that there were no floor space areas provided for the whole development and therefore an informed decision could not be made.

In conclusion I Beaumont stated that the proposed development would have a substantial negative impact and jeopardise the future of the DurhamGate Scheme. The application was also contrary to planning policy.

J Wallis, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.  He referred to the contradictory information in the report regarding retail impact and the sequential test as alluded to by Councillor Williams. Officers had considered that the site failed the sequential test but he disagreed. There were no sequentially preferable sites which could accommodate the proposed development; Thinford Inn should therefore be treated as a sequentially preferable site. DurhamGate was over a mile away from Spennymoor Town Centre. Both sites should be considered equally in applying the sequential test.

This type of application needed high levels of prominence and accessibility; this site was an ideal location being a key gateway to Spennymoor. There was no basis for concerns about landscape impact, the application accorded with planning policy and he disagreed that a requirement to carry out an architectural survey could not be included as a condition.

W Baister addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  He stated that the former Thinford Inn had been acquired 3 years ago but disappointingly did not meet the requirements of a successful family pub and there were now concerns about the building’s structural condition and theft from the property. The building had been dated incorrectly and had been de-listed; it had no historical significance. A decision had therefore been taken to regenerate the site with a vision of making it an attractive addition to the viable gateway to Spennymoor. The proposed uses were not currently available in Spennymoor town centre. Highway improvements were proposed, including a footpath, and the rat-run would be removed as the lay-by would be landscaped. Redevelopment of the site would generate 141 jobs. He believed that the planning issues raised had been addressed and the development would promote positive economic development, create jobs, secure highway improvements and improve highway safety.

In response to the comments raised, the Senior Planning Officer accepted that the building in its current condition did not contribute to the area. The proposals also included the development of a greenfield site and whilst the highway improvements were acknowledged these could be delivered with Phase 1. Officers were of the view that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh harm.

With regard to the comments of J Wallis and Councillor Williams in relation to the retail impact and the sequential test, by way of clarification the Officer explained that the Thinford Inn site was not more or less sequentially preferable to DurhamGate but NPPF paragraph 24 stated that preference should be given to accessible sites that were well connected to town centres. Officers were of the view that DurhamGate was more accessible and better related to Spennymoor. The Thinford Inn was across a road and on the edge of open countryside.

J Cook of the Spatial Policy Team explained that floor space details and an assessment of end users had not been provided by the applicant and it was therefore very difficult to agree with the presumption that the proposed development would have no impact on the town centres of Spennymoor and Ferryhill which had a number of shop vacancies.

With the permission of the Chairman, local Member Councillor Blakey spoke again stating that Ferryhill was a small market town and people were not shopping at Festival Walk. This development would secure employment opportunities and she did not see the relevance of the site being located across the road from the Spennymoor side of the roundabout.

Councillor Bleasdale reiterated the comments of Councillor Blakey and questioned the impact the proposals would have on DurhamGate in reality. She also questioned the relevance of considering the applications on the basis of potential duplication of uses.

The view of Councillor Bleasdale in terms of impact on town centres was shared by Councillor Clark who, following a request for clarification, was advised of the access arrangements. Councillor Clark also asked if both Phases had to be determined together.

Councillor Kay considered that the application would constitute an improvement to the area. The site was already surrounded by development on 3 sides and by a dilapidated site. He agreed with the applicant’s statement that objections to the scheme were purely on a commercial basis. Tindale Crescent had not impacted on the town centre of Bishop Auckland where shop vacancies had reduced. Highway improvements to the A688 would be welcomed and pedestrian crossing facilities were already in existence on the roundabout. The development would have a positive impact on the area in terms of regeneration and 141 jobs would be created.

Councillor Lethbridge stated that the area was undergoing change and the closure of Thinford Inn reflected the continuing changes being seen. As with other Members of the Committee, he did not accept the comments made that it would affect the town centres. People now visited out of town supermarkets. He viewed this as an extension to the development of DurhamGate itself.

Councillor Freeman advised that the Committee had heard a lot about preserving Spennymoor and Ferryhill and the future prospects of DurhamGate, however recent developments had been supported outside of DurhamGate. The planning applications under consideration were ready to proceed to development. He also asked about the feasibility of considering Phase 1 and Phase 2 separately.

Councillor Davinson referred to the facilities that were already on the Thinford roundabout which were accessible by foot from Ferryhill and which pedestrians would have to cross the road to visit. Thinford Inn was an eyesore and the highway improvements would be welcomed. His only concern was the lack of details provided in relation to floor space and where the outlets would be located.

Councillor Tinsley appreciated the objections received in relation to the application from Spatial Policy, Economic Development and the Landscape Section, however any application that brought forward jobs should be carefully considered. There was clearly competition between the 2 schemes for operators in the future. Approval of the applications contrary to the Officer’s recommendation would require robust and valid reasons. In terms of the sequential test both these sites were out of town and therefore there were no sequentially better locations. DurhamGate was a strategically important scheme so he would be concerned if the proposed development jeopardised this. The Phase 2 element was on a greenfield site and he queried to what extent DurhamGate was defined as brownfield compared to the greenfield element of the applications under consideration. He also asked to what extent there were extant planning permissions for uses on the DurhamGate site that would be prejudiced.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that DurhamGate was a previously developed site and there was extant planning permission for all uses proposed.

In response to the question from Councillors Clark and Freeman about the feasibility of making a determination on only one application, the Solicitor – Planning and Development advised that a split decision could be made in exceptional circumstances but that this would normally be at the request of the applicant.

J Wallis advised that a decision on both applications was required by the applicant. The road improvements could only be funded if both Phases proceeded to development.

At this point Councillor Davinson left the meeting.

Following a question from Councillor Kay the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Phase 2 application was in outline with all matters reserved except access. The reserved matters would be submitted at a later stage but the principle of the development would not be a consideration.

Councillor Tinsley felt that it was important to draw to the attention of the Committee that, if approved, this application would give permission for the development of huge amounts of space outside DurhamGate. As a result, development that emerged may be haphazard and not of benefit to the area.

Councillor Bleasdale moved and Councillor Lethbridge seconded that the application be approved. DurhamGate was not sequentially preferable to the Thinford Inn site and the proposals would not have an impact on the Town Centres of Ferryhill. The site accorded with the test in paragraph 24 of the NPPF which stated that preference should be given to accessible sites that were well connected to the town centre.

Members were satisfied that the benefits of the development would outweigh the objections to the proposed scheme. With regard to the archaeology issues raised, a geophysical survey of the site should be carried out, the results of which should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to any decision notice being issued, with authority delegated to Officers to consider the content of the report and attach conditions as necessary.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved that

i)             the application be approved subject to a geophysical survey of the site being carried out and submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to any decision notice being issued, with delegated authority granted to Planning Officers to consider the report and apply conditions as necessary;

ii)            Planning Officers be granted delegated authority to draft detailed planning conditions.