Agenda item

Change of use from materials storage area to permit siting of 16 executive holiday lodges

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the change of use from materials storage area to permit siting of 16 executive holiday lodges at land adjacent to Evergreen Park, Crimdon (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had previously visited the existing site and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

Members were reminded that the application had previously been deferred as there was concern that letters of objection had not been accurately reported and so issues raised in objection might not have been addressed. It was clarified that 25 letters of objection had been received from 22 properties and no new issues had been raised.

 

Members were advised that should approval be granted, an additional condition would be required to ensure that details of a visitor parking scheme was submitted before the site was occupied.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that contrary to paragraph 19 of the report, no weight could now be given to the County Durham Plan.

 

Councillor R Crute, local Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that while he and his colleague, Councillor L Pounder, had no issue with the type of development being proposed, they did not believe the proposals were appropriate for the identified location. Furthermore, they both would have liked to have had some involvement during the pre-application stage however had never been approached by the applicant.

 

Councillor Crute highlighted that the application site was outside of the settlement boundary which was contrary to saved Local Plan Policy E3. He felt the development would have a significant detrimental impact on local amenity in terms of noise, disturbance and traffic which was contrary to saved Local Plan Policies 35 and 85. Furthermore the application contravened saved Policy 36 in relation to traffic generation and road safety and it was unclear how the application would encourage alternative means of travel to the car. Concerns were also raised relating to flooding.

 

In relation to the public consultation, Councillor Crute queried where the report stated that there were 9 letters of support from residents. He asked for clarification as to whether they were from residents or businesses and also pointed out that  all were just one line letters.

 

Councillor Crute also highlighted that there was no mention in the previous committee report to a solicitor’s letter which had been submitted in objection to the application. The letter had raised land ownership concerns and issues relating to flooding. The letter was now mentioned in the current report however the issues raised had not been addressed by officers. Members were advised that the landowner next to the site kept bulls and had therefore raised safety concerns. Further concerns had also been raised regarding the chemical spread buffer zone and drainage issues.

 

In relation to highways issues, Councillor Crute advised that the local Fire and Rescue Service suggested that there were 2 accidents per year at or near the access to the site. Councillor Crute believed this was unacceptably high and the influx of additional visitors to the area would result in an increase in accidents.

 

While the tourism benefits of the application were appreciated, the concerns of local residents were not to be ignored. Councillor Crute believed the relevant policies for consideration were those relating to the right of peace for local residents, free from disturbance.

 

Councillor L Pounder, local Member, addressed the Committee to read a letter of concern from local residents.

 

Members were advised that the residents at Evergreen Park lived there on a full time, permanent basis and they felt that the proposed use was not appropriate next to a peaceful residential area which was predominantly occupied by retired or semi-retired residents.

 

Councillor Pounder advised that the current properties at Evergreen Park were not made of conventional materials and as such were more affected by noise and disturbance. It was felt that the proposed use of the adjacent site would generate significant noise, with visitors to the holiday lodges socialising at all times of the day and night and regularly driving on and off the site as there were no on site facilities.

The Committee was advised that the occupier of no.17 Evergreen Park would be particularly affected by noise and disturbance from vehicles as all holiday park traffic would have to pass the gable end of that property. Councillor Pounder advised that the landscape planting scheme would do nothing to screen the noise, furthermore it would cause a loss of natural light. Increased disturbance would also be generated from the waste disposal area.

 

The residents had advised that when they had bought their properties, the sales brochure had suggested that the location was private, however this was now to be compromised and the residents were facing a permanent loss of privacy.

 

Councillor Pounder advised that the only access to the site was vehicular as there were no footpaths either on or off the site. As such, concerns had been raised regarding pedestrian safety and there was more potential for road traffic accidents to occur due to the increased traffic entering and leaving the site.

 

Residents had also expressed concerns regarding the impact of development on the drainage system, as the proposed site location was much more elevated than the existing properties. Assurance was therefore sought that there would be no additional impact on the drains as there was a history of surface water flooding. It was feared that increased run off would exacerbate the drainage system.

 

It was reiterated that letters of objection had been submitted from 21 of the current properties and while local residents appreciated the economic benefits of the proposals, it would be to the detriment of those currently occupying the site.

 

Mr A Stephenson addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of the applicant. Members were advised that the operators understood the concerns expressed by their neighbours who were residents of Evergreen Park, however also wished to emphasise that they actually lived closest to the proposed development. It was their property which would overlook the development and so their prime goal was to maintain the high standards which were already at Evergreen Park. Members were advised that they had no desire or intention to create a Butlins style holiday park, rather that they wanted an area which was peaceful and tranquil. The intention was to develop a small, low key project of executive style high end holiday lodges. With similar age restrictions to what was already at Evergreen Park, the emphasis would be on the more restrained clients seeking a peaceful luxury retreat and careful vetting of proposed clients, together with strict rules and control.

 

Mr Stephenson highlighted that all current residents had actually chosen to live at Evergreen Park and live there in the full knowledge that they would be separated by a minimum of 6m from their neighbours. Members were assured that the nearest any resident would be to a proposed holiday lodge was 10m, or 66% further away and the farthest would be 16m which was close to 3 times further away. Further mitigation would be offered by way of screening. The Committee was advised that over the past 12 years there had been no complaints about noise from neighbours and the operator did not wish for that record to be blemished.

 

Mr Stephenson highlighted that the current residents had also chosen to live at Evergreen, fully aware of the traffic noise from the nearby coast road and railway. The occasional vehicle coming into the proposed lodges would, because of the speed restriction, be completely masked by the coast road traffic and would therefore not have any impact.

 

In relation to traffic on the coast road, Members were advised that former activities at Crimdon Dene such as a beauty pageant and amusements, generated far more traffic than what would ever occur from the minor intensification of traffic on the proposed development. Furthermore, Members were reminded that Evergreen Park had formerly been a caravan park with up to 50 static and touring caravans.

 

In referring to paragraph 29 of the report, Mr Stephenson highlighted that the Highways Authority confirmed the site location had a good safety record and the access to it was safe.

 

In relation to water concerns, Mr Stephenson advised that the applicant had submitted photos taken after some 15 hours of continuous rainfall on 13^th and 14^th August, which demonstrated there were no water issues at all.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded to points raised as follows:-

 

·         Drainage – it was accepted that the Drainage Officer had expressed some concerns and had suggested permeation tests. As such, should permission be granted, a further condition would be required for drainage to be dealt with adequately;

·         Support – The Committee was advised that all 9 letters of support had been received from local businesses;

·         Farmers concerns – many developments took place next to farmers fields, the Planning Authority did not have any control over farming activity;

·         Attenuating Noise – the proposed activity of the site would be domestic and on a temporary basis, similar to what was already at Evergreen Park;

·         It was felt that the proposed activity of the site could comfortably occur next to the current residents.

The Highways Officer responded to points raised as follows:-

 

·         Traffic flow on the A1086 was approximately 9000 vehicles per day and the proposed development would add less than 1% of that onto the highway;

·         The Highways Agency would only comment when there was the potential for a direct impact on the strategic network. The proposed development would have no impact on the A19;

·         Accident statistics – The Highways Authority used a Durham Police database known as Stats 19 and the statistics from that database were nationally acceptable by all bodies. Statistical reports from others were considered unreliable. While there may have been accidents away from the site at other parts of the A1086, there was no records t; of any recorded personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the site access.

 

Councillor Conway noted that Evergreen Park was a residential area of permanent residence for an essentially retired community. He wondered if in the fullness of time, the proposed holiday park might itself become a place of permanent residence.

 

Councillor Moir stated that the promotion of economic benefits and tourism was acceptable in principle and the proposed development did seem acceptable, though not in the proposed location. It was noted that over 90% of the objections had come from residents of Evergreen Park and Councillor Moir stated that families visiting the holiday park would inevitably make noise, regularly and quite possibly after hours. He did feel that should the application be approved, local residents would suffer a loss of visual amenity and would suffer a detrimental effect from noise and disturbance.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Iveson, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Planning Authority would have no control over site activity, that would be the responsibility of the operator, though there was a condition proposed regarding the monitoring of the occupiers of the site.

 

In relation to whether the site could become permanently occupied in time, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the intention was to control the use so that it would always be holiday accommodation.

 

Councillor Lethbridge had found the site to be peaceful and was concerned about how it would become if the lodges were developed. It was a permanent site of residence and those that lived there wanted a quiet life. He believed the site was inappropriate for the proposed scheme.

 

Councillor Conway was not comfortable that there was no possibility of the site ever becoming an area of permanent residence and he moved refusal on the grounds that the application contravened saved Local Plan Policies 3 and 36.

 

Councillor Kay observed that there was no local appetite for the application. The impact of development on residential amenity was extremely important.

 

The Solicitor stated that the speculation over the precise legal arrangements with the owner for future occupancy of the site, was of no relevance to the Committee. Conditions 5, 6 and 7 related to the nature of occupation and would be binding.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Davinson, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the proposed additional condition regarding visitor parking would have to be followed by the applicant.

 

The Solicitor advised that no weight could be given to saved Local Plan Policy 3 as it was a settlement boundary policy which was no longer considered to be up to date, further to recent barristers advice.

 

Councillor Conway clarified that the reasons for refusal were as follows:-

 

That the application contravened saved Local Plan Policy 35 in relation to traffic generation, saved Local Plan Policy  36 in relation to an adverse effect on highway safety and pedestrian safety and NPPF Part 3 in relation to the site not being sustainable.

 

Councillor Moir seconded the motion for refusal and upon a vote being taken it was;

 

Resolved: “That the application be REFUSED on the grounds that it was contrary to saved Local Plan Policies 35 and 36 and NPPF Part 3”.

 

Councillor Lumsdon did not return to the meeting.